Print
See related documents
A. Draft resolution
(open)
Report | Doc. 12954 | 08 June 2012
The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2011-May 2012)
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Summary
In its annual progress report, submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly in accordance with its mandate, the Monitoring Committee gives account of its activities since June 2011.
The report assesses progress and raises concerns with respect to the recurrent issues in 10 countries under the monitoring procedure and four countries engaged in the post-monitoring dialogue.
Furthermore, the committee introduces an important modification in the way of reporting on the monitoring of statutory obligations of 33 countries that are not subject to the monitoring procedure or the post-monitoring dialogue.
The committee resolves to continue its reflection on ways to increase the impact and efficiency of the monitoring procedure.
A. Draft resolution 
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly
acknowledges the work carried out by its Committee on the Honouring
of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of
Europe (Monitoring Committee) in accompanying 10 countries currently
under monitoring (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation,
Serbia and Ukraine) and four countries engaged in a post-monitoring
dialogue (Bulgaria, Monaco, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
and Turkey) in their efforts to ensure full respect for democracy,
the rule of law and the protection of human rights.
2. During the reporting period, the committee produced a full
monitoring report on Serbia and assessments of the functioning of
democratic institutions in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ukraine.
Furthermore, preliminary draft reports on Montenegro, the Russian
Federation and Turkey have been approved by the committee and transmitted
to the national authorities of these countries for comments.
3. The rapporteurs carried out a total of 18 visits to all the
countries under the monitoring procedure and post-monitoring dialogue,
except for Turkey. Following the visits, six information notes on
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and
“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” were submitted to the
committee; all of them, with one exception, were declassified. The
rapporteurs systematically participated in election observation
missions in the countries under their responsibility when elections
were held.
4. In the framework of the preparation of reports on specific
countries, the committee organised a number of hearings, with the
participation of, inter alia, the
Minister of Justice of Ukraine, a representative of the Danish Helsinki
Committee and of Amnesty International with respect to the report
on Ukraine, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina with
respect to the report on that country, a representative of Amnesty
International with respect to the report on Azerbaijan, and the
leaders of the Russian political forces not represented in the parliament
with respect to the report on the Russian Federation.
5. On the proposal of the respective rapporteurs, the committee
requested legal opinions from the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) on a number of laws or draft laws
in the countries under monitoring procedure, in particular in respect
of the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation and
Ukraine.
6. Furthermore, in accordance with the practice established in
2006, the committee has prepared a periodic report on the first
group of 11 member States among those which are not subject to a
monitoring procedure stricto sensu or
involved in a post-monitoring dialogue, based on the findings of
other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms. The committee has
also decided to introduce a new formula for future reporting on these
countries.
7. Moreover, the committee pursued its work on the consequences
of the war between Georgia and Russia. The Assembly takes note of
the intention of the co-rapporteurs on the Russian Federation and
on Georgia to visit Moscow, Tbilisi, Tskhinvali and Sukhumi during
a joint mission led by the Chair of the committee, in the second
half of 2012, and to subsequently submit an information report to
the committee, in accordance with the procedure agreed on by the
committee.
8. The committee pursued preparation of its written opinion on
the motion for a resolution on “Serious setbacks in the fields of
the rule of law and human rights in Hungary”, to be submitted to
the Bureau. The co-rapporteurs carried out two fact-finding visits
to the country and the committee requested the legal opinion of the
Venice Commission on a number of Hungarian legal acts.
9. In the light of the 15th anniversary of the establishment
of the committee in 1997, the committee continued the discussion,
launched last year, on possible ways and means of rendering the
monitoring procedure more effective, and of ensuring improved compliance
of all member States with their statutory obligations.
10. The Assembly takes note of the committee’s intention to modify
the formula for the presentation of periodic reports on the countries
which are not under the monitoring procedure stricto
sensu, and to abandon the three-year cycle of assessment
in order to better reflect the findings of Council of Europe convention monitoring
mechanisms, which operate on cycles of varying duration.
11. The Assembly expresses its satisfaction at some positive developments
in a number of countries under the monitoring procedure over the
reporting period. It welcomes, in particular: in Albania, the end
of the boycott of the parliament by the opposition Socialist Party;
in Armenia, the release of persons imprisoned in relation to the
events of March 2008 and the renewed impetus given to the investigation
of the deaths which occurred during those events, as well as the
start of a political dialogue between the opposition and the ruling
coalition; in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the formation of a new State
government following the agreement between the leaders of the key
political parties; in the Republic of Moldova, the end of the institutional
deadlock resulting from the parliament’s inability to elect the
President of the Republic.
12. Furthermore, the Assembly notes with satisfaction the progress
in the fulfilment of commitments and obligations made in a number
of countries under the monitoring procedure and, in particular:
in Armenia, with regard to the improvement of the political environment
in the conduct of parliamentary elections and to the introduction
of measures in the framework of the reform of the judiciary and
police; in Georgia, with regard to the drawing up of a new electoral
code, the reform of penitentiary institutions and the improvement
of relations between the associations of the Meskhetian Turks and
the authorities; in the Republic of Moldova, with regard to the
pursuit of the decentralisation process and initiatives launched
by the authorities to combat corruption and to reform the police
and the prosecution service as well as with regard to the resumption
of formal negotiations concerning Transnistria; in Montenegro, with
regard to the pursuit of substantial reforms in the area of the
judiciary, the fight against corruption and organised crime, the
rights of minorities and freedom of the media; in the Russian Federation
with regard to the process of political liberalisation launched
by the authorities, concerning the registration of political parties
and the method of appointing governors, following the events surrounding
the parliamentary and presidential elections; in Serbia, with regard
to the reform of the electoral law and the justice system as well
as decentralisation and increased protection of minorities; in Ukraine,
the adoption of a new Code of Criminal Procedure, globally in line
with European standards; in Bulgaria, with regard to codification
of the electoral rules and efforts to fight corruption and organised
crime; in Turkey, with regard to improvement of the electoral system.
13. At the same time, the Assembly expresses its concern about
worrying developments in some of the countries under the monitoring
procedure and under the post-monitoring dialogue, in particular:
in Armenia, with regard to the fact that, until now, no responsibility
has been established concerning 10 casualties that occurred during
the 2008 events; in Azerbaijan, with regard to the restrictions
imposed on freedom of expression, assembly and association, reports
on the detention of prisoners of conscience and the human rights
situation in general; in Georgia, with regard to the administration
of criminal justice and the lack of credible investigations into
alleged abuses by the police forces; in the Russian Federation,
with regard to the shortcomings identified by the international
observers during the parliamentary and presidential elections, and the
violence and detention of peaceful demonstrators in the immediate
aftermath of the December 2011 elections as well as to reports on
the human rights situation in general; in Turkey, with regard to
the journalists and some members of parliament still in pre-trial
detention; in Ukraine, with regard to the criminal proceedings initiated
against a number of former government members on controversial charges
and numerous serious deficiencies in the procedures.
14. With respect to the countries which are not subject to the
monitoring procedure stricto sensu,
the Assembly expresses its concern that a number of these countries
have not signed and/or ratified some major Council of Europe conventions,
thus preventing convention mechanisms attached to them from monitoring their
implementation.
15. Furthermore, with respect to these countries, the Assembly
is concerned by the conclusions of the third round evaluation reports
on the implementation of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption
and the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 173) and
its Additional Protocol (ETS No. 191). It is particularly worrying
that the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the Council
of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) is considered
“globally unsatisfactory” in the case of Belgium, Denmark and Germany.
16. The Assembly therefore urges:
16.1. the Parliament of Albania to pursue work on reform of
the electoral code and parliamentary working methods and to promote
the enhancement of internal democracy within political parties;
16.2. the Parliament of Armenia to pursue reform of the police
and the judiciary with a view to guaranteeing its independence;
to pursue a constructive dialogue between the opposition and the
ruling coalition; to carry out a public inquiry with a view to establishing
responsibility for the 10 deaths that occurred during the 2008 events;
16.3. the Parliament of Azerbaijan to revise the electoral code,
as amended in 2010, with a view to addressing the outstanding recommendations
from the Venice Commission and the Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR), in particular those relating to the composition
of the election commissions, candidate eligibility, as well as the
complaints and appeals process; the authorities of Azerbaijan to
ensure respect for human rights and freedoms, and in particular
freedom of expression, assembly and association;
16.4. the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina to revise the
constitution and electoral legislation with a view to eliminating
ethnicity-based limitations on the right to stand for office, in
order to comply with the standards of the European Convention of
Human Rights (ETS No. 5), to implement the Sejdić
et Finci judgment of the European Court of Human Rights,
to introduce reforms in the judiciary, the fight against corruption
and regarding governance;
16.5. the authorities of Georgia to introduce the necessary
measures to improve the administration of criminal justice and carry
out credible investigations – within the meaning of the case law
of the European Court of Human Rights – into alleged abuses by the
police forces.;
16.6. the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova to pursue the
reform process, including the necessary revision of the constitution,
and to ensure political pluralism in the media;
16.7. the Parliament of Montenegro to introduce legislative
amendments with a view to ensuring the independence of the judiciary,
in line with the Venice Commission recommendations;
16.8. the Parliament of the Russian Federation to follow the
recommendations of the Venice Commission with regard to a number
of federal laws; to establish a meaningful dialogue with the opposition
political forces not represented in the parliament;
16.9. the Serbian authorities to make further progress in adopting
and fully implementing the justice reform in order to guarantee
its independence and efficiency;
16.10. the authorities of Ukraine to implement fully and without
reservations the new Code of Criminal Procedure; to address concerns
regarding the criminal proceedings initiated against a number of
former government members, in line with Council of Europe recommendations;
16.11. the authorities of Bulgaria to pursue the reform of the
judiciary with a view to guaranteeing its full independence;
16.12. the National Council of Monaco to adopt the legislation
on the organisation and functioning of parliament, the reform of
police custody, the organisation of the courts and the funding of
electoral campaigns;
16.13. the authorities of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
to ensure the full implementation of the Ohrid Framework Agreement
as well as further improve the implementation of laws in the areas of
freedom of the media, public administration and the judiciary;
16.14. the authorities of Turkey to address concerns regarding
the functioning of the judicial system, freedom of expression, execution
of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and the problems
associated with national minorities and the use of minority languages.
17. With respect to the countries which are not subject to the
monitoring procedure, the Assembly calls on:
17.1. Denmark, France, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify, and Austria, Belgium,
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic
and Slovenia to ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention
on Human Rights (ETS No. 177) concerning the fight against discrimination;
17.2. Andorra, Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Portugal and San Marino to sign and ratify, and France, Italy, Iceland
and Malta to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
(ETS No. 148);
17.3. Andorra and France to sign and ratify, and Belgium, Greece,
Iceland and Luxembourg to ratify the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities (ETS No. 157);
17.4. The Czech Republic and Liechtenstein to sign and ratify,
and Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Switzerland
to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings (CETS No. 197);
17.5. Switzerland to ratify Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention
on Human Rights (ETS No. 9) adding the right to peaceful enjoyment
of property, the right to education and the right to free elections by
secret ballot to fundamental rights protected by the Convention;
17.6. Liechtenstein and Switzerland to sign and ratify, and
Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iceland,
Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, San Marino, Spain and United Kingdom
to ratify the European Social Charter (revised) (ETS No. 163);
17.7. Andorra, Estonia, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Spain,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify, and Austria,
Denmark, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia to ratify the
Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for
a System of Collective Complaints (ETS No. 158);
17.8. Liechtenstein, Portugal, San Marino and Switzerland to
sign and ratify, and Andorra, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom to ratify the Civil Law
Convention on Corruption (ETS No. 174);
17.9. Austria, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein and San Marino
to ratify the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;
17.10. Andorra, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany,
Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Norway, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom to sign and ratify, and Austria, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland,
Italy, Luxembourg and Sweden to ratify the Convention on Laundering,
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and
on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No. 198);
17.11. the Parliaments of Greece, Italy, Poland and Romania to
promote progress in the implementation of judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, and to initiate legislative changes aimed
at eliminating structural problems leading to repeated violations
of the European Convention on Human Rights;
17.12. the parliaments of all member States not subject to the
monitoring procedure to use periodic reports as the basis for a
debate on their country’s state of honouring of obligations as members
of the Council of Europe and to promote compliance with recommendations
made by specific Council of Europe monitoring bodies.
18. The Assembly stresses the importance it attaches to the full
independence of rapporteurs on the monitoring of obligations and
commitments in accomplishing their work.
19. The Assembly commends the remarkable work carried out by the
Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, and the acquis they have established over
the years.
20. The Assembly resolves to pursue a more general reflection
on ways to enhance the efficiency and the impact of the Assembly
monitoring procedures with regard to all Council of Europe member
States.
B. Explanatory memorandum, by Mr Herkel, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. Resolution 1115 (1997), as modified by Resolutions
1431 (2005), 1515 (2006) and 1710 (2010), which constitute a basis
for the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring procedure, entrusts
the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by
Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) with
the task of “verifying the fulfilment of obligations assumed by
the member States under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute
(ETS No. 1), the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the
Convention”) and all other Council of Europe conventions to which
they are parties, as well as honouring of commitments entered into
by the authorities of member States upon their accession to the
Council of Europe”.
2. Furthermore, Resolution
1115 (1997) requires the Monitoring Committee to report to the Assembly
once a year on the general progress of the monitoring procedures.
The present report fulfils this obligation and covers the period
from June 2011 to May 2012. In accordance with established practice,
as chair of the committee, elected to the post in January 2012,
I have been entrusted with the task of reporting on the committee’s
activities.
3. My intention is, firstly, to give an account of the committee’s
activities since the last progress report, presented by my predecessor,
Mr Dick Marty, during the Assembly’s 2011 third part-session. Secondly,
I should like to continue the process of more general consideration
of the achievements and concerns of the parliamentary monitoring
procedure over the last fifteen years with regard to all member
States, launched by Mr Marty last year. Finally, I would like to
elaborate on the challenges facing us in the future, and possible
ways to address them, with a view to improving the efficiency and
impact of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.
4. Readers will notice that I have drawn the conclusions from
our discussion last year, in the light of the completion of the
second cycle of reporting on countries that are not subject to a
monitoring procedure or a post-monitoring dialogue. As a result,
when initiating, in the present report, a third cycle of periodic
reports on the first group of 11 member States, I have introduced
important methodological changes which, in my opinion, contribute
to the clarity and efficiency of the process. I am also submitting
a number of proposals for further modifications in the procedure
for reporting on this category of countries.
5. Following the established practice, in preparing this report,
I have limited myself to references to the relevant texts adopted
by the Assembly and reports or other public documents prepared by
our committee’s co-rapporteurs, who follow the situation in each
specific country. I have also used the reports drawn up by the ad
hoc committees of the Bureau of the Assembly on election observation
in these countries, since this activity is closely linked to the
work carried out by our committee. I also make reference to the
conclusions of the European Commission for Democracy through Law
(Venice Commission) and other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms
which have been used by committee co-rapporteurs in the preparation
of their fact-finding visits. I have not engaged in any analysis
or conclusions beyond those of the co-rapporteurs concerned or the
Assembly observer delegations. With regard to periodic reports on
countries not subject to a monitoring procedure, I have based my
conclusions entirely on the findings of the relevant Council of
Europe monitoring mechanisms.
6. In the draft resolution, I have tried not only to address
the recurrent issues raised in countries under monitoring and in
countries engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, but also, on the
basis of past experience, to identify possible ways to render the
monitoring procedure more effective, and to ensure better compliance of
all member States with their obligations and commitments.
7. In order to give a better overview of all members’ compliance
with their obligations, I have also appended a chart of ratifications
and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a
monitoring mechanism.
2. Overview of the committee’s activities
2.1. General remarks
8. The year of 2011 was marked
by an important number of new appointments of rapporteurs: following
the introduction of new rules with regard to the term of office
of rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, seven new co-rapporteurs
on monitoring, and four new rapporteurs on post-monitoring dialogue
were appointed. The process went smoothly and did not have a negative
impact on the continuity of the monitoring procedure. Over the reference
period, all newly appointed rapporteurs have carried out fact-finding
visits to the countries under their responsibility.
9. Following the adoption of Resolution 1841 (2011), new rules were introduced with regard to the reopening
or opening of the monitoring procedure, and the number of signatures
necessary to initiate an application has been increased from “not
less than 10 members of the Assembly representing at least five national
delegations and two political groups” to “not less than 20 members
of the Assembly representing at least six national delegations and
two political groups”. As a result, the procedure for reopening
or opening the monitoring procedure is aligned with the procedure
for initiating any motion in the Assembly.
10. Resolution 1799
(2011) on the code of conduct of rapporteurs of the Parliamentary
Assembly sets out the rules which apply to rapporteurs of the Assembly.
It stresses in particular the principle of neutrality, impartiality
and objectivity, the obligation of discretion, the undertaking of
availability, etc. It is needless to recall that strict observation
of these principles is particularly important, given the specific
nature of the work of the Monitoring Committee.
11. During the reporting period, 10 countries remained
under monitoring procedure and four were engaged
in post-monitoring dialogue. Since June 2011, the committee has
approved and presented to the Assembly a full monitoring report
on Serbia, as well as reports on the functioning of democratic institutions
in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ukraine. Furthermore, in
accordance with the procedure, preliminary draft reports on Montenegro,
the Russian Federation and Turkey have been considered by the committee
and transmitted to the authorities of the respective countries for
comments.
remained
under monitoring procedure and four were engaged
in post-monitoring dialogue. Since June 2011, the committee has
approved and presented to the Assembly a full monitoring report
on Serbia, as well as reports on the functioning of democratic institutions
in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ukraine. Furthermore, in
accordance with the procedure, preliminary draft reports on Montenegro,
the Russian Federation and Turkey have been considered by the committee
and transmitted to the authorities of the respective countries for
comments.12. During the reporting period, the respective rapporteurs carried
out visits to all the countries under the monitoring procedure and,
except for Turkey, to all countries engaged in the post-monitoring
dialogue. In total, 18 fact-finding visits were carried out. All
of them were followed by oral reports and/or information notes on
the rapporteurs’ findings, submitted to the committee for discussion.
Out of six notes considered by the committee, five were declassified.
13. Parliamentary and/or presidential elections were held in a
number of the countries under monitoring or post-monitoring procedure
during the reporting period, namely in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Russian
Federation, Serbia and Turkey. In each case, the respective rapporteurs
were members of Parliamentary Assembly election observation missions.
14. In the framework of the preparation of reports on specific
countries, the committee held a number of hearings with the participation
of, inter alia, the Minister
of Justice of Ukraine, a representative of the Danish Helsinki Committee
and of Amnesty International on the report on Ukraine, the High
Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina on the report on this
country, a representative of Amnesty International on the report
on Azerbaijan and the leaders of political forces not represented
in the Parliament of the Russian Federation.
15. On the proposal of the rapporteurs, the committee requested
a legal opinion of the Venice Commission on a number of laws or
draft laws in the countries under the monitoring procedure, in particular
in respect of Montenegro, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and the
Russian Federation.
2.2. Overview of the country-specific monitoring over the reporting period
2.2.1. Albania
16. The newly appointed co-rapporteurs
visited Albania on two occasions during the reporting period: in
July 2011 and in April 2012. They presented to the committee an
information note which was declassified in September 2011, and an oral report in April 2012.
and an oral report in April 2012.17. The developments surrounding the local elections held on 8
May 2011 added to the political stalemate prevailing in Albania
since the June 2009 parliamentary elections and the ongoing polarisation
between the ruling Democratic Party and the opposition Socialist
Party. On a positive note, the final acceptance of the outcome of
these elections by the electoral stakeholders, including, most importantly,
the Albanian voters, has avoided further escalation of the problem.
18. It is of crucial importance to maintain the legitimacy of
the domestic institutions and respect for their decisions, in order
to resolve the electoral dispute. Therefore, on all occasions, the
co-rapporteurs stressed the need for all parties to accept and abide
by the decisions of the courts and to refrain from statements that
could be perceived as undermining the legitimacy of the domestic
court system.
19. However, it has become clear that a reform of the election
code is needed, in particular in order to clarify some principles
and procedures. In addition, the current election code favours the
major parties. As a result, smaller or new parties have a limited
possibility to enter the political arena and this problem needs
to be addressed. The co-rapporteurs urged the Albanian authorities
to seek close co-operation with the Venice Commission on the reform
of the electoral code.
20. Furthermore, the political stand-off during the last parliamentary
and local elections has underscored, yet again, the need to improve
the democratic decision-making processes within the parties themselves.
The internal party democracy has been criticised by members within
both the socialist and democratic parties. The co-rapporteurs stressed
their intention to follow the issue of internal party democracy
within the framework of the ongoing monitoring procedure.
21. The co-rapporteurs welcomed the end of the Socialist Party’s
boycott of the work of the parliament in September 2011, as well
as the stated intention of all parties to co-operate constructively
on the implementation of the reforms needed to obtain European Union
candidate status. Two special ad hoc committees were established
to discuss reform of parliamentary working methods as well as the
electoral code, in line with Venice Commission recommendations.
2.2.2. Armenia
22. The co-rapporteurs on Armenia
visited the country in January 2012 and presented an information
note to the committee, which was declassified in March 2012. The report on the functioning of democratic institutions
was debated in the Assembly in October 2011. The parliamentary elections were
held in the country on 6 May 2012; the Assembly was represented
by the ad hoc committee on the observation of elections.
The report on the functioning of democratic institutions
was debated in the Assembly in October 2011. The parliamentary elections were
held in the country on 6 May 2012; the Assembly was represented
by the ad hoc committee on the observation of elections.23. The release of persons imprisoned in relation to the events
of March 2008, and the renewed impetus to the investigation of the
deaths which occurred during those events, as well as the start
of a constructive political dialogue between the opposition and
the ruling coalition, constituted positive developments during the reporting
period.
24. The tragic events of March 2008 and their aftermath have set
clear priorities for democratic progress in the country. These priorities
included the conduct of genuinely free and fair parliamentary elections
in compliance with democratic standards, the creation of a democratic
political environment favouring the establishment of a pluralist
system; a pluralist media environment, and the reform of the police
and the judiciary, with a view to guaranteeing their independence.
25. In the run-up to the parliamentary elections, the political
environment has improved dramatically and the opposition has become
a well-organised viable political force. Also given the political
differences in the ruling coalition, the election took place in
a genuinely competitive environment.
26. With regard to the reform of the judiciary and the police,
during their last visit the rapporteurs noted with satisfaction
a number of measures undertaken by the authorities with a view to
fulfilling the recommendations of the Assembly. In particular, the
announcement by the authorities that an independent police complaints mechanism
would be established, in line with Assembly recommendations, should
be welcomed. However, as confirmed by the minister of justice, these
reforms alone will not be enough to ensure the independence of the courts
or make corruption disappear. For that to happen, a change of mentality
is needed. It is hoped that the appointment of a new generation
of young and better educated judges will bring about such a change
of mentality.
2.2.3. Azerbaijan
27. During the reporting period,
a number of serious concerns with regard to the violation of human
rights and freedoms have been raised by the domestic and international
civil society in Azerbaijan. The co-rapporteurs visited the country
in February 2012, and they submitted a written information note
to the committee in April 2012. The note was declassified. Another visit
is foreseen in June 2012, and a report on the monitoring of the
obligations and commitments is under preparation and foreseen for
presentation to the Assembly in January 2013.
The note was declassified. Another visit
is foreseen in June 2012, and a report on the monitoring of the
obligations and commitments is under preparation and foreseen for
presentation to the Assembly in January 2013.28. Outstanding concerns with regard to the state of democracy,
as well as human rights and freedoms, include the restrictive political
environment, alleged reports on torture and other forms of ill-treatment
by law enforcement agents, flagrant violations of the freedom of
expression, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of association
and the freedom of religion, as well as illegal demolitions of houses
and forced evictions in Baku.
29. Problems concerning the funding of political parties, limitations
on freedoms, harassment of extra-parliamentary opposition party
members and supporters and an overall restrictive political climate,
are detrimental to the establishment of a genuinely pluralist democratic
system and a political environment necessary for meaningful and
competitive elections.
30. The existing electoral code, already criticised during the
last parliamentary and presidential elections, has not been revised,
despite the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendations and the rapporteurs
have called on the authorities to do so, in co-operation with the
Venice Commission, in time for the presidential elections scheduled
for mid-2013.
31. Furthermore, they expressed the hope that the authorities
would take into account the recommendations of the Venice Commission
with regard to the planned amendments to the law on political parties
and the amendments to the law on non-governmental organisations
(NGOs).
32. It is a matter of great concern that 14 people imprisoned
in relation to mass protest demonstrations, which took place in
Baku in March and April 2011, and sentenced to up to three years
for “disturbance of public order” are still detained, despite repeated
calls for their release by domestic civil society and the international community.
2.2.4. Bosnia and Herzegovina
33. During the reporting period,
the co-rapporteurs visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in September 2011,
and the report on the functioning of democratic institutions in
Bosnia and Herzegovina was presented to the Assembly in January
2012. In April 2012, the committee held
an exchange of views with the High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
In April 2012, the committee held
an exchange of views with the High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina.34. The agreement in principle on a new State government between
the leaders of key political parties, concluded at the end of December
2011, and its subsequent formation after some fifteen months of
political stalemate, constituted the most important and positive
development in the reporting period. As stressed by the former co-rapporteur
on the country, the current President of the Assembly, in his statement
issued on that occasion, the creation of the government was an essential
precondition for putting the functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s
institutions back on the right track
35. The lengthy political and institutional deadlock over the
ethnic distribution of posts in the government has prevented the
country from pursuing the fulfilment of its obligations and commitments
to the Council of Europe and introducing much-needed reforms, in
particular in key areas like the judiciary, the fight against corruption, governance,
the rule of law and education. Today, constitutional reform remains
the key reform for the transformation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
into an effective and fully functional State.
36. Furthermore, priority must be given to the execution of the Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina judgment
by the European Court of Human Rights, of 22 December 2009, and
constitutional amendments must be adopted in good time for the next
parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2014.
37. Moreover, Bosnia and Herzegovina should fully co-operate with
the Council of Europe and actively participate in the Organisation’s
different bodies, including the Venice Commission, the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the European Commission against Racism
and Intolerance (ECRI), the bodies of the Framework Convention for
the Protection of National Minorities (ETS No. 157) and others.
It is regrettable that internal disputes had for a long time prevented
the presidency from sending a list of candidates for the seat of
judge at the European Court of Human Rights. Even the parliamentary
delegation to the Assembly was only established partly in January 2012.
To date, the head of the delegation has not been appointed.
2.2.5. Georgia
38. The co-rapporteurs on Georgia
visited the country in October 2011 and the note which they submitted to
the committee following the visit was declassified in January 2012.
39. In view of the parliamentary elections scheduled for October
2012, revision of the electoral legislation, as recommended by the
Assembly during the last debate on the honouring of obligations
and commitments by Georgia, was one of the most important issues
during the reporting period. The rapporteurs noted with satisfaction
that a completely new electoral code had been proposed to the parliament,
which corresponded with the Assembly’s recommendations, for this
solution rather than further amending the already heavily amended
existing electoral code. Furthermore, the submitted draft addressed
recommendations made by the Venice Commission in previous opinions
on the electoral legal framework in Georgia. At the same time, the rapporteurs
emphasised that the legislative process should be inclusive and
based on as wide a consensus as possible. They strongly regretted
that, despite repeated recommendations of, inter
alia, the Assembly and the Venice Commission, the new
electoral code does not satisfactorily address the excessive differences
in the size of the majoritarian election districts, which is at
variance with European standards.
was one of the most important issues
during the reporting period. The rapporteurs noted with satisfaction
that a completely new electoral code had been proposed to the parliament,
which corresponded with the Assembly’s recommendations, for this
solution rather than further amending the already heavily amended
existing electoral code. Furthermore, the submitted draft addressed
recommendations made by the Venice Commission in previous opinions
on the electoral legal framework in Georgia. At the same time, the rapporteurs
emphasised that the legislative process should be inclusive and
based on as wide a consensus as possible. They strongly regretted
that, despite repeated recommendations of, inter
alia, the Assembly and the Venice Commission, the new
electoral code does not satisfactorily address the excessive differences
in the size of the majoritarian election districts, which is at
variance with European standards.40. The administration of justice with regard to criminal and
administrative cases, where a State might have a vested interest,
has been another concern in Georgia. No problems were reported with
regard to the administration of civil justice. The progress made
in the reform of the judiciary by the current authorities is undeniable,
but shortcomings nevertheless remain.
41. Furthermore, there has been concern about the lack of credible
investigations – within the meaning of the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights – into alleged abuses by the police forces.
The co-rapporteurs have called on the authorities to consider setting
up an independent mechanism to investigate complaints against the
police, in line with the recommendations made by the Council of
Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, for such mechanisms and their
functioning.
42. On the positive side, the co-rapporteurs welcomed the efforts
of the authorities to reform the prison system and to establish
penitentiary institutions that fully comply with European norms
and standards.
43. Another development, which should be welcomed, is the improvement
of relations between the Meskhetian associations and Georgian authorities.
Following the adoption of Resolution
1801 (2011), regular contacts have been established and a special
council has been set up, composed of a majority of Meskhetian representatives,
with the task of adjudicating repatriation requests from persons
who cannot prove their family’s deportation with documentary evidence.
2.2.6. Republic of Moldova
44. The co-rapporteurs visited
the Republic of Moldova in December 2011, and the note on their
visit was declassified by the committee in March 2012.
45. The reporting period was marked by the end of the political
deadlock resulting from the parliament’s inability to elect the
president of the republic, in which the country has been immersed
for three years. This is a very positive development and it is now
of utmost importance that the leaders of all political parties work
within the legal framework and refrain from challenging the legitimacy
of the democratic institutions as is currently being done by the
Communist Party.
46. Political forces should focus on pursuing the reform process,
including the necessary revision of the constitution. The co-rapporteurs
stressed that the democratic process is on the right track and the
authorities are committed, in the context of the Republic of Moldova's
integration into Europe, to adopt the reforms that are still necessary
to achieve European standards for the respect of democracy, the
rule of law and human rights. An action plan on compliance by the
Republic of Moldova with its commitments vis-à-vis the Council of Europe
has been drawn up and it is shortly due to be approved by the Moldovan
authorities.
47. The decentralisation process is continuing. Furthermore, the
authorities have launched a number of initiatives to combat corruption
and reform the police and the prosecution service. The interference
of politics in the judiciary, according to civil society, remains
a problem, but the reform of the judiciary, including the penitentiary
system and the General Prosecutor’s Office, is under way.
48. There have been positive trends in the field of civil and
political rights, with an increased awareness of people about their
rights. However, the co-rapporteurs deplored the decisions taken
by some local authorities to “prohibit aggressive propaganda of
non-traditional sexual orientations in demonstrations” and the postponement
of the adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.
49. The reporting period was also marked by important developments
in Transnistria. The official “5+2 talks” were resumed in November
2011 in Vilnius, after a five-year suspension and led to an agreement
on the principles and procedures for the conduct of formal negotiations,
on 18 April 2012. The newly elected de
facto “president” in Transnistria seems to be more open
to political dialogue.
2.2.7. Montenegro
50. The co-rapporteurs visited
Montenegro in June 2011, and submitted a note on their visit to
the committee, which declassified it. A preliminary draft report on the honouring
of obligations and commitments was considered by the committee in
January 2012 and transmitted to the authorities of Montenegro for comments.
A preliminary draft report on the honouring
of obligations and commitments was considered by the committee in
January 2012 and transmitted to the authorities of Montenegro for comments.51. The co-rapporteurs are confident that the Montenegrin authorities
are determined to fulfil their remaining commitments and obligations,
to meet at the same time the requirements of the European Union
in the field of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in order
to start the EU accession negotiation process. During the reporting
period and before, the country engaged in many substantial reforms.
The authorities continue to demonstrate openness and readiness to
co-operate with the Venice Commission, the Committee of Experts on
the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing
of Terrorism (MONEYVAL) and the Group of States against Corruption
(GRECO), and to take into account their recommendations.
52. However, progress still needs to be accomplished in some areas,
including, in particular, ensuring the independence of the judicial
system in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission,
improving the legal framework relating to the fight against corruption
and organised crime, the exercise of the rights of minorities, strengthening
freedom of the media, and investigating and prosecuting cases of
violence against journalists. In this respect, the co-rapporteurs
welcomed the positive steps taken in 2012 by the Montenegrin authorities
to step up the fight against discrimination in the country and at
regional level.
53. Montenegro plays an important role in securing stability in
the region. The co-rapporteurs encouraged its authorities to continue
their constructive dialogue and co-operation with neighbouring countries
and in particular with Serbia. They also encouraged Montenegro and
the States of the region to conclude bilateral agreements (as regards
dual citizenship) and to facilitate the integration or voluntary
return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs).
2.2.8. The Russian Federation
54. The reporting period with respect
to the Russian Federation was marked by the parliamentary elections of
4 December 2011 and the events that followed, and by the presidential
elections of 4 March 2012. The co-rapporteurs visited the country
in July 2011 in the framework of the monitoring procedure, in December
2011 and January 2012 in the framework of respectively the electoral
and post-electoral missions for the observation of the parliamentary
elections and similarly in March and April 2012 with regard to the
presidential election. In December 2011, the Monitoring Committee
and the Political Affairs Committee asked for an urgent debate on “The
situation in Russia between two elections” during the January 2012
part-session, but the Assembly decided instead to hold a current
affairs debate. A preliminary draft report on the honouring of the
obligations and commitments was considered by the committee in March
2012 and it was then transmitted to the authorities for comments.
55. Serious concerns were raised by the Council of Europe observers
of the parliamentary elections in December 2011, in particular with regard to the
legal framework of the electoral process, the lack of impartiality
and independence of electoral commissions at all levels, abuse of
administrative resources, serious violations of procedure on voting
day, lack of an efficient appeal and complaints system, the absence
of a level playing field for all contestants and the restrictive
political environment.
in particular with regard to the
legal framework of the electoral process, the lack of impartiality
and independence of electoral commissions at all levels, abuse of
administrative resources, serious violations of procedure on voting
day, lack of an efficient appeal and complaints system, the absence
of a level playing field for all contestants and the restrictive
political environment.56. Only some of these shortcomings were addressed in time for
the presidential election in March 2012. The
introduction of webcams and transparent ballot boxes in polling
stations improved the legitimacy of the process on voting day. At
the same time, however, a number of concerns remained unaddressed,
in particular with respect to the registration of candidates, access
to the media and the lack of an impartial referee.
The
introduction of webcams and transparent ballot boxes in polling
stations improved the legitimacy of the process on voting day. At
the same time, however, a number of concerns remained unaddressed,
in particular with respect to the registration of candidates, access
to the media and the lack of an impartial referee.57. The reaction of the Russian people to the concerns raised
by the observers and the mass demonstrations clearly showed that
there is a general need for, and expectation of, democratic progress,
and that the Russian people want the political system in Russia
to be more pluralist and inclusive. While regretting the earlier
reaction of the authorities to the protest rallies, marked by the
detention of peaceful protesters and violence by the police, the
co-rapporteurs welcomed the change in the authorities’ attitude
after a few days and the subsequent responsiveness to the protesters’
demands.
58. The co-rapporteurs also noted with satisfaction the intention
of the authorities to introduce a number of reforms aimed at increasing
political pluralism, in particular concerning the registration of
political parties and the way governors are appointed.
59. Other concerns, including freedom of expression, freedom of
assembly, fair access to the media and, more generally, appropriate
conditions for a pluralist political environment, should be addressed
without further delay. This may require the revision of some existing
restrictive laws. In December 2011, the Monitoring Committee requested
the legal expertise of the Venice Commission on five federation
laws: on the FSB (Federal Security Service), on the assembly, on
political parties, on extremism and on elections to the Duma. The
co-rapporteurs also strongly recommended to the Russian authorities
to systematically request the opinion of the Venice Commission whenever
new important laws are considered for adoption, and they regretted
that this had not been done when President Medvedev presented draft
amendments to the existing law on political parties at the end of
December 2011.
2.2.9. Serbia
60. Following their visit in September
2011, the co-rapporteurs on Serbia noted significant progress since the
last debate in the Assembly, in 2009, in the country’s fulfilment
of its obligations and commitments. A report on the honouring of
obligations and commitments by Serbia was approved by the Monitoring
Committee in December 2011 and discussed by the Assembly in January
2012; Resolution 1858 (2012) was adopted. The Assembly also observed the parliamentary
elections and early presidential election on 6 May 2012.
Resolution 1858 (2012) was adopted. The Assembly also observed the parliamentary
elections and early presidential election on 6 May 2012.61. The committee acknowledged positive developments in terms
of Serbia’s regional co-operation, collaboration with the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the putting into
place of regulatory mechanisms, while continuing the dialogue with
Pristina by peaceful and diplomatic means.
62. Commendable efforts were made by Serbia to reform the electoral
law and the justice system, launch the decentralisation process,
increase the protection of minority rights and set up and consolidate
independent regulatory bodies.
63. Furthermore, Serbia has ratified a large number of Council
of Europe conventions and pursued its integration with the European
Union. In this respect, as a result of the progress achieved, Serbia
was granted the status of candidate country to the European Union
in March 2012.
64. According to international observers, including members of
the Parliamentary Assembly, Serbia’s parliamentary and early presidential
elections took place in an open and competitive environment, but additional
efforts are needed to improve the transparency of the election process
and the functioning of the media.
65. With a view to closing the monitoring procedure, the committee
considers, however, that the Serbian authorities should make further
progress in adopting and fully implementing the justice reform in
order to guarantee its independence and efficiency, including completion
of the review process of the non re-elected judges and prosecutors;
adopting and implementing effective anti-corruption policies; amending
the criminal code in line with GRECO recommendations; improving
the independence of the media, and fully implementing the rights
of minorities, especially Roma.
2.2.10. Ukraine
66. During the reporting period,
the co-rapporteurs on Ukraine visited the country four times, in
September and November 2011, and in March and May 2012. The committee
held hearings with a representative of the Danish Helsinki Committee
on his monitoring report of the trials of four former government
members, in October 2011, and with the Minister of Justice of Ukraine
in December 2011, as well as with a representative of Amnesty International
on March 2012. It presented to the Assembly a report on the functioning
of democratic institutions in Ukraine in January 2012. Resolution 1862 (2012) was adopted following the debate. The Standing Committee,
meeting in March 2012, also held a current affairs debate on the
deteriorating situation of imprisoned politicians in Ukraine, and
issued a statement.
Resolution 1862 (2012) was adopted following the debate. The Standing Committee,
meeting in March 2012, also held a current affairs debate on the
deteriorating situation of imprisoned politicians in Ukraine, and
issued a statement.67. Concerns with regard to the criminal proceedings initiated
against a number of former government members marked the reporting
period. The committee considered that the charges amounted to the post facto criminalisation of political
decision making, which, as a matter of principle, should be assessed
by parliaments and, ultimately, by the electorate. Resolution 1862 (2012) called on the Ukrainian authorities to amend the articles
of the Criminal Code that allow for the criminalisation of normal
political decision making and asked that all charges based on these
articles against former government members be dropped.
68. Furthermore, the Assembly considered that the numerous shortcomings
noted in the procedures may have undermined the fairness of the
trials within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention
on Human Rights. In the view of the rapporteurs, these shortcomings
are the result of systemic deficiencies in the justice system in
Ukraine, some of them corresponding to the country’s accession commitments
which have not been fulfilled so far. The Assembly therefore urged
the authorities to promptly address these issues in line with its
recommendations.
69. The deteriorating health of some of the detainees was another
matter of concern. During their visit in April 2012, the co-rapporteurs
visited the former interior minister, Yuriy Lutsenko, in prison
and, in May 2012, the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, in
Kharkiv hospital. Until then, their requests for such visits had been
refused. The change in the authorities’ position, with the assistance
given by the prosecutor general, was a sign, in the view of the
co-rapporteurs, that the authorities have accepted their calls for
a constructive dialogue with a view to finding a satisfactory solution
to this issue that is unnecessarily straining relations with our
Assembly. This openness for dialogue was also confirmed in a meeting
with President Yanukovitch during the visit in May 2012.
70. Against this background, in April 2012, the co-rapporteurs
welcomed the adoption by the Verkhovna Rada of the new Code of Criminal
Procedure for Ukraine. Given the extraordinarily large number of amendments
that were tabled to the original draft, the co-rapporteurs especially
welcomed the pledge of the President of Ukraine to sign this code
into law only after having received assurances from the Council
of Europe that it is fully in line with European standards and norms.
It was signed on 14 May 2012.
71. A new Code of Criminal Procedure complying with European standards,
if implemented fully and without reservations, will be an important
step towards addressing some of the deficiencies in Ukraine’s justice
system that were highlighted in the last Assembly resolution on
Ukraine.
2.3. Countries engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue
2.3.1. Bulgaria
72. A newly appointed rapporteur
visited Bulgaria in December 2011. The most recent presidential
election was held in October 2011, and was observed by the Assembly.
73. The Assembly observers, in their conclusions, welcomed Bulgaria’s
continuous progress towards the implementation of its commitments
with regard to the codification of electoral rules. They commended
the dedication and efficiency of the Bulgarian electoral administrators
and highlighted the overall orderly and peaceful conduct of the
vote. At the same time, however, they identified several concerns
regarding the electoral code as well as the electoral campaign,
including access to the media.
74. For his part, the rapporteur, in the oral report on the visit
which he presented to the committee, expressed his general impression
that the Bulgarian Government had shown, and continues to show,
a sustained political will and commitment to pursue full accomplishment
of the obligations and commitments resulting from Bulgaria’s membership
of the Council of Europe, in full co-operation with the Venice Commission.
75. However, the rapporteur identified a number of outstanding
concerns which require further action by the Bulgarian authorities,
in particular with regard to the judiciary (implementation of amendments
to the Judicial System Act, judicial appointments, accountability
of the judiciary, judicial practice), the execution of the decisions
of the European Court of Human Rights, the fight against corruption,
the independence of the media and the rights of persons belonging
to minorities.
2.3.2. Monaco
76. During the reporting period,
the rapporteur on Monaco carried out a visit to the country in March
2012.
77. In her oral report to the committee, she welcomed the efforts
made by the principality to combat money laundering and corruption.
She also noted with satisfaction a renewed co-operation with the
Council of Europe and called on the authorities to examine the possibility
of ratifying the revised European Social Charter and Protocols Nos.
1 and 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS Nos. 9
and 177) – which are among the commitments entered into by Monaco
when it joined the Council of Europe in 2004. She stressed that
Monaco can rely on the expertise of the Council of Europe, which
will be able to take account of the specific character of Monaco,
the only member State whose citizens are a minority in their own
country.
78. Furthermore, the rapporteur expressed the hope that the elected
representatives will find the consensus needed to enable the National
Council to adopt, during 2012, some keenly awaited legislation,
such as the law on the organisation and functioning of parliament,
the reform of police custody, the organisation of the courts, and
the funding of election campaigns.
2.3.3. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
79. The newly appointed rapporteur
on “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” carried out two visits to
the country, in September 2011 and in May 2012. He presented an
information note to the committee in November 2011. Further to the boycott of the parliament
by the opposition, early parliamentary elections were held in June
2011. They were observed by the Assembly.
Further to the boycott of the parliament
by the opposition, early parliamentary elections were held in June
2011. They were observed by the Assembly. 80. The Assembly observation mission concluded that these elections
were competitive, transparent and well-administered throughout the
country. However, certain aspects, such as the blurring of the line
between the State and the governing party, required further attention.
To this end, they made a number of recommendations, including the
need to ensure the implementation of certain legal provisions relating
to the funding of political parties’ electoral campaigns and the
media. There were no irregularities observed on election day.
81. The rapporteur’s overall conclusion following his visit was
that the country was committed to progress and on its way to fulfilling
all the remaining commitments and obligations and adopting the necessary
legal framework. He noted, however, that, despite some progress
in this respect, the country remained highly divided across political
and ethnic lines. Furthermore, the implementation of laws remained
problematic.
82. The rapporteur stressed the need for the full implementation
of the Ohrid Framework Agreement, as well as further improvement
in the area of freedom of the media, public administration and the
judiciary, the fight against corruption, the implementation of the
rule of law, freedom of expression, the implementation of the European
Charter of Local Self-Government, and the situation of IDPs and
asylum seekers.
2.3.4. Turkey
83. During the reporting period,
there was no visit to Turkey; the rapporteur plans to visit the
country in June 2012. The preliminary draft report was submitted
to the committee in June 2011; it was transmitted to the Turkish
authorities, who sent their comments in November 2011. The parliamentary elections which took place
in June 2011 were observed by the Assembly.
The parliamentary elections which took place
in June 2011 were observed by the Assembly.84. According to the observers’ conclusions the elections to the
Turkish Grand National Assembly demonstrated that the recent changes
enacted by the Turkish Government had improved the electoral system, yet
there were some worrying developments, especially regarding freedom
of expression, including media freedom. In particular, some elements
of the legal framework continue to constrain the activities of the
media and political parties by limiting freedom of speech. Furthermore,
the 10% threshold for political party representation in parliament
remains one of the central issues that limit the representative
nature of the legislature. In general, the electoral process was
characterised by pluralism and a vibrant civil society. Voting and
counting observed on election day showed a mostly calm and professionally
managed process.
85. In her preliminary draft report, the rapporteur stressed that
she had observed clearly positive trends and real progress with
regard to the state of democracy in Turkey. The current constitutional
revision should confirm this trend. However, significant problems
still remained in connection with the length of pre-trial detention
and of judicial proceedings, the functioning of the judicial system,
freedom of expression, the execution of the judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights and the full range of issues associated with
national minorities and use of their languages.
2.4. Other issues concerning the fulfilment of obligations and commitments
86. As regards the work on the
consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia, it is recalled
that the committee decided to mandate the respective co-rapporteurs
for Georgia and Russia to follow the file in the framework of the
ongoing monitoring procedures for both countries, and to present,
under the responsibility and co-ordination of the committee chair,
on an annual basis, a joint information note to the committee, in
which they would outline the relevant developments with regard to
the conflict and their findings with regard to the implementation
of Assembly demands, as expressed in its resolutions on this subject.
In compliance with this decision, the committee authorised the respective
co-rapporteurs and the chair to carry out a visit to Moscow, Tbilisi,
Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. The dates for this visit have been fixed
for September 2012. The information report will be submitted to
the committee later in the year.
87. Following the tabling of a motion for a resolution on “Serious
setbacks in the field of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary”,
the committee was seized by the Bureau of the Assembly in March
2011 to prepare a written opinion on the subject, in accordance
with paragraphs 3 and 4 of the terms of reference of the Monitoring
Committee. During the reporting period, the co-rapporteurs carried
out two fact-finding visits to Hungary: in July 2011 and in February
2012. The committee also adopted a statement on 25 January 2012.
It has requested the legal expertise of the Venice Commission on
a number of laws. The co-rapporteurs intend to submit their report
to the committee once the opinions of the Venice Commission are
available, most probably in June 2012. The committee is expected
to adopt its report, to be submitted to the Bureau, in September
2012.
2.5. Member States which are not under the monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue
88. Resolution 1515 (2006) conferred on the Monitoring Committee the task of preparing
periodic reports on all member States that are not the subject of
a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue. This
group is composed of 33 States.
89. The committee has divided this group into three sub-groups
of 11 countries each, and established the practice of attaching
periodic reports to its annual progress report to the Assembly,
with each sub-group of countries reported upon every three years.
Last year we came to the end of the second full cycle, which means that
each country in this category has been reported on twice. In my
opinion, we should now proceed to a more general assessment of the
efficiency and utility of this exercise and examine possible ways
to increase the impact of this report in the countries concerned.
90. Periodic reports include, firstly, a country grid indicating,
for each country, the record of ratifications and/or signatures
of the main Council of Europe instruments that provide for a specialised
monitoring mechanism. This provides the committee with useful information
on the progress made by each country in this respect. In resolutions
adopted following debates on the progress report, the Assembly systematically
calls on the authorities of the countries which have failed to sign
and/or ratify some of the main Council of Europe instruments to
do so without delay, and the grid shows whether the countries concerned
have fulfilled these recommendations over the reporting period.
I am convinced that this should be continued.
91. Secondly, until now, my predecessors have attached the findings
of these Council of Europe mechanisms, when applicable, in a separate
addendum. The work carried out by the following bodies and institutions
have been taken into account: the European Court of Human Rights,
the Committee of Ministers in its supervisory function of the execution
of the Court’s judgments, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR),
the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Congress of Local and Regional
Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Group of States against
Corruption (GRECO), MONEYVAL, the CPT, the Advisory Committee on
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities,
the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages, ECRI and the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings (GRETA).
92. As each of these mechanisms usually has its own evaluation
cycles and sometimes complicated and various procedures, it is difficult
to produce a consistent and clear document on the basis of the findings
of all of them in respect of all the countries from the sub-group.
The sheer volume of this document is another problem. It is not
unusual for the addendum to the progress report to exceed 150 pages.
My predecessors felt obliged to give account of all the findings
even if they raised no particular concern.
93. While I can understand that such an approach is objective,
it has become evident over recent years that the efficiency and
impact of such a procedure are questionable. This was clearly recognised
by Mr Marty in the last progress report. That is why I have decided
to change the established practice and to propose a different way
of presenting periodic reports.
94. In the present report, I have abandoned the lengthy descriptions
of the state of the monitoring procedure of the different Council
of Europe mechanisms and systematic reference to their findings,
irrespective of whether any concerns had been identified or not.
These findings may now be easily consulted at the newly designed
website of the Council of Europe on a country-by-country basis.
I encourage all those who are interested to familiarise themselves
with this website, which gives an excellent overview of all the monitoring mechanisms
of the Council of Europe.
95. On the other hand, I have opted for an analytical overview
of the findings with special focus on specific identified concerns
and problems and the state of fulfilment of previous recommendations
of the monitoring mechanisms, where applicable. I include in the
present report the evaluation of the first sub-group of 11 countries,
thus opening the third cycle.
96. At the same time, in the next chapter, I will submit for the
committee’s consideration the idea of broadening this exercise by
mandating the rapporteur on the progress of the monitoring procedure
with the task of following the situation in the countries under
the reporting cycle, with a view to giving a more in-depth account of
any possible concerns. The objective would not be to report in detail
as we do for the countries under full monitoring, but to draw the
committee’s attention to any problems or trends, at which it might
wish to take a closer look. It is important to stress that the rapporteur
would only give a general, preliminary overview and there would
be no fact-finding visits – if a problem is spotted, the committee
would have an opportunity to define further action. I will come
back to this proposal in more detail later.
2.5.1. Andorra
97. With regard to Andorra, it
should be noted that, in June 2011, GRECO published its third round evaluation
report on Andorra, addressing 20 recommendations. The implementation
of these recommendations will be assessed in 2013.
98. The report identifies some outstanding concerns including
the need for further amendments to the Criminal Code in the field
of combating corruption in order to comply with Council of Europe
standards. GRECO pointed out some shortcomings, for example, with
respect to the criminalisation of bribery in cases where non-material
benefits are involved and the criminalisation of bribery in the
private sector.
99. GRECO also stressed the need for considerable changes to the
legislation on political financing. The election financing law of
15 December 2000 is not designed to ensure the overall transparency
of political financing, or to avoid the risk of undue financial
influence on public decision making. Andorra should introduce provisions
in its legislation requiring, in particular, that political groupings
publish their accounts on a regular basis. The supervision of political
financing should be more effective and complemented with a more
extended range of proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
100. The Commissioner for Human Rights visited the country in February
2012. In the statement following the visit, while recognising the
authorities’ intention to respect their obligations to ensure human
rights protection, he stressed that further efforts were needed,
for example, to prevent domestic violence, protect against discrimination,
and promote national independent monitoring of human rights standards.
101. To date, Andorra has not signed or ratified a number of important
instruments, including the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS
No. 174): signed in 2001 but not ratified; the Additional Protocol
to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No 191): which
has been neither signed nor ratified; the Council of Europe Convention
on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds
from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (revised) (CETS No.
198): which has been neither signed nor ratified; the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS No. 157):
which has been neither signed nor ratified; the European Charter
for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS No. 148): which has been
neither signed nor ratified; the Additional Protocol to the European
Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints (ETS
No. 158): which has been neither signed nor ratified.
2.5.2. Austria
102. With regard to Austria, GRECO
published a report in January 2012, in which it stressed that Austria
is one of the very few Council of Europe member States which is
not a Party to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, (ETS No
173) and its additional protocol (ETS No. 191). Consequently, its
criminal legislation on corruption does not adequately criminalise
offences such as bribery of members of elected public assemblies or
bribery of senior public officials. Moreover, Austrian top executives
are not subject to this legislation either.
103. Furthermore, the legal framework on the financing of political
parties does not regulate the question of private donations and
there is no public supervision mechanism, even though political
financing is seen as a particularly controversial area, reportedly
affected by a variety of malpractices. Austria should provide for adequate
transparency and supervision of the financing of political parties
and election campaigns, including sanctions in case of non-compliance.
104. In September 2011, GRETA published its first evaluation report
on Austria. While welcoming significant measures taken by the authorities
to combat trafficking in human beings, the report includes a number
of recommendations with regard to the protection of certain categories
of victims of trafficking, in particular irregular migrants.
105. In June 2011, the third cycle opinion of the Advisory Committee
of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
was published. The committee calls on Austria to amend national
minority laws in consultation with national minorities, ensure linguistic
rights and develop a new system for the composition of the minority
advisory councils, to ensure they represent the interests and concerns
of the communities concerned.
106. To date, Austria has not signed and/or ratified a number of
legal instruments, in particular the above-mentioned Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption: signed in 2000 but not ratified and its
additional protocol: which has been neither signed nor ratified;
the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and
Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of
Terrorism (revised): signed in 2005 but not ratified; the Additional
Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of
Collective Complaints (ETS No. 158): signed in 1999 but not ratified.
2.5.3. Belgium
107. With regard to Belgium, in
May 2011, GRECO published the third evaluation report, assessing
the measures taken by the Belgian authorities to implement the 15
recommendations dealing with incriminations and the transparency
of political funding. The report concluded that Belgium had implemented
or satisfactorily dealt with only one recommendation and that this
very low level of compliance is “globally unsatisfactory” within the
meaning of the mechanism’s rules.
108. In June 2009, the Commissioner for Human Rights published
a report which stressed that Belgium has a good system of human
rights protection, but more efforts were needed in certain areas,
in particular prison conditions, asylum procedures and the protection
of the rights of migrants. A number of issues on the system of youth
justice were also raised.
109. The last report of the European Committee for the Prevention
of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
on Belgium was published in July 2010 and the response of the government was
made public in February 2011. In the prison sector, the CPT raised
the question of overcrowding affecting the Belgian prison system.
The CPT again called upon the Belgian authorities, as it had already
done in the previous report, to introduce, without further delay,
a “guaranteed service” for prisoners. The CPT also pointed to the
lack of action regarding the implementation of the recommendations
made over many years concerning the fundamental safeguards to be
offered to persons placed under judicial arrest and, in particular,
as regards access to a lawyer while in custody.
110. To date, Belgium has signed the Framework Convention for the
Protection of National Minorities in 2001 but has not yet ratified
it; it has neither signed nor ratified the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages.
2.5.4. Croatia
111. With regard to Croatia, in
December 2011, GRECO published the third round evaluation report, assessing
the measures taken by the authorities of Croatia to implement the
11 recommendations dealing with incriminations and the transparency
of party funding. The report concluded that Croatia had implemented satisfactorily
seven recommendations. In particular, it had adopted substantial
amendments to the Criminal Code. However, some minor ambiguities
remain in the new Criminal Code as regards some instances. It therefore
urges the Croatian authorities to take determined action to remove
them.
112. The Commissioner for Human Rights, in his report on the country
in June 2010, stressed that Croatia had made important progress
since its independence; however, solving serious human rights issues
caused by the 1991-95 war still required further determination.
The report set out recommendations concerning the human rights of
displaced persons and asylum seekers, proceedings relating to post-war
justice and the situation of Roma.
113. The third cycle opinion of the Advisory Committee of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was published
in December 2010. While welcoming considerable progress in establishing a
clear legal basis for protection against discrimination on racial,
ethnic, national or religious grounds, the committee expressed concern
about persistent discrimination of Roma, the lack of respect of
the right to proportional representation of persons belonging to
national minorities in the public administration, the judiciary,
local government and public enterprises, and stressed the need to
review the procedures applicable to the implementation of this right.
Ethnically motivated incidents – in particular against Serbs and
Roma – continue to be a serious problem, as well as the continued
impunity of the perpetrators. The functioning of the councils of
national minorities is unsatisfactory in many self-government units.
Their legal provisions and administrative practice should be revised
to improve their representation, funding and co-operation with local authorities.
114. In June 2010, the Committee of Experts of the European Charter
for Regional or Minority Languages published its fourth cycle evaluation
report, followed by the Committee of Ministers recommendations in December
2010, which pointed to the need to ensure that speakers of the minority
languages can use them in practice in relations with the relevant
branches of the State administration, to improve accessibility of
the system of minority languages education, and to continue efforts
to promote awareness and tolerance vis-à-vis the regional and minority
languages and the cultures they represent, both in the general curriculum
at all stages of education and in the media.
115. Croatia has ratified all the major legal instruments of the
Council of Europe, except for the European Social Charter (revised)
(ETS No. 163), which it signed in 2009.
2.5.5. Cyprus
116. With regard to Cyprus, in April
2011, GRECO published the third evaluation report, in which it stressed a
clear need to establish a uniform legal framework for the criminalisation
of corruption offences. Despite the fact that the relevant legislation
has been in force for several years now, it has never been applied
by the prosecutorial authorities nor by the courts. Instead, these
authorities have continued exclusively to apply old legislation
concerning corruption offences, which does not comply with the requirements
of the Criminal Law Convention, to which Cyprus is a party. The
coexistence of old and new legislation which overlap makes the legal
framework in respect of corruption offences inconsistent and unclear.
GRECO called on the Cypriot authorities to establish a uniform legal
framework and to ensure its implementation.
117. As for party financing, GRECO finds that the newly adopted
legislation does not sufficiently address major areas for providing
transparency of private funding of political parties. GRECO addressed
eight recommendations to Cyprus; they will be reviewed in the second
half of 2012.
118. In December 2011, MONEYVAL issued a third round report in
which it assessed that, overall, the financial sector appears to
be adequately monitored against money laundering and financing of
terrorism. However, some concerns remained that real estate and
dealers in precious metals and stones may not be fully implementing
the anti-money laundering requirements.
119. In July 2010, the Commissioner for Human Rights visited the
country and published a letter sent to the minister of the interior.
While welcoming the measures taken by Cyprus to combat trafficking,
he expressed concern about possible abuses of certain types of visas
and work permits. In this context, he invited the authorities to
seek co-operation with international bodies and other countries
with experience in this domain.
120. With regard to the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees,
the Commissioner remained concerned about the long periods of detention
which some asylum seekers face following rejection of their application.
He urged the authorities to ensure an individual examination of
each case in order to assess the purpose and proportionality of
all asylum seekers’ detention.
121. In March 2010, the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities adopted its third cycle
opinion; it was followed by a resolution, adopted
by the Committee of Ministers on the basis of the opinion, in September
2011. In its resolution, the Committee of Ministers recommended
that the Cypriot authorities take a number of measures aimed at
effective implementation of the principle of self-identification,
take urgent action to combat and sanction effectively all forms
of discrimination and intolerance, including misconduct by members
of the police forces and take additional measures to provide a more
adequate response to the educational needs of the Armenians, the
Latins and the Maronites.
adopted
by the Committee of Ministers on the basis of the opinion, in September
2011. In its resolution, the Committee of Ministers recommended
that the Cypriot authorities take a number of measures aimed at
effective implementation of the principle of self-identification,
take urgent action to combat and sanction effectively all forms
of discrimination and intolerance, including misconduct by members
of the police forces and take additional measures to provide a more
adequate response to the educational needs of the Armenians, the
Latins and the Maronites.122. In September 2011, the Committee of Experts of the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages adopted a third cycle
report followed by the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers, adopted
on the basis of the report, in March 2012. The Committee of Ministers
recommended that the Cypriot authorities adopt, as a matter of priority,
a structured policy for the protection and promotion of the Armenian and
Cypriot Maronite Arabic languages, to strengthen the teaching in
and of the Cypriot Maronite Arabic and to provide teacher training
for Armenian and Cypriot Maronite Arabic.
123. The 4th report on Cyprus was published by ECRI in May 2011.
While commending the fulfilment of recommendations included in the
previous report, ECRI identified some issues of concern such as
the disproportionately high concentration of Turkish Cypriots and
Roma pupils in particular schools, the continued vulnerability of
foreign domestic workers, the lack of integration policy and restrictive
immigration policy. It recommended that the authorities take concrete
measures to remedy this situation and announced its intention to
assess progress in two years’ time.
124. Cyprus has signed and ratified all the major conventions embodying
a monitoring mechanism.
2.5.6. Czech Republic
125. With regard to the Czech Republic,
the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
adopted, in March 2012, a report on the monitoring of the implementation
of the European Charter on Local Self-Government. In
the recommendation adopted on that occasion, the Congress
noted with satisfaction that considerable progress had been accomplished
since the previous monitoring report. However, a number of concerns
still exist, including a too centralised system of financing, the
problem of fragmentation and the high number of municipalities,
the lack of appropriate legislation with regard to consultation mechanisms
(which exist in practice), the need to further co-ordinate and simplify
the system of administration controls. The Congress made a number
of recommendations aimed at improving the situation.
In
the recommendation adopted on that occasion, the Congress
noted with satisfaction that considerable progress had been accomplished
since the previous monitoring report. However, a number of concerns
still exist, including a too centralised system of financing, the
problem of fragmentation and the high number of municipalities,
the lack of appropriate legislation with regard to consultation mechanisms
(which exist in practice), the need to further co-ordinate and simplify
the system of administration controls. The Congress made a number
of recommendations aimed at improving the situation.126. In March 2011, the President of the Congress, alarmed about
the declaration on the “socially inadaptable”, signed by a group
of 48 mayors in the Czech Republic, issued a press release in which
he expressed concern about proposed measures targeting the Roma
population. He strongly condemned the practice of qualifying a whole
category of the population as “socially inadaptable”, which clearly
runs counter to integration efforts.
127. In April 2011, GRECO published its third round evaluation
report on the Czech Republic, in which it concluded that while the
new Criminal Code adopted by the Czech Parliament in 2010 was largely
in line with the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, a limited
number of quite specific deficiencies needed to be addressed, in
particular by clarifying that bribery of all categories of employees
in the public sector is covered and by ensuring that bribery of
foreign arbitrators and foreign jurors is adequately criminalised.
128. Concerning the transparency of political funding, GRECO criticised
the lack of substantial and proactive monitoring of the financing
of political parties and election campaigns, and recommended as
a matter of priority the establishment of an effective supervisory
mechanism and adequate enforcement rules. Consequently, GRECO addressed
13 recommendations to the Czech authorities, and announced its intention
to assess their implementation in 2013.
129. In June 2011, MONEYVAL published its fourth round evaluation
report on the Czech Republic. It welcomed the progress which had
been made since the third evaluation, with the adoption of the new
AML/CFT Law implementing the third EU directive and many of the
important preventative recommendations in the third round evaluation
report. Nonetheless, the verification of beneficial owners of accounts
still needed to be more embedded in practice. A comprehensive national
risk assessment was also essential to identify vulnerable sectors
within the Czech financial system in terms of money laundering and
financing of terrorism. Furthermore, the criminalisation of money
laundering still needed further amendment to bring it fully into
line with the standards in international conventions. The Czech
law also still did not provide for corporate criminal liability,
though draft legislation, which was urgently needed, was under preparation.
The evaluators welcomed the progress that had been achieved since
the previous evaluation in building a more complete legal framework for
the financing of political parties.
130. The Commissioner for Human Rights published his report on
the country in March 2011. He was very much concerned by deeply
rooted anti-Gypsyism and hate crimes as well as continued segregation
in education and housing, which he considered to be the main obstacles
to inclusion facing Roma in the Czech Republic. He stressed that
the authorities should strengthen their efforts to eradicate these
problems and implement inclusive policies. The Commissioner was
also concerned by frequent racist and anti-Roma discourse among
leading politicians and the media, which continued to provide a
platform for anti-Gypsyism. He recommended the adoption of measures,
including by promoting active self-regulation, to effectively address
and eliminate racist and stigmatising speech against Roma in politics
and the media. In addition, a vigorous implementation of the relevant
criminal provisions must be ensured. Furthermore, in his report
the Commissioner recommended a coherent system of social housing
and strengthened efforts to desegregate Roma localities and improve
their living conditions. Finally, he expressed concern at the fact
that many Roma children continued to receive low quality education
and to experience segregation in Czech schools.
131. In July 2010, the CPT published a report on the visit to the
country, together with the response of the Czech Government. Both
documents were made public at the request of the Czech authorities.
One of the main objectives of the visit was to review action taken
by the Czech authorities to bring an end to testicular pulpectomy
(“surgical castration”) of detained sex offenders, in the light
of the recommendations made in the previous report of the CPT. There
has been no progress in this respect and the CPT once again called
upon the Czech authorities to bring an immediate end to the application
of surgical castration in the context of the treatment of sex offenders.
In their response, the Czech authorities stated that the issue of
surgical castration of sex offenders is the subject of ongoing discussions
by various advisory bodies to the government. In addition to examining
the medical, ethical and legal aspects of the testicular pulpectomy
of sex offenders, the study will also include a comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of possible alternative methods for
treating sex offenders, as well as information about the methods
used to treat sex offenders in other countries.
132. In July 2011, the Advisory Committee adopted its third cycle
opinion on the implementation
of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
The Advisory Committee noted a number of positive developments,
illustrating the continued efforts of the Czech authorities to protect
persons belonging to national minorities, in particular the adoption,
in 2009, of the Anti-Discrimination Act and various forms of assistance
to cultural and educational activities of national minorities. At
the same time, the Advisory Committee also noted some issues of
concern with regard to the Roma population, including negative attitudes and
prejudice against Roma, which continued to persist throughout Czech
society, anti-Roma rhetoric, the lack of legal action against anti-Roma
propaganda and verbal attacks, and serious difficulties faced by
Roma children in the education system. The opinion makes a number
of recommendations for immediate action, including increased efforts
to combat all forms of intolerance, racism and xenophobia, taking
further legislative measures and policies to combat racist manifestations,
in particular against Roma, eliminating practices that lead to the
continued segregation of Roma children at school and redoubling
efforts to remedy all the shortcomings faced by Roma children in
the field of education. It also urges the Czech authorities to ensure that
local committees for national minorities are established in the
municipalities where the conditions are met for setting them up.
on the implementation
of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
The Advisory Committee noted a number of positive developments,
illustrating the continued efforts of the Czech authorities to protect
persons belonging to national minorities, in particular the adoption,
in 2009, of the Anti-Discrimination Act and various forms of assistance
to cultural and educational activities of national minorities. At
the same time, the Advisory Committee also noted some issues of
concern with regard to the Roma population, including negative attitudes and
prejudice against Roma, which continued to persist throughout Czech
society, anti-Roma rhetoric, the lack of legal action against anti-Roma
propaganda and verbal attacks, and serious difficulties faced by
Roma children in the education system. The opinion makes a number
of recommendations for immediate action, including increased efforts
to combat all forms of intolerance, racism and xenophobia, taking
further legislative measures and policies to combat racist manifestations,
in particular against Roma, eliminating practices that lead to the
continued segregation of Roma children at school and redoubling
efforts to remedy all the shortcomings faced by Roma children in
the field of education. It also urges the Czech authorities to ensure that
local committees for national minorities are established in the
municipalities where the conditions are met for setting them up.133. The second cycle report on the implementation of the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages was submitted in July
2011. The Committee of Ministers called on the Czech Republic to
promote awareness and tolerance vis-à-vis regional or minority languages
as an integral part of the cultural heritage of the Czech Republic,
both in the general curriculum at all levels of education and in
the media. The Czech Republic should also adopt a structured policy
for the protection and promotion of Romani and German, and create
favourable conditions for their use in public life. It needed to
ensure that speaking Romani at school was not prohibited or discouraged.
Furthermore, the Czech Republic should improve legislation concerning
the composition and powers of committees for national minorities,
so that these rules do not present barriers to the implementation
of the charter; including the creation of regional or minority language
schools and the use of Polish place names in topographical signs.
134. ECRI published its fourth report on the Czech Republic in
September 2009. The report noted positive developments but also
detailed continuing grounds for concern, mainly with regard to discrimination
against the Roma. Even if some steps had been taken to adjust the
education system so as better to meet the needs of socially disadvantaged
children, there had also been a disturbing intensification in the
activities of extreme right-wing groups. Little progress had been
made towards improving the situation of the Roma, who faced segregation
in schools and housing and discrimination in employment. The issue
of forced sterilisations of Roma women had not yet been adequately
addressed.
135. The Czech Republic has not signed and/or ratified a number
of major legal Council of Europe instruments, including the Additional
Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: which has
been neither signed nor ratified; the Council of Europe Convention
on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds
from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (revised): neither
signed nor ratified; Protocol No. 12 (ETS No. 177) to the European
Convention on Human Rights: signed in 2000 but not ratified; the Council
of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings
(CETS No. 197): which has been neither signed nor ratified; the
European Social Charter (revised): signed in 2000 but not ratified.
136. On a positive note, in April 2012, the Czech Republic ratified
the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing
for a System of Collective Complaints.
2.5.7. Denmark
137. With regard to Denmark, in
February 2010, GRECO published its third round evaluation report,
which assesses the measures taken by the authorities of Denmark
to implement the 14 recommendations regarding the criminalisation
of corruption and transparency of party funding. Regarding the criminalisation
of corruption, overall, Danish criminal legislation complies with
the standards of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on
Corruption and its additional protocol. However, the offence of
trading in influence was not criminalised as such and the bribery
provisions were not always as explicit as required by the convention. GRECO
considered that the penal sanctions for corruption offences were
generally low. It recommended that the authorities consider criminalising
trading in influence and increasing criminal sanctions for bribery
offences. GRECO also recommended that Denmark improve its possibilities
to prosecute corruption abroad and that it give high priority to
the introduction of criminal legislation against corruption – in
conformity with the convention – also in Greenland and the Faroe
Islands.
138. Concerning transparency of party funding, GRECO appreciated
that the existing legal framework concerning political financing
had been amended in recent years to provide for more transparency,
for example by publishing party accounts. However, the transparency
rules could well be further enhanced through more precise reporting
concerning donations over a certain value and by abolishing anonymous
donations, which open up the possibility of circumventing the existing
transparency rules. Moreover, there were no regulations which would
restrict donations from abroad or, for example, from private companies.
Finally, GRECO recommended developing the existing monitoring mechanism,
in order to ensure more than a mere formalistic checking of party
accounts.
139. GRECO concluded that Denmark had implemented satisfactorily
or dealt with in a satisfactory manner three of the 14 recommendations
contained in the third round evaluation report. In view of the above
and despite the progress noted in respect of the criminalisation
of corruption, the total non-compliance with the recommendations
under the transparency of party funding made the overall response
to the recommendations “globally unsatisfactory”. The question will
be followed in accordance with the rules.
140. In December 2011, in its first evaluation report on Denmark,
GRETA noted the positive steps taken by the Danish authorities to
combat trafficking in human beings, but also called on them to develop
greater preventive measures and raise awareness about trafficking
for the purpose of labour exploitation – in particular in the agricultural,
construction and cleaning sectors. GRETA expressed concern about
government focus on illegal immigration and identifying trafficking
victims. It urged the Danish authorities to ensure that potential victims
of trafficking were treated in the first place as persons who have
been exposed to human rights violations, rather than as offenders.
141. The third cycle opinion of the Advisory Committee of the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in respect
of Denmark was published in March 2011. The opinion asked Denmark
to make more funds available for its anti-discrimination bodies.
It stressed that victims of discrimination needed more information
on how to act and called for the government to make anti-racist
law more widely known. The Advisory Committee also asked Denmark
to secure funding for its German-speaking minority, fearing that
the German-language media may be under threat of closure without
a funding boost. At the same time, the committee praised Denmark
for its support of German speakers in South Jutland, but underlined
that there was a lack of awareness and co-ordination of minority
issues between local authorities.
142. The third Committee of Ministers’ recommendation in the framework
of the monitoring mechanism of the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages was published in March 2011. The Committee
of Ministers called on Denmark to increase the level of radio broadcasting
in German and provide television broadcasts in German in South Jutland.
It recommended that the Danish authorities take a more active and structured
approach in promoting German as a minority language.
143. Denmark was specifically mentioned in two recent Assembly
recommendations: Recommendation
1976 (2011) on the role of parliaments in the consolidation and
development of social rights in Europe, and Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights. The Assembly called on the four
countries, including Denmark, which had not yet ratified the Protocol
to the European Social Charter (ETS No. 142, “Turin Protocol”) to
do so as soon as possible.
and Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights. The Assembly called on the four
countries, including Denmark, which had not yet ratified the Protocol
to the European Social Charter (ETS No. 142, “Turin Protocol”) to
do so as soon as possible.144. Denmark has so far not signed and/or ratified the following
major Council of Europe legal instruments: European Social Charter
(revised): signed on 3 May 1996 but not ratified; the Additional
Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of
Collective Complaints: signed on 9 November 1995 but not ratified;
the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure
and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing
of Terrorism (revised): which has been neither signed nor ratified;
and Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights,
which has been neither signed nor ratified.
2.5.8. Estonia
145. With regard to Estonia, the
last monitoring report of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
of the Council of Europe was presented in October 2010. Recommendation 294 (2010) on local democracy in Estonia was adopted on that occasion.
The report was aimed at assessing the action undertaken since the
last monitoring visit in 2000. According to the findings, while
local democracy in Estonia had improved overall, there were a few
issues which should be the subject of reform, notably granting special
status to the capital city of Tallinn, revising national legislation
in order to allocate to local authorities financial resources commensurate with
the increasing responsibilities assigned to them, allowing local
governments to raise local taxes to increase revenues and, lastly,
modifying the procedure of consultation of local and national associations
in line with the European Charter of Local Self Government. The
Congress welcomed the Estonian Supreme Court’s decision of March
2010, which referred explicitly to the European Charter of Local
Self-Government, and provided the criteria according to which the
Estonian Parliament had to enable better regulations, defining clearly,
on the one hand, government functions and local authorities tasks
and, on the other hand, establishing a strong link between the mandatory
tasks and competences of local authorities and their funding.
Recommendation 294 (2010) on local democracy in Estonia was adopted on that occasion.
The report was aimed at assessing the action undertaken since the
last monitoring visit in 2000. According to the findings, while
local democracy in Estonia had improved overall, there were a few
issues which should be the subject of reform, notably granting special
status to the capital city of Tallinn, revising national legislation
in order to allocate to local authorities financial resources commensurate with
the increasing responsibilities assigned to them, allowing local
governments to raise local taxes to increase revenues and, lastly,
modifying the procedure of consultation of local and national associations
in line with the European Charter of Local Self Government. The
Congress welcomed the Estonian Supreme Court’s decision of March
2010, which referred explicitly to the European Charter of Local
Self-Government, and provided the criteria according to which the
Estonian Parliament had to enable better regulations, defining clearly,
on the one hand, government functions and local authorities tasks
and, on the other hand, establishing a strong link between the mandatory
tasks and competences of local authorities and their funding.146. In March 2010, GRECO adopted the compliance report assessing
the measures taken by the Estonian authorities to implement the
17 recommendations issued in the third round evaluation report on
Estonia. GRECO concluded that Estonia had been able to demonstrate
that substantial reforms, with the potential of achieving an acceptable
level of compliance with the pending recommendations within the
next eighteen months, were under way. With regard to incriminations,
Estonia had dealt with some fundamental lacunae in its criminal
legislation through the adoption of new legislation; the criminalisation
of bribery of members of foreign and international public assemblies
was an important achievement and, furthermore, draft legislation aimed
at the criminalisation of bribery of domestic members of public
assemblies, bribery in the private sector and bribery of arbitrators
appeared to be well under way (pending before parliament). Estonia
had also produced draft legal amendments where minor adjustments
of the law were necessary for full compliance with the Criminal
Law Convention, for example, including “third party beneficiaries”
in the bribery offences. However, the authorities had not yet reported
any concrete measures for the inclusion of active trading in influence
into the Penal Code and, furthermore, they had not convinced GRECO
that new legislation reported in respect of the extension of Estonian
jurisdiction abroad complied fully with the requirements of the
Criminal Law Convention. In conclusion, Estonia had entered into
an in-depth reform process which had already led to some noticeable
achievements; however, further determined efforts in respect of
a number of recommendations were indispensable.
147. As far as transparency of party funding was concerned, Estonia
had presented a substantial and holistic reform process, where almost
all concerns raised by GRECO in its evaluation report had been carefully considered.
The draft law on “Political Parties and Persons Running as a Candidate
for Elections Financing Act”, pending at the time before parliament
would, if adopted, appear to meet a large majority of the concerns raised
by GRECO. The authorities were encouraged to pursue their commendable
efforts in this respect to establish a solid legal framework for
political financing in Estonia.
148. In April 2011, the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities adopted its third cycle
opinion, in which it stressed that Estonian tolerance levels had
significantly improved and overall the climate between ethnic Estonians
and non-Estonians had evolved in a positive way. However, it noted
that unemployment amongst non-Estonians was still disproportionately
high and that the number of stateless remained at around 10 000.
Welcoming the new Estonian Integration Strategy for Promoting Integration
and Cultural Diversity, the committee stressed that integration
activities should not only focus on improving the Estonian language
skills of minorities. Multicultural elements should be increased
in the curricula and textbooks and transfer from Russian to Estonian
as the main language made gradually, with respect for maintaining
the quality of education. Minority representatives must be involved
and have a say on issues that directly concerned them.
149. In March 2010, ECRI published its fourth report on Estonia.
While it acknowledged that there had been improvements, in particular
with regard to the introduction of a legal framework combating racism
and discrimination, it also expressed concern about the large number
of stateless persons, the limited contact between Russian speakers
and Estonians, high unemployment among minority groups and discrimination against
the Roma. ECRI made a number of recommendations, three of which
required priority implementation and would be revisited by ECRI
in two years’ time, namely ensuring the quality of education offered
to Russian-speaking children, for example by providing more training
for Russian-speaking school teachers; reducing the number of persons
without citizenship; and tackling the undue placement of Roma children
in special schools and ensuring their reintegration into mainstream
schools.
150. In its Resolution
1702 (2010) on action against trafficking in human beings: promoting
the Council of Europe convention, the Assembly
urged six countries, including Estonia, to sign and ratify the Council
of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
It should be noted that Estonia signed this convention in February
2010; however, it has not yet ratified it.
the Assembly
urged six countries, including Estonia, to sign and ratify the Council
of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
It should be noted that Estonia signed this convention in February
2010; however, it has not yet ratified it.151. Furthermore, Estonia has not signed and/or ratified the following
major Council of Europe legal instruments: the Additional Protocol
to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption: which has been neither signed
nor ratified; the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search,
Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing
of Terrorism (revised): which has been neither signed nor ratified; Protocol
No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights: signed in 2000
but not ratified; the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages: which has been neither signed nor ratified; the European
Social Charter of 1961 (ETS No. 35): which has been neither signed
nor ratified; and the Additional Protocol to the European Social
Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints: which has
been neither signed nor ratified.
2.5.9. Finland
152. With regard to Finland, the
Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
adopted its last monitoring report on the implementation of the
European Charter on Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122) in October
2011. The Congress noted with satisfaction that local democracy
was a cornerstone of democratic life in Finland, with the legitimacy
of the exercise of power firmly rooted in the principles of subsidiarity
and local democracy, that the Charter of Local Self-Government was
applied to the letter and that Finland had an exemplary culture
of consultation and involvement of local authorities by central
government. The Congress invited the Finnish authorities to continue
“to take steps to limit local deficits” so as to avoid budgetary
imbalances in certain municipalities. The Finnish authorities were
also encouraged to evaluate the effect of the recent reorganisation
of deconcentrated public services. The report also highlighted the
“need to strengthen the role of the ombudsman” at local level by
increasing funding. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Additional
Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the
Right to Participate in Local Affairs (CETS No. 207), as well as
the Additional Protocols to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier
Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (ETS
Nos. 159, 169 and 206), be signed and ratified by the Finnish authorities.
153. In December 2009, GRECO published its compliance report, assessing
the measures taken by the authorities of Finland to implement the
17 recommendations issued in the third round evaluation report on
this country. GRECO noted that Finland had been able to demonstrate
that substantial reforms with the potential of achieving an acceptable
level of compliance with the pending recommendations within the
next eighteen months were under way. In particular, concerning incriminations,
Finland had entered into a substantial reform process. A working
party had been established under the Ministry of Justice and it
had delivered its proposals, including draft legislation, to the
government. The legislative process was at an advanced stage and
it appeared that the Finnish authorities had the clear intention
of complying with the large majority of the recommendations issued
by GRECO in due course. GRECO was confident that the Finnish authorities
were making serious efforts to comply with its pending recommendations.
154. As far as the transparency of political funding was concerned,
new promising legislation was in place to further develop the transparency
and monitoring of political financing regarding election candidates. Furthermore,
in order to address the pending recommendations, a working party
had prepared draft legislation in respect of the financing of political
parties – approved by the government – which, if adopted by parliament, would
increase considerably the transparency of party funding in Finland.
GRECO was confident that the authorities were doing their utmost
to fully implement these recommendations in due course. The adoption
of the second compliance report terminated the third round compliance
procedure in respect of Finland.
155. In April 2011, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities published its third opinion
on Finland, which highlighted several legislative as well as institutional reform
initiatives by the Finnish authorities in order to foster protection
against discrimination, including the establishment of an "Equality
Committee" to review the effectiveness of Finland’s equality legislation
and a proposal for a national policy on Roma. At the same time,
the Advisory Committee expressed deep concern that the negotiations
surrounding the Sami people’s land rights appeared to be blocked
and underlined that the availability of minority language media
was still insufficient. Furthermore, the implementation of the Language Act
and the Sami Language Act was considered inadequate. Incidents of
racism and xenophobia, particularly on the Internet, continued to
be reported. Furthermore, the Advisory Committee noted that the
representation and influence of persons belonging to national minorities
in the decision-making processes affecting them must be increased.
The Advisory Committee recommended in particular taking rapid measures
to unblock the current stalemate and re-establish a constructive
dialogue with the Sami Parliament to find a solution to the legal
uncertainty over land rights in the Sami homeland and to prevent
the further disappearance of Sami languages from public life, through
adequate funding and the effective implementation of the Sami revitalisation programme.
156. In February 2012, the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution
CM/ResCMN(2012)3 on the implementation of the Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities by Finland, in which it urged
the Finnish authorities to take rapid measures to unblock the current
stalemate and re-establish a constructive dialogue with the Sami
Parliament in order to find a solution to the legal uncertainty
over land rights in the Sami homeland; to continue taking resolute
measures, in consultation with the Sami Parliament, to prevent the
further disappearance of the Sami languages from public life through
adequate funding and the effective implementation of the Sami revitalisation
programme, and invest in relevant educational measures in order
to ensure that the Sami have improved access to public services
in the Sami languages; and to take appropriate measures to ensure
that the various consultation structures and mechanisms for persons belonging
to national minorities were complemented and reorganised to provide
clear communication channels and improve possibilities for representatives,
including those of numerically smaller minorities, to have a real impact
on the decision-making process.
157. In September 2011, the Committee of Experts of the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages adopted a fourth cycle
evaluation report, which was followed by the recommendation of the Committee
of Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional
or Minority Languages by Finland, adopted
in March 2012, in which the Finnish authorities were urged to further
strengthen education in Sami, notably through the development of
a structured policy and a long-term financing scheme; to take urgent
measures to protect and promote Inari and Skolt Sami, which are
particularly endangered languages, in particular by means of the
provision of language tests on a permanent basis; to take further
measures to ensure the accessibility of social and health care in
Swedish and Sami; to develop and implement innovative strategies
for the training of Romani teachers, extend the production of teaching
materials in Romani and increase the provision of teaching of Romani;
and to take measures to increase awareness and tolerance vis-à-vis
the regional or minority languages of Finland, both in the general
curriculum at all stages of education and in the media.
adopted
in March 2012, in which the Finnish authorities were urged to further
strengthen education in Sami, notably through the development of
a structured policy and a long-term financing scheme; to take urgent
measures to protect and promote Inari and Skolt Sami, which are
particularly endangered languages, in particular by means of the
provision of language tests on a permanent basis; to take further
measures to ensure the accessibility of social and health care in
Swedish and Sami; to develop and implement innovative strategies
for the training of Romani teachers, extend the production of teaching
materials in Romani and increase the provision of teaching of Romani;
and to take measures to increase awareness and tolerance vis-à-vis
the regional or minority languages of Finland, both in the general
curriculum at all stages of education and in the media.158. The Assembly has also adopted a number of texts referring
directly to Finland. In particular, in Resolution 1861 (2012) on promoting the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the Assembly calls
on the Council of Europe member States which have signed the convention,
including Finland, to take prompt measures, if necessary relying
on the advice and expertise provided by the Council of Europe, to
adapt their national legislation to the convention and accelerate the
ratification process. In Resolution
1823 (2011) on national parliaments: guarantors of human rights
in Europe, with respect to the execution of judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, the Assembly points to positive examples
in several member States, including Finland, which have set up parliamentary structures
to monitor the implementation of the Court’s judgments. In Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights, the Assembly
recommended to other member States the good practice of Finland
in securing to national non-governmental organisations the right
to submit collective complaints. In Resolution 1769 (2010) on strengthening measures to protect and revive highly endangered
languages, the Assembly commends
Finland for officially recognising the status of the Karelian minority
language. Finally, in Resolution
1702 (2010) on action against trafficking in human beings: promoting the
Council of Europe convention, the Assembly
urges a number of member States, including Finland, to ratify the
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human
Beings (CETS No. 197), which it signed in 2006.
the Assembly calls
on the Council of Europe member States which have signed the convention,
including Finland, to take prompt measures, if necessary relying
on the advice and expertise provided by the Council of Europe, to
adapt their national legislation to the convention and accelerate the
ratification process. In Resolution
1823 (2011) on national parliaments: guarantors of human rights
in Europe, with respect to the execution of judgments of the European
Court of Human Rights, the Assembly points to positive examples
in several member States, including Finland, which have set up parliamentary structures
to monitor the implementation of the Court’s judgments. In Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights, the Assembly
recommended to other member States the good practice of Finland
in securing to national non-governmental organisations the right
to submit collective complaints. In Resolution 1769 (2010) on strengthening measures to protect and revive highly endangered
languages, the Assembly commends
Finland for officially recognising the status of the Karelian minority
language. Finally, in Resolution
1702 (2010) on action against trafficking in human beings: promoting the
Council of Europe convention, the Assembly
urges a number of member States, including Finland, to ratify the
Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human
Beings (CETS No. 197), which it signed in 2006.159. Furthermore, Finland has not yet ratified the Council of Europe
Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the
Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (revised),
which it signed on 16 December 2005.
2.5.10. France
160. With regard to France, the
first monitoring report on the implementation of the European Charter
on Local Self-Government, since its ratification by France in 2007,
is being prepared by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities.
Two fact-finding visits took place in December 2010 and March 2011.
161. In April 2011, GRECO adopted the compliance report assessing
the measures taken by the French authorities to implement the 17
recommendations in the third round evaluation report on France.
GRECO concluded that France had implemented satisfactorily only
three of the 17 recommendations. In the case of incriminations,
France had made some progress in terms of greater consistency between
the various provisions on corruption in the private sector and with
the proper enforcement of penalties for bribery and trading in influence.
GRECO recognised the efforts made to clarify the material elements
of corruption offences, for example as part of the continuing training
of officials and judges, but noted that more progress might be achieved
as a result of current or announced draft legislation. However,
GRECO strongly regretted that other recommendations, concerning
in particular trading in influence, limitation periods and rules governing
jurisdiction, had not been given sufficient attention.
162. Turning to the transparency of party funding, GRECO welcomed
the fact that there appeared to be a political consensus in France
on numerous points in the evaluation report, and a number of practical
proposals, partly in the form of draft legislation, that would respond
at least partially to the requirements of the recommendations concerned
had been submitted. Nevertheless, GRECO strongly regretted that
the authorities appeared not to share certain concerns in the evaluation
report that had given rise to a number of recommendations. These
included such matters as taking account of the activities of third
parties, the transparency of political parties' financial information
in election campaigns, the role of party agents and the rules governing
party members' and elected representatives' subscriptions. GRECO
invited the authorities to review their position on these issues
and to make every effort to satisfy the recommendations that had
not yet been implemented. The progress on the fulfilment of the
outstanding recommendations will be reviewed not later than October
2012.
163. The Commissioner for Human Rights, in May 2010, following
a visit to Calais, called on the French authorities to ensure the
effective respect of the rights of migrants, and in particular their
right to dignity. The situation prevailing in Calais was difficult
and the Commissioner noted the efforts made by the authorities. Nevertheless,
the problems were not resolved and remained worrisome. The Commissioner
was particularly concerned about the situation of unaccompanied
foreign minors. At the same time, he welcomed the establishment
in Calais of an office intended to receive asylum requests and underlined
the commitment of the then Minister Besson to keep it open.
164. In September 2010, the Commissioner published a letter sent
to the French Minister for Immigration, Integration, National Identity
and Development Solidarity, stressing the need for reform not only
as far as the reception of migrants and asylum was concerned, but
also with particular regard to detention and returns. Even if efforts
had been made to open up accommodation centres to all asylum seekers,
in practice, asylum seekers continued to be housed in shameful and
insecure conditions. The recourse to “accelerated” procedures in
an ever-growing number of cases was worrying. Furthermore, detention
was resorted to all too frequently. The Commissioner called on France
to find alternatives to this deprivation of liberty, especially
for families with children.
165. In December 2010, the Commissioner expressed his concern over
the repeated cases of vandalism in Jewish and Muslim cemeteries
in France. The Commissioner emphasised that States had an obligation
to protect all religious buildings from any damage or destruction.
If damage occurs, States must make every effort to investigate properly
and to prosecute and punish those responsible. As cases of desecration
and attacks on places of worship were escalating in France, and
particularly in Alsace, the Commissioner recommended the adoption
of effective measures. Better co-ordination of all the public actors
concerned would enable prevention to be improved. It was also important
to ensure the quality and reliability of data collected about racist
or xenophobic offences, from their detection to judicial decisions.
166. In April 2012, the CPT published its visit report on France.
The CPT noted a number of positive developments. Legal reforms had
been adopted or initiated in several fields of considerable interest
to the CPT (for example, police custody, prison matters and psychiatric
care). However, some of the CPT’s long-standing concerns had only
been partly met by the action taken by the French authorities. During
the 2010 visit, the CPT's delegation heard some allegations of excessive
use of force by police officers at the time of apprehension and
of blows inflicted shortly after apprehension. In its report, the
CPT recommended that a message of “zero tolerance of ill-treatment”
be delivered regularly to officers of the national police service
and that legal safeguards against ill-treatment be further reinforced.
It also made a number of recommendations for improving conditions
of detention in police and gendarmerie cells as well as in administrative
holding centres for foreign nationals.
167. In March 2012, a delegation of GRETA carried out a country
visit in France in the context of the first round of evaluation
of the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action
against Trafficking in Human Beings (2010-13), which was ratified
by France in 2008. A report on the implementation of the convention
by France and suggestions for further action are under preparation.
168. In June 2010, ECRI published a report on France. While there
had been improvements in certain areas, in particular with regard
to the strengthening of the legal framework to combat discrimination,
some issues still gave rise for concern, such as minorities’ perception
of the police, prejudice against Muslims and the tone of the immigration
debate. In its report, ECRI made a number of recommendations, among
which the following three would be revisited in two years’ time:
support and regular consultation of the High Authority against Discrimination
and for Equality (HALDE) and taking into account its opinions and
recommendations; combating racist expression on the Internet, in
particular through a campaign informing the general public that
it is possible to report content inciting racial hatred; ensuring
the ongoing schooling of itinerant or semi-itinerant Traveller children,
adapted to their lifestyle and in consultation with the Traveller
community.
169. The Assembly has also adopted a number of texts referring
directly to France. In particular, in Resolution 1861 (2012) on promoting the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the Assembly called
on the Council of Europe member States which have signed the convention,
including France, to take prompt measures, if necessary relying
on the advice and expertise provided by the Council of Europe, to
adapt their national legislation to the convention and accelerate the
ratification process. In Recommendation
1985 (2011) on undocumented migrant children in an irregular situation:
a real cause for concern, the Assembly recommended
that the Committee of Ministers invite its relevant intergovernmental
committees to provide guidelines to member States on minimum health-care requirements
which need to be made available to undocumented migrant children,
taking into account the recent decision of the European Committee
on Social Rights with respect to the Collective Complaint FIDH v. France.
In Resolution 1713 (2010) on minority protection in Europe: best practices and
deficiencies in implementation of common standards, the Assembly called on
the member States, including France, that have neither signed nor
ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities to do so without delay, and strongly deplored that only
17 Council of Europe member States had ratified Protocol No. 12
to the European Convention on Human Rights. Significantly, France
is one of two member States which has not signed either the Framework
Convention or Protocol No. 12.
the Assembly called
on the Council of Europe member States which have signed the convention,
including France, to take prompt measures, if necessary relying
on the advice and expertise provided by the Council of Europe, to
adapt their national legislation to the convention and accelerate the
ratification process. In Recommendation
1985 (2011) on undocumented migrant children in an irregular situation:
a real cause for concern, the Assembly recommended
that the Committee of Ministers invite its relevant intergovernmental
committees to provide guidelines to member States on minimum health-care requirements
which need to be made available to undocumented migrant children,
taking into account the recent decision of the European Committee
on Social Rights with respect to the Collective Complaint FIDH v. France.
In Resolution 1713 (2010) on minority protection in Europe: best practices and
deficiencies in implementation of common standards, the Assembly called on
the member States, including France, that have neither signed nor
ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities to do so without delay, and strongly deplored that only
17 Council of Europe member States had ratified Protocol No. 12
to the European Convention on Human Rights. Significantly, France
is one of two member States which has not signed either the Framework
Convention or Protocol No. 12.170. Apart from the legal instruments mentioned above, France has
not signed and/or ratified the following major Council of Europe
legal instruments: the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering,
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and
on the Financing of Terrorism (revised): signed in 2011 but not
ratified; and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages:
signed in 1999 but not ratified.
2.5.11. Germany
171. With regard to Germany, the
last monitoring report on the implementation of the European Charter
on Local Self-Government was presented by the Congress of Local
and Regional Authorities in March 2012. Recommendation 320 (2012) on local democracy in Germany was adopted following
the debate on the report. The Congress noted with satisfaction that
Germany recognised, both in its federal and regional (Länder) constitutions, the right
to self-government of municipalities, setting a high standard for
the protection of local authorities, and that Germany had made considerable
progress in accepting and complying with the recommendations adopted
by the Congress after its monitoring of local government finances
in 1999. At the same time, it expressed some concern that, although
the financial situation of local authorities, already evaluated
as “critical” in 1999, had seen some improvement due to a positive
tax yield at local level, the situation of local authorities remained
a matter for concern due to the rise in social welfare spending,
structural deficits in the financing of local authorities and an
increasing imbalance between them. As a result, the Congress urged
the German authorities to introduce a number of measures concerning
local finances.
Recommendation 320 (2012) on local democracy in Germany was adopted following
the debate on the report. The Congress noted with satisfaction that
Germany recognised, both in its federal and regional (Länder) constitutions, the right
to self-government of municipalities, setting a high standard for
the protection of local authorities, and that Germany had made considerable
progress in accepting and complying with the recommendations adopted
by the Congress after its monitoring of local government finances
in 1999. At the same time, it expressed some concern that, although
the financial situation of local authorities, already evaluated
as “critical” in 1999, had seen some improvement due to a positive
tax yield at local level, the situation of local authorities remained
a matter for concern due to the rise in social welfare spending,
structural deficits in the financing of local authorities and an
increasing imbalance between them. As a result, the Congress urged
the German authorities to introduce a number of measures concerning
local finances.172. In December 2009, GRECO published its third round evaluation
report on Germany, focusing on two distinct themes: criminalisation
of corruption and transparency of party funding. It was followed,
in December 2011, by a compliance report, assessing the measures
taken by the authorities to implement the 20 recommendations contained
therein. The compliance report noted the very low level of compliance;
only four recommendations were dealt with satisfactorily. In particular,
it was regrettable that, during the last legislature, the federal
parliament had not managed to adopt the draft act on revision of
the anti-corruption provisions. This draft law was presented in
2007 and would have enabled Germany to ratify the Criminal Law Convention
on Corruption and its additional protocol, as well as the United
Nations Convention against Corruption. A particular source of concern
was the fact that certain categories of persons were only subject
to limited anti-corruption provisions. This could generate the impression
within the wider public that parts of German society are not subject
to the same rules as the rest of the population, when it came to
the preservation of integrity in social, political and business
relations. GRECO urged Germany to complement the existing legal
anti-corruption provisions with a view to broadening the incrimination
of active and passive bribery of parliamentarians, foreign public
officials and persons employed at international level. It also called
on the German authorities to broaden the incrimination of bribery
in the private sector, criminalise trading in influence and harmonise
and extend the rules on the jurisdiction of Germany for corruption
offences.
173. As far as the transparency of political funding is concerned,
GRECO regretted that many shortcomings, as presented in the evaluation
report, had only received very limited attention. It was a matter
of great concern that no measures had been initiated in order to
address recommendations on issues of prime importance, such as introducing
a system for the timely publication of election campaign accounts
and enhancing the transparency of direct donations to parliamentarians
and election candidates who are members of political parties. Moreover,
the resources of the monitoring mechanism needed to be further strengthened.
GRECO urged the authorities to pursue the discussions initiated
on the subject of transparency of political financing and to take
appropriate action in line with the recommendations. The next progress
report will be presented no later than June 2012.
174. In February 2012, the CPT published its visit report on Germany.
The CPT had heard no allegations of recent ill-treatment during
custody in police establishments. However, a few allegations were
received from detained persons (including juveniles) that they had
been subjected to excessive use of force by police officers at the
time of apprehension. The conditions of detention in units for immigration
detainees in prisons were of some concern. The CPT received several
allegations of inter-prisoner violence (beatings, threats and extortion),
mainly from juveniles. However, the CPT noted that efforts were
being made to counter this phenomenon and invited the authorities
to remain vigilant in this regard. The CPT also criticised the fact
that prisoners, including juveniles, were occasionally subjected
to means of physical restraint (Fixierung)
for prolonged periods, and reiterated the safeguards that should
surround any application of Fixierung in
the context of prisons. The CPT report also noted that surgical
castration is applied in a few German Länder in
rare, isolated cases. The CPT made clear its fundamental objections
to the use of surgical castration as a means of treatment of sexual
offenders and recommended that it be discontinued. In their response,
the German authorities stated that they are currently reviewing
the matter.
175. In May 2010, the Advisory Committee of the Council of Europe
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities adopted
it third cycle opinion on the implementation of the convention by
Germany; it was followed by a Committee of Ministers resolution
(CM/ResCMN(2011)10), adopted in June 2011. According to the opinion,
the German authorities had continued to support the development
of the languages and cultures of persons belonging to national minorities.
A range of mechanisms enabled minorities to participate in the decision-making
process on issues of relevance to them. The legal framework for
the protection of minority cultures and languages was well developed.
However, further action was needed to create an environment more
likely to encourage the use of minority languages in daily life.
The Advisory Committee called on the German authorities to adopt
targeted measures to prevent the spread of prejudice and racist
language through certain media, on the Internet and in sports stadiums.
It also requested the adoption of specific legislation punishing
racist motivation as an aggravating factor of any offence.
176. In December 2010, the fourth cycle report on the application
of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in Germany
was published. It was followed by the Committee of Ministers recommendation (CM/RecChL(2011)2),
adopted in May 2011. On the basis of this report, the Council of
Europe called on Germany to adopt specific legislation to ensure
that the charter was actually implemented in practice. Urgent measures
were needed to promote and preserve North Frisian, Sater Frisian
and Lower Sorbian, which were deemed to be particularly endangered
languages, and in particular to ensure that primary and secondary education
was systematically available in these languages. Measures were also
needed to ensure that radio and television broadcasting was available
in these languages, as well as in Danish, Low German and Romani. Germany
was also encouraged to take measures to ensure that the provision
of education in Danish and Upper Sorbian was not jeopardised by
reductions in subsidies for Danish-language private schools or changes
in the educational system concerning the Upper Sorbian language.
More teaching hours should be devoted to Low German, and it should
be taught as a regular school subject and as an integral part of
the curriculum in the Länder concerned.
In general, Germany was encouraged to ensure that an effective mechanism
exists to monitor education in the regional or minority languages.
Finally, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe called
on Germany to take resolute action to make it possible to use regional
or minority languages in dealings with the administration and in
courts.
177. The Assembly has also adopted a number of texts referring
directly to Germany. In particular, in Resolution 1861 (2012) on promoting the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, the Assembly called
on the Council of Europe member States which had signed the convention,
including Germany, to take prompt measures, if necessary relying
on the advice and expertise provided by the Council of Europe, to
adapt their national legislation to the convention and accelerate
the ratification process. In Recommendation
1976 (2011) on the role of parliaments in the consolidation and
development of social rights in Europe, and in Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights, the Assembly called on the four
countries, including Germany, which had not yet ratified the Additional
Protocol to the European Social Charter (ETS No. 128) to do so as
soon as possible. In Resolution
1823 (2011) on national parliaments: guarantors of human rights
in Europe, with respect to the implementation of judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly pointed to positive
examples in several member States, including Germany, which have
set up parliamentary structures to monitor the implementation of
the Court’s judgments.
the Assembly called
on the Council of Europe member States which had signed the convention,
including Germany, to take prompt measures, if necessary relying
on the advice and expertise provided by the Council of Europe, to
adapt their national legislation to the convention and accelerate
the ratification process. In Recommendation
1976 (2011) on the role of parliaments in the consolidation and
development of social rights in Europe, and in Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights, the Assembly called on the four
countries, including Germany, which had not yet ratified the Additional
Protocol to the European Social Charter (ETS No. 128) to do so as
soon as possible. In Resolution
1823 (2011) on national parliaments: guarantors of human rights
in Europe, with respect to the implementation of judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly pointed to positive
examples in several member States, including Germany, which have
set up parliamentary structures to monitor the implementation of
the Court’s judgments.178. In Resolution 1769
(2010) on strengthening measures to protect and revive highly
endangered languages, Germany is presented
as an example to follow in its application of the European Charter
for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Low German; similarly,
in Resolution 1703 (2010) on judicial corruption, the Assembly invites
all Council of Europe member States to undertake – as in Germany
– an in-depth study of the level of corruption in their judicial
systems and to take preventive and remedial measures at the first
sign of danger. In its Resolution
1702 (2010) on action against trafficking in human beings: promoting the
Council of Europe convention, the Assembly
urges six countries, including Germany, to sign and ratify the Council
of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Germany is presented
as an example to follow in its application of the European Charter
for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Low German; similarly,
in Resolution 1703 (2010) on judicial corruption, the Assembly invites
all Council of Europe member States to undertake – as in Germany
– an in-depth study of the level of corruption in their judicial
systems and to take preventive and remedial measures at the first
sign of danger. In its Resolution
1702 (2010) on action against trafficking in human beings: promoting the
Council of Europe convention, the Assembly
urges six countries, including Germany, to sign and ratify the Council
of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.179. Germany has not signed and/or ratified a number of important
Council of Europe instruments, including the Civil Law Convention
on Corruption: signed in 1999 but not ratified; the Criminal Law
Convention on Corruption: signed in 1999 but not ratified, the additional
protocol signed in 2003 but not ratified; the Council of Europe
Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings: signed
in 2005 but not ratified; the European Social Charter (revised):
signed in 2007 but not ratified; the Additional Protocol to the
European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints:
which has been neither signed nor ratified; and Protocol No. 12
to the European Convention on Human Rights: signed in 2000 but not
ratified.
3. Some thoughts in the light of the 15th anniversary of monitoring
180. During the reporting period,
in January 2012, the Monitoring Committee celebrated the 15th anniversary of
its establishment. Even if no official ceremony took place, I wish
to use this opportunity to continue the process of reflection on
our mission and action launched by my predecessor last year.
181. Before I share some views on the working methods, efficiency
and impact of the monitoring procedure, I would like to raise the
essential question of consistency in our work and the need to ensure
that we apply the same standards to all member States. We have heard
comments made by some Assembly members in public about double standards
and unequal treatment of different countries, depending on whether
they are “old” or “new” democracies, members or non-members of the
European Union, “big” or “small” countries. I strongly believe that
we should not try to avoid addressing these concerns; on the contrary,
we should try to address them in an open and frank debate.
182. At its outset, the monitoring procedure was designed as a
tool to assist the countries undergoing transition to accomplish
their democratic transition. Given the length of the legislative
processes, it was also aimed at allowing the countries committed
to democratic principles to join the Organisation even before the democratic
process had been accomplished. In Order 488 (1993), establishing the monitoring procedure, the Assembly
instructed the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on
Legal Affairs and Human Rights “to monitor closely the honouring
of commitments entered into by the authorities of new member States
and to report to the Bureau at regular six-monthly intervals until
all undertakings have been honoured”.
183. However, soon afterwards, in 1995, Order 488 (1993) was replaced by Order
508 (1993) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by member
States of the Council of Europe. At the same time, in Resolution 1031 (1994), the Assembly defined the scope of the obligations which
were specified “under the Statute, the European Convention on Human
Rights and all other conventions to which they [the members] are parties”. Resolution 1115 (1997) on the establishment of the Monitoring Committee clearly
confirmed the Assembly’s responsibility for “verifying the fulfilment
of obligations assumed by member States under the terms of the Statute
of the Council of Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights
and all other Council of Europe conventions to which they are parties,
as well as the honouring of commitments entered into by the authorities
of member States upon accession to the Council of Europe”.
184. The procedure for a motion initiating a monitoring procedure
is clearly spelled out in Resolution
1431 (2005), as modified by Resolution
1827 (2011): any Assembly committee or 20 members of the Assembly
or the Bureau may be at the origin of such a motion. In 2005, the
rules governing the opening or reopening of the monitoring procedure
were amended with a view to strengthening the committee’s role in
taking the decision and allowing for an Assembly debate in case
of diverging opinions between the Monitoring Committee and the Bureau.
The new rules ensure that the Bureau cannot block the committee’s
wish to open or reopen
a procedure. In case of diverging opinions between our committee
and the Bureau as to whether a monitoring procedure should be opened,
a debate is to be held before the Assembly: as a result, the Assembly
can now exercise its prerogatives to the full in what is a highly
sensitive political area.
to open or reopen
a procedure. In case of diverging opinions between our committee
and the Bureau as to whether a monitoring procedure should be opened,
a debate is to be held before the Assembly: as a result, the Assembly
can now exercise its prerogatives to the full in what is a highly
sensitive political area.185. Thus, there is no doubt that the monitoring procedure is common
to all member States, irrespective of their “seniority” as members
of the Organisation. This has been clearly demonstrated by several
attempts to open monitoring procedures – in respect of Latvia in
1997, Austria in 2000, Liechtenstein in 2003, the United Kingdom
in 2006, Italy in 2006, and Hungary in 2011. So far, only the first
attempt (in respect of Latvia) was successful; the last motion (in
respect of Hungary) is still being examined.
186. Another important issue is the question of the criteria for
the closing of the monitoring procedure or the post-monitoring dialogue,
introduced in 2000. Until now, the monitoring procedures stricto sensu were closed with regard
to the Czech Republic (1997), Lithuania (1997), the Slovak Republic
(1999), Croatia (2000), Bulgaria (2000), “the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia” (2000), Latvia (2001), Turkey (2004) and Monaco (2009). The post-monitoring dialogue was concluded
with Estonia (2001), Romania (2002), Lithuania (2002), Croatia (2003),
the Czech Republic (2004), the Slovak Republic (2006) and Latvia
(2006).
The post-monitoring dialogue was concluded
with Estonia (2001), Romania (2002), Lithuania (2002), Croatia (2003),
the Czech Republic (2004), the Slovak Republic (2006) and Latvia
(2006).187. The decision to close the monitoring procedure or post-monitoring
dialogue is ultimately taken by the Assembly. In practice, the initiative
comes from the committee, and more precisely from the co-rapporteurs,
or rapporteur in the case of the post-monitoring dialogue. It has
never happened so far that the (co-)rapporteurs’ proposal to close
the procedure has been rejected by the committee or by the Assembly.
There is an evident logic behind it: the (co-)rapporteurs are best
placed to assess the situation in the country concerned, they closely
follow developments and maintain political dialogue with the authorities.
At the same time, however, they are confronted with a heavy responsibility
and are put under a lot of pressure. Therefore, I think that a recapitulation
of the criteria for closing the procedure, which would apply to
all member States under monitoring, would contribute to the transparency
of the whole process and would ward off premature requests for closure.
188. It is not the first time this question has been raised. One
of my predecessors launched the discussion on this issue in the
progress report in 2006. At that time, however, he limited
himself to some general reflections, and no further follow-up was
given to his proposals. What I suggest is that we discuss, in the
Monitoring Committee, the list of criteria which, irrespective of
commitments entered into upon accession, might constitute a reference
allowing for the consideration of the closure of the monitoring
and post-monitoring procedure within the committee before submitting
its decision to the Assembly. We could envisage the preparation
of such a list, a sort of a checklist, which would by no means be
exhaustive, under my responsibility.
At that time, however, he limited
himself to some general reflections, and no further follow-up was
given to his proposals. What I suggest is that we discuss, in the
Monitoring Committee, the list of criteria which, irrespective of
commitments entered into upon accession, might constitute a reference
allowing for the consideration of the closure of the monitoring
and post-monitoring procedure within the committee before submitting
its decision to the Assembly. We could envisage the preparation
of such a list, a sort of a checklist, which would by no means be
exhaustive, under my responsibility.189. There is no question of “inventing” or adding new principles.
It is a proposal to consolidate, to put together, on the basis of
our experience, and recall the standards, which have already been
adopted by the Assembly and are contained in the Statute of the
Council of Europe, basic conventions and Assembly resolutions, and
translate them into concrete criteria. Such a reference paper would
help to ensure that all countries are treated in the same way and
that there are no double standards. I hope that the committee will give
consideration to this proposal and charge me with the task of preparing
the list for further discussion.
190. As mentioned above, 10 States are at present subject to the
monitoring procedure: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia
and Ukraine. Four States are subject to post-monitoring dialogue:
Bulgaria, Monaco, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and
Turkey. In many of them we have been able to observe the positive impact
of the monitoring procedure on democratic progress. In the last
progress report, my predecessor gave a detailed account of our “success
stories” over the years so I will not return to this question.
191. At the same time, we are confronted with a situation in which
a number of countries do not seem to advance in any meaningful way
in terms of the fulfilment of their obligations and commitments.
The problem is amplified by the fact that ongoing political crises
in these countries, and the need for quick responses, make it difficult
if not impossible for the Assembly to proceed with an overall assessment
of progress as regards the fulfilment of their obligations and commitments.
This reflection brings me to another question: the efficiency of our
procedure.
192. I will not repeat the comments on the working methods of the
committee, made by my predecessor in the progress report prepared
last year, but I strongly believe that they
deserve in-depth consideration and I intend to devote some time
in the near future to discussing them in the committee. Here, I
would like to raise only two questions, which were not raised last
year and could be also considered during our future discussion on
the working methods and impact of our action: the frequency of the
presentation of monitoring reports and the duration of (co)rapporteurs’
terms of reference.
but I strongly believe that they
deserve in-depth consideration and I intend to devote some time
in the near future to discussing them in the committee. Here, I
would like to raise only two questions, which were not raised last
year and could be also considered during our future discussion on
the working methods and impact of our action: the frequency of the
presentation of monitoring reports and the duration of (co)rapporteurs’
terms of reference.193. Both questions were tackled by Resolution 1710 (2010) on the term of office of co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring
Committee, adopted by the Standing Committee two years ago. On that
occasion, the (co-) rapporteurs’ term of office was limited to five
years (before there was no limit to the duration). As a result,
a majority of rapporteurs, some of them long-standing, had to be
replaced. This has certainly had a positive effect, allowing for
greater involvement of members in the committee work, improving
the participation of women, and broadening the spectrum of new ideas
and approaches.
194. The principle of terms of reference limited in duration is
certainly good and justified. However, given the complex situation
in many countries under the monitoring procedure, five years may
be too short to prepare at least two reports on one country. Past
experience shows that a political crisis, like the one in Bosnia
and Herzegovina or in the Republic of Moldova, may prevent co-rapporteurs
from preparing a report for almost half of the duration of their
terms of reference. In my view, seven years would be an optimal
period for the term of office of (co)rapporteurs.
195. Similarly, I believe that the deadline of two years for the
preparation of a report on monitoring (four years for post-monitoring)
is sometimes difficult to respect and this has been fully confirmed
by past experience. Furthermore, the wish to comply with the rules
incites some (co-)rapporteurs to propose reports under urgent procedure.
This is fully justified in the majority of cases, but sometimes
a full report would be more appropriate. In my view, however, an
effort should be made by all those concerned to respect a two-year
interval.
196. Last but not least, I would like to refer to our periodic
reports relating to countries which are neither under monitoring
procedure nor post-monitoring dialogue. You will have noticed that,
in the present report, I have introduced a completely different
presentation, which of course required a modified methodology for
its preparation. Instead of a lengthy appendix reproducing findings
of other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, I have opted for
a more analytical approach: I have pointed to concerns and tried
to assess progress in the fulfilment of recommendations made by
Council of Europe mechanisms, somewhat along the lines that we use
for countries under monitoring stricto
sensu.
197. I encountered, however, some methodological difficulties.
Each monitoring mechanism has its own monitoring cycle, which does
not correspond to our cycle foreseen for periodic reports. This
makes it impossible to give a balanced overview of all countries,
and assess the real progress. Furthermore, our practice of dividing
33 countries from this category into three sub-groups, contributes
to further confusion. Finally, while I am convinced that the inclusion
of the periodic report into the body of the progress report in the
form of a more analytical text constitutes a better solution than
an appendix, I have to admit that there is considerable room for
further improvement.
198. The major problem of the current presentation is that it is
not sufficiently balanced. It may even give the impression that
the concerns in the countries which are not under parliamentary
monitoring procedure outweigh the concerns in those which are. This
can be easily explained by the fact that the part concerning the 14
countries under monitoring or post-monitoring dialogue refers to
the Assembly’s or our committee’s documents and does not need to
be extensively developed. But still I think that we should be more
balanced.
199. Taking all the above considerations into account, I suggest
that, next year, the progress report be divided into two distinct
parts: one on the progress of the monitoring procedure with respect
to the countries which fall under the parliamentary monitoring procedure
or post-monitoring dialogue. And a second part, which would be devoted
to an analytical presentation of the findings of the monitoring
mechanisms of the Council of Europe with respect to all 33 countries
covered by periodic reports.
200. Let me briefly explain the logic behind this proposal: at
present, each convention monitoring mechanism has its own cycle
of assessment which does not necessarily correspond to our division
into three sub-groups. As a result, there is no consistency in the
presentation of conclusions and, moreover, some reports of the monitoring
mechanisms are as much as three years old. This is unavoidable if
we maintain our three-year cycle.
201. Including all 33 countries in a yearly report would not mean
that each of them is submitted to a more frequent reporting than
countries under the monitoring stricto
sensu on which we prepare reports every two years, because
we will still refer only to those findings of convention monitoring
mechanisms which have been published during the reporting period.
In practice, the findings on each particular country will be presented
with the same frequency as before and they will all be up to date.
202. Furthermore, the methodology for the analysis would have to
be further developed, and we should also include any concerns which
might arise, even if they have not been identified by other monitoring
mechanisms. This would be done on the understanding that the rapporteur
will use available information sources, but there would be no fact-finding
visits.
203. This means there would be no possibility of closely following
developments in each country of this category and maintaining political
dialogue by means of information visits. But there is no need for
that. The objective of periodic reports would not be to conduct
a monitoring procedure stricto sensu. Nor
would it be a substitute for the procedure relating to the (re)opening
of the monitoring procedure foreseen in the rules. The justification
for these newly designed periodic reports would be to ensure equal
treatment for all Council of Europe member States which are obliged
to fulfil the obligations associated with Council of Europe membership,
irrespective of whether they are under a monitoring procedure stricto sensu or subject to a post-monitoring
dialogue.
204. I trust that the committee can accede to this proposal, and
that the Assembly approves it, and I stand ready, as chair of the
committee, to implement this new concept as from the next year.
Next year, we may come back to our discussion, assess the added
value of this new form of periodic reporting and decide whether
we shall continue in the same way in the future.
205. In conclusion, I wish to stress that the added value of the
Assembly’s monitoring process, as compared to convention mechanisms
within and outside the Council of Europe, remains unquestionable.
Its essential feature is its political nature and weight. It also
benefits from direct relations between the Assembly as a whole and
its members, who at the same time are members of national parliaments
– both from governing majorities and opposition – and, as a logical
consequence, from the influence that the Assembly can exert directly
on the legislatures of the countries under monitoring. It is a peer-to-peer
monitoring mechanism, and this specific feature offers precious
opportunities. We should take full advantage of them.
Appendix 1 – Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the first group of 11 member States
(open)(situation on 23 May 2012)
|
CoE member States not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue |
Total number of CoE conventions ratified or signed (out of 211) |
DEMOCRACY |
RULE OF LAW |
HUMAN RIGHTS |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ECLS-G |
Convention on Corruption |
Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (1990 or rev) |
ECHR |
Protocols to the ECHR |
ECPT |
Social rights |
Minority rights |
||||||||
|
Civil law |
Criminal Law |
6 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
ESC |
Protocol to the ESC on collective complaints |
FCNM |
ECRML |
||||||
|
Andorra |
42 R 3 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R rev |
– |
– |
– |
|
Austria |
105 R 32 S |
R |
R |
S |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 & rev |
S |
R |
R |
|
Belgium |
128 R 34 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
S |
– |
|
Croatia |
90 R 5 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
|
Cyprus |
123 R 24 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
R |
|
Czech Republic |
100 R 12 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
|
Denmark |
133 R 16 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
S |
R |
R |
|
Estonia |
83 R 11 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R rev |
– |
R |
– |
|
Finland |
107 R 15 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
R |
|
France |
131 R 37 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
– |
S |
|
Germany |
120 R 48 S |
R |
S |
S |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
Appendix 2 – Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the second group of 11 member States
(open)(situation on 23 May 2012)
|
CoE member States not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue |
Total number of CoE conventions ratified or signed (out of 211) |
DEMOCRACY |
RULE OF LAW |
HUMAN RIGHTS |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ECLS-G |
Convention on Corruption |
Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (1990 or rev) |
ECHR |
Protocols to the ECHR |
ECPT |
Social rights |
Minority rights |
||||||||
|
Civil law |
Criminal Law |
6 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
ESC |
Protocol to the ESC on collective complaints |
FCNM |
ECRML |
||||||
|
Greece |
94 R 57 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
R |
S |
– |
|
Hungary |
79 R 18 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
S |
R |
R |
|
Iceland |
82 R 37 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
S |
S |
|
Ireland |
99 R 18 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
– |
|
Italy |
122 R 43 S |
R |
S |
S |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
S |
|
Latvia |
91 R 6 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
– |
|
Liechtenstein |
79 R 10 S |
R |
– |
S |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 – rev |
– |
R |
R |
|
Lituania |
88 R 14 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R rev |
– |
R |
– |
|
Luxembourg |
127 R 51 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
S |
R |
|
Malta |
82 R 21 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
– |
R |
S |
|
Netherlands |
145 R 18 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
R |
Appendix 3 – Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the third group of 11 member States
(open)(situation on 23 May 2012)
|
CoE member States not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue |
Total number of CoE conventions ratified or signed (out of 211) |
DEMOCRACY |
RULE OF LAW |
HUMAN RIGHTS |
|||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ECLS-G |
Convention on Corruption |
Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (1990 or rev) |
ECHR |
Protocols to the ECHR |
ECPT |
Social rights |
Minority rights |
||||||||
|
Civil law |
Criminal Law |
6 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
ESC |
Protocol to the ESC on collective complaints |
FCNM |
ECRML |
||||||
|
Norway |
142 R 13 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
R |
|
Poland |
86 R 16 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
S |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
|
Portugal |
109 R 42 S |
R |
– |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
– |
|
Romania |
102 R 11 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 R rev |
– |
R |
R |
|
San Marino |
45 R 12 S |
– |
– |
S |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
S rev |
– |
R |
– |
|
Slovak Republic |
96 R 7 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
S |
R |
R |
|
Slovenia |
103 R 15 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 R rev |
S |
R |
R |
|
Spain |
121 R 9 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
|
Sweden |
134 R 17 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 & rev |
R |
R |
R |
|
Switzerland |
111 R 14 S |
R |
– |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 – rev |
– |
R |
R |
|
United Kingdom |
117 R 20 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
Table of abbreviations
R: ratified
S: signed but not yet ratified
-: neither signed nor ratified
ECHR: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
ECPT: European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
ESC: European Social Charter (1961 or revised)
FCNM: Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
ECRML: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
ECLS-G: European Charter of Local Self-Government