AS (2013) CR 04

2013 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fourth sitting

Tuesday 22 January 2013 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

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

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

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

(Mr Gardetto, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.35 p.m.)

THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. The activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)

THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business is a debate on the report entitled “The activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development”, Document 13089, to be presented by Mr Tuur Elzinga on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. After we have heard the rapporteur, we will have the pleasure of hearing a statement by Mr Hans Peter Lankes, Vice-President of the EBRD.

      I call Mr Elzinga, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – It has been a while since we discussed the EBRD in this Assembly. The report covers three years: 2010, 2011 and 2012. Since three years of activity is a lot to cover, the report focuses on the main findings and especially on a political assessment of the work of the Bank. I am glad that after such a long time, so many members of the Assembly are again interested in the work of the Bank. I will try to keep my presentation sufficiently short to allow time for me to respond to any questions colleagues may have. I hope you will also put some questions directly to Mr Hans Peter Lankes, vice-president of the EBRD, who will address you after my presentation. We are glad that Mr Lankes is here on behalf of the EBRD, as it allows for a direct interaction between the political management of the Bank and Assembly members.

We last debated the work of the EBRD in autumn 2010. A lot has happened since then. The financial crisis is still far from over, and the Bank’s activities have been heavily influenced by the crisis. The EBRD has significantly scaled up its operations to support crisis response and recovery in the countries where it operates. After the scale of the financial crisis became clear, the member States decided to raise the total paid in callable capital by 50%, and as of 2011 the Bank’s available capital is €30 billion, instead of €20 billion. The annual investment of the Bank did not rise so much, but available co-financing almost doubled between 2009 and 2011, increasing the multiplier effect on private external donor financing from €1.3 per invested euro in 2009 to €2.3 in 2011.

The Bank also enlarged its geographical mandate in 2011 to include the SEMED – the southern and eastern Mediterranean – countries of Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, following the Arab Spring and a call for that from the Deauville partnership.

In an unprecedented election process last May between five candidates, after a number of rounds of voting, the bank’s shareholders elected a new president, Sir Suma Chakrabarti from the United Kingdom. Last but not least, the Parliamentary Assembly decided to implement a reform following a report with the same title presented to us by Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, our current President. It was decided that a report on the activities of the EBRD and the OECD should be transferred from the former Committee on Economic Affairs and Development to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy. That has resulted in a greater focus on a political assessment of the work of the EBRD in this latest report. That Parliamentary Assembly reform is also the main reason for the long pause between the last report on the EBRD and the current report.

The committee intends to have biennial reports and debates on the activities of the EBRD and to exchange views with the Bank regularly. That will be one of the tasks of the newly constituted sub-committee on relations with OECD and the EBRD.

What are the main political developments in respect of the Bank, and what are the main findings of my report? The purpose of the EBRD is set out in Article 1 of the agreement establishing the EBRD, and the concepts underlying the Bank’s mandate are found in the preamble to the agreement. The preamble sets out that the contracting parties are committed to the fundamental principles of multi-party democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and market economics. Article 1 states: “In contributing to economic progress and reconstruction, the purpose of the Bank shall be to foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the Central and Eastern European countries committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.” As most central and eastern European countries are open, market-oriented economies, some of them integrated in the European Union internal market, and as almost all of them are committed to the fundamental principles of multi-party democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights as they are members of the Council of Europe, we might ask when the EBRD mission in central and eastern Europe will be accomplished.

Some eight countries were to graduate from being a recipient country to being a financing country by 2010, but only one, the Czech Republic, has succeeded so far. Because of the crisis, the deadline for graduation of the other Baltic and central European countries was postponed to 2015. Perhaps Mr Lankes can share with us when he expects these members to graduate. We could also ask whether countries can only graduate or whether they can also become recipient countries, and what the criteria would be. That first question would have to be answered positively, as Morocco and Egypt have been members since the bank’s inception and will soon become recipient countries; they are already receiving technical assistance. Why did the EBRD respond to the Deauville partnership’s call by extending the geographical mandate for operations to the SEMED region but not consider recipient status for some European Union member States with big needs? Graduation for some member countries is postponed because of the crisis. What might the EBRD do for Greece, for instance, since Greece is suffering not only an economic depression, but capital flight? The same might be asked about other countries.

The extension of the EBRD’s geographical mandate to the SEMED region also means the Bank had to change Articles 1 and 18 of the founding agreement. Ratification of these changes is still pending although the signs are positive. However, ratification is still awaited from Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Poland, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Members of parliament of some of those countries may be present for this debate, and they might assist their governments in this regard.

Finally, let me turn to the new document to describe EBRD procedures for implementing the political aspects of the mandate of the Bank. It relates directly to the already mentioned preamble to the agreement and Article 1. It is on the Bank’s agenda, and the Bank hopes to conclude discussion of the matter with the board within the next few months. The document should replace a similar document that was drafted at the establishment of the Bank in 1991. The current document refers to the Council of Europe as a particularly relevant reference point, in view of our expertise on human rights and the rule of law, and it also refers to the European Convention on Human Rights as a useful guideline.

The new document is especially to be welcomed as it describes more clearly and precisely human rights that are essential for the implementation of the political aspects of the Bank’s mandate. It describes the need for representative and accountable government, including fair, free and competitive elections, the separation of powers and effective checks and balances. It also describes civil society, the media and participation, including an independent pluralistic media that operates without censorship, as well as freedom to form political parties and the existence of organised opposition. It refers to the rule of law and access to justice, including the supremacy of the law and the independence of the judiciary. It also describes civil and political rights, including freedom of speech, information, religion, conscience, movement, association and assembly, and private property and freedom from harassment, intimidation and torture.

This is why the draft recommendation concludes with paragraph 11, looking forward to the effective implementation of these procedures and encouraging stronger co-operation and co-ordination between the Bank and the Council of Europe, especially the Parliamentary Assembly, in making and monitoring these assessments. A new sub-committee on relations with OECD and the EBRD can look forward to interesting meetings with the EBRD in this respect.

I thank the management and staff of the Bank for their co-operation, the staff of the Assembly, and in particular of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, for their support, and the members of the committee for the fruitful discussions we had and their approval of the report and unanimous adoption of the draft resolution. I look forward to hearing the statement of the EBRD vice-president and his answers to questions from me and other members.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you Mr Elzinga. You have three minutes remaining. I invite Mr Lankes, vice-president of the EBRD, to contribute to our proceedings. Mr Lankes, you are most welcome.

Mr LANKES (Vice-President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) – Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for this invitation. It is a real privilege for me to be here today. The relationship with the Council of Europe as a forum for parliamentary scrutiny, in particular the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee, is a very important one for the EBRD.

I congratulate the rapporteur, Tuur Elzinga, on his comprehensive report and his good presentation, parts of which I will have the privilege of repeating in what I say. I thank the members of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for their discussions with us over the past few months. Many of you were part of the delegation that visited us in London in September for detailed briefings on the Bank’s activities, to which I had the pleasure of contributing. On that occasion, the president of the EBRD, Sir Suma Chakrabarti, delivered an address on the Bank’s strategic vision and priorities. Today, I would like to update you on our preliminary results for 2012 and, given the particular interest of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in the political aspects of EBRD’s mandate, I will add a few words to what Mr Elzinga said on the review of our methodology. I look forward to our discussion after my brief opening remarks.

In 2012, EBRD’s operational performance continued at the strong level of recent years, actively supporting our countries of operations within a challenging and complex environment. In terms of business volume, EBRD signed new projects in 2012 for a total commitment of €8.9 billion. With that, we have maintained the level of the last few years, which represents almost double the annual business in the pre-crisis period. If you add the additional co-financing that these commitments have helped to mobilise, roughly €2 for every €1 that we have invested, this represents investment in the region of more than €25 billion.

Consistent with EBRD’s medium-term strategy, which was adopted by the board of governors in 2010, the Bank did the bulk of new business in countries where transition is less advanced—30% of the annual business volume in 2012 was in Russia and 17% each in south-eastern Europe and in the western Commonwealth of Independent States countries and the Caucasus. Annual business volume in Turkey, which has been a country of operations only since 2009, reached €1 billion last year.

In the last quarter of 2012, the Bank started operations in our new region, which we call the southern and eastern Mediterranean, or SEMED. So far this includes, as has been mentioned, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. However, as the political situation evolves, it may include more countries on the shores of the Mediterranean—for instance, initial contact has been made with Libya in that respect. Pending the ratification by all our members of the amendments to Article 1 of the agreement establishing the Bank, which we hope will be achieved very soon, the operations are funded by the SEMED investment special fund, which EBRD has financed out of its reserves and which, of course, is exhaustible. We have made six project commitments, all of them in the private sector, so far in these four potential countries of operation in the two months that we have been able to be active there, with a total value of €180 million.

The Bank also managed to make a healthy realised profit last year, estimated at around €1 billion, which will be used to maintain our lending programme and, very importantly, to secure the Bank’s AAA rating in these financially troubled times. That is also crucial for the Bank to enable its clients to participate in its favourable funding conditions.

It is important to add that the increased volumes of the last few years have been achieved alongside an increase in the total number of projects—393 individual projects last year, the highest number ever—and a decrease in their average size. That means that we are reaching more businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, even though these projects are riskier and more difficult to structure. A strong focus on quality has allowed an increase in the share of new stand-alone projects with what we call a transition impact rated as “good” or “excellent” to 92%.

The Bank has intensified its policy dialogue with the countries of operations. To support this effort and as part of the Bank’s modernisation and streamlining, a new vice-presidency was created starting this month, which I am currently leading. VP policy has been designed to be the focal point for the Bank’s country and sector strategies and the range of operational policy initiatives and products.

Finally, let me say a few words about the review of the Bank’s political methodology. As was mentioned, the Bank’s existing methodology for applying the political aspects of its mandate was approved in 1991. In 2011—20 years later—the board requested that management undertake a review, related to the expansion to the southern and eastern Mediterranean, but also in view of the need to update the methodology to take account of developments in the intervening years and the evolution of our understanding of modern democracy. The main objectives have been to update the methodology and to increase the consistency, clarity and effectiveness of our assessments.

As a result, the revised procedures, which we expect to be adopted by the board very soon – hopefully within the next six weeks to two months – should enable the assessment and measurement of progress in democracy to be done more comprehensively. The expanded list of 14 criteria, grouped under four main subheadings, looks more carefully at a variety of factors, which I will not repeat because the rapporteur described them very well.

The updated methodology remains fundamentally qualitative, because there is little support among our shareholders for quantifiable metrics when it comes to political assessments, but it enables greater consistency of assessments in order to make possible easier comparison between countries and over time. I stress that, when assessing a country’s progress in democratic transition, we put special emphasis on the trajectory of the changes, not only on the situation as we find it at a particular point in time.

The underlying approach of the Bank is engagement, even in cases where political conditions are difficult. In the most difficult cases, such as Belarus, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, we do not disengage but rather focus our efforts on a few core sectors, such as small businesses and, more broadly, developing the private sector, and we aim to incentivise further reforms through what we call a calibrated strategic approach that promises broader engagement in response to improvements against a set of political and economic benchmarks. That is consistent with our wider philosophy, which stems from the initial vision of the founding fathers of the EBRD: to support democracy through supporting entrepreneurship and the strengthening of the middle class in transition countries.

The new procedures also expand the list of reference points and sources as compared with 1991, but I stress that documents of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are singled out, as has been highlighted, together with those of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as the reference points of the highest category that have to be cited – that is new – and take precedence over reference points based on less inclusive international organisations and bilateral sources.

The process of the revision of the political methodology has included various stages of engagement with our board, representing the Bank’s 66 shareholder countries, and a series of consultations with external experts - academics, international organisations, international non-governmental organisations and civil society, including in our countries of operations. Of course, Parliamentary Assembly’s Monitoring Committee actively participated in the workshop held in our headquarters in London at the beginning of 2012 and provided valuable advice. I wholeheartedly welcome the offer of increased co-operation with the Council of Europe and Parliamentary Assembly in the implementation of the political mandate of the Bank contained in Parliamentary Assembly’s draft resolution and I look forward to our continuing mutually beneficial co-operation.

I will be very happy to take questions after members’ interventions and to respond to some of the points that Mr Elzinga raised. Thank you for your attention.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Lankes, for your statement, which I am sure parliamentarians found very interesting. You will have an opportunity to take the floor after the general debate to respond to points made by the speakers. In the debate, I call Ms Fiala, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – My trip to London to hear what the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development has achieved stimulates my positive feelings and gives me some hope. On behalf of my group, I thank Mr Tuur Elzinga for his report.

The report gives particular attention to the new methodology of the EBRD, which was founded some 23 years ago, to assess the compliance of countries of operations, where that is mandated by the political aspects of the Bank. It is very positive that the EBRD collaborates more closely with the Council of Europe than it has in the past, as we learn from the memorandum of understanding. We realise that the debate is now more political, and that the focus is more on a political assessment of the work of the Bank than of its actual activities.

To support economic recovery and growth in central and south-eastern Europe with some €30 billion is impressive. That southern and eastern Mediterranean countries have embraced multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics – as I hope they have in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia – since the second half of 2012 gives some hope for the success of medium and long-term policies.

As we all know, the Venice Commission demands democracy through law, and that a revision of the methodology for compliance follows the right criteria: first, representative and accountable government; secondly, civil society; thirdly, free media; fourthly, the rule of law and access to justice; and fifthly, civil and political rights. The Council of Europe encourages the Bank to strengthen co-operation with it. We are astonished to learn from the report that a country apparently does not necessarily have to be democratic to become a shareholder of the EBRD, which explains how Egypt and Morocco were among the countries that founded the Bank in 1991.

I must point out that the EBRD is the largest single investor in the transition region, being in 29 countries. The second wave of the economic crisis – the debt crisis – is a real defeat for the EBRD. The forecast for the performance of the world economy and particularly of the eurozone have deteriorated since the release of previous figures, so most figures are still likely to be too optimistic. Negatively, we also read that the decline in support for democracy is especially clear for Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. In many regions, people perceive a deterioration of the political situation, particularly in Croatia and Romania, about which we are very sorry. The Bank must particularly support more inclusive growth and make a contrast with the setbacks relating to corruption and media and political freedom that have been registered in some of the countries of operations during the crisis.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Fiala. I call Ms Fataliyeva who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Ms FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan) – We congratulate the rapporteur on and thank him for a very professional report.

      The global economy, as a set of national economies that have had political and economic relations since the late 20th century, is characterised by intense integration trends, with globalisation becoming the most important factor and, at the same time, becoming a new stage in the internationalisation of economic life. An important feature of that phenomenon is the emergence and strengthening of the role in the international arena of new players from various international regulatory institutions; together with States, they are beginning to play an increasingly important role. The activities of such organisations are intended to promote the development of the countries of central and eastern Europe, with a view to their subsequent integration into the European political and economic order. The EBRD’s promotion of private sector development and infrastructure, and the implementation of market reforms and structural changes in the central and eastern European countries, has become one of the most significant events in the development of integration processes in Europe.

      The main objective of EBRD is to promote the “transition towards open market-oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the Central and Eastern European countries committed to and applying the principles of multiparty democracy, pluralism and market economics.” The Bank makes an annual assessment of whether each country is meeting that goal, which is particularly based on these criteria: free elections, representative government, the duty of government officials to act in accordance with the law, the delimitation of political parties from the government, an independent judiciary, the equal protection of citizens – including minorities – and freedom of speech, religion, assembly and movement, as well as the right to private property and the right to form trade unions and to strike. The Bank has therefore positioned itself not just as a regional development bank, but has linked its activities with the progress of the transition process in central and eastern European countries, because as an official bank it cannot conduct its operations in countries that are not committed to the principles that have already been mentioned.

Different countries are at different stages of the process of transition to a market economy. Local conditions determine the methods of operation of the Bank and its strategy and, in some cases, that leads to the development of innovative ways to finance and to reduce risk. The Bank is preparing detailed strategies for each country of operation, adapting its financial instruments and practices to the capabilities and needs of each country and project. The level and nature of demand for EBRD financing depend on the stage of the transition process, which country it is, and its attractiveness to private investors.

The EBRD’s countries of operations have been hard hit by the global financial crisis. The Bank has been proactive in moving quickly to mitigate the effects of the crisis through an increased level of investment. The crisis has underscored the extent to which many of the countries in the EBRD region were financially integrated into the global economy. The EBRD is playing a great role in the development of CIS countries. It is the largest investor in the region and, beyond its own financing, it attracts significant amounts of foreign direct investment, although its shareholders are representatives of the State. It invests mainly in private enterprises, usually with commercial partners. Commonwealth of Independent States countries have already implemented reforms that are important for growth. Financial reforms outlined in the Bank’s strategy promote economic consolidation and modernisation through increased competition, privatisation or changes in regulation. I thank the rapporteur, and I wish good luck to the Bank.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Fataliyeva. I call Mr Dragasakis who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr DRAGASAKIS (Greece) – My group welcomes the report, which provides a comprehensive overview of the Bank’s activities. The rapporteur, Mr Elzinga, and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy deserve congratulations on their work.

Taking into account the facts presented in the report, we agree with the need for the EBRD to continue its funding activities in the countries of eastern and central Europe. We welcome the reinforcement of the EBRD’s presence in the western Balkans, and we consider the expansion of its activities in the southern and eastern Mediterranean region very positive. However, countries with advanced, as they are called, economies in Europe – even in the eurozone – face the same dangers as those mentioned in this report. Apart from Greece, which is already plunged into a catastrophic situation, the entire European south faces the dangers of recession, stagnation and high unemployment. Those problems are becoming even more acute because of persistent capital flight from southern Europe, as Mr Elzinga said. Furthermore, some countries have to cope with massive immigration flows that exceed their capabilities.

For all those reasons, and others, we should examine the possibility of expanding further the EBRD’s funding activities to encompass the countries of the European south and other European countries with acute problems. As for the criteria, narrow economic indicators such as per capita GDP are misleading. What is the value of such an indicator when a country is faced with youth unemployment of 30% or even 50%?

Putting to one side the humanitarian reasons for such activities, there is no doubt that a deep and long-lasting crisis in the European south will lead to general contagion across Europe. The Council of Europe should, therefore, encourage dialogue and further research into the issues I have mentioned. In addition to the expansion of the EBRD’s role, new financial tools and institutions need to be created to meet the new realities and challenges arising not only in the Mediterranean countries but across Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Dragasakis. I call Mr Braun to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr BRAUN (Hungary) – I thank Mr Lankes for the additional information he has provided. I thank the Committee for its work, and I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Elzinga, on his comprehensive yet intriguing and highly readable report.

During the period examined in the report, the Bank has faced some significant events with regard to its operations. The second crisis of the economic downturn that has swept across Europe has made itself felt particularly as the sovereign debt crisis. Expectations of economic growth and the implementation of austerity measures have led to the slowing down of the economy, which has had an adverse effect on transition countries. Austerity measures and increasing unemployment have lessened trust in democratic leadership and democratic institutions. All those difficulties have been compounded by the events of the Arab Spring.

The EBRD reacted to the economic crisis by maintaining a high level of investment in its countries of operation, particularly in the finance, infrastructure and energy sectors. The Bank, the EIB and the European Commission agreed a memorandum of understanding to initiate closer co-operation between organisations. One of its first results is the establishment of the Western Balkan Enterprise, Development and Innovation Facility. The EBRD, the EIB and the World Bank announced the implementation of a €30 billion action plan aimed at stabilising and growing the economies of central and south-eastern Europe. The EBRD also launched the Local Currency and Local Capital Markets Development Initiative to free the recipients from the exchange risk imposed by lending in hard currencies.

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the Bank resolved to extend its geographical mandate to the SEMED region. Those efforts have been aided by the resolution of the shareholders to increase the Bank’s equity by 50%. We welcome the geographical extension, but call attention to the significant discrepancies that exist between eastern Europe, the mid-Asian countries and the SEMED region. The experience acquired in eastern Europe may be only partly utilised. One great challenge of the near future is with regard to the conceptions that the EBRD uses to develop its investment policies in regions of uncertain politics, society and economics. We offer our support and co-operation in meeting that challenge.

The Group of the European People’s Party thinks that the EBRD’s reaction to such challenges has been adequate and timely, and for that special thanks should go to the board, the employees and the shareholders.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Braun. I call Mr Van der Maelen to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr VAN DER MAELEN (Belgium) – On behalf of the Socialist Group, I thank Mr Elzinga for his excellent and interesting report. In his slipstream, I would like to touch on whether EBRD practices are in line with its mission. I have picked two quotes from its mission statement. The first quote is, “In all our operations we follow the highest standards of corporate governance and sustainable development.” The second quote is, “We aim to promote market economies that function well and where environmental and social conditions reflect people’s needs.” That sounds excellent, but a closer look at the practices prompts questions on two issues.

As a rapporteur for this Assembly on the issue of fiscal havens, I must ask you, Mr Lankes, why is the EBRD using fiscal havens in its financial constructions? International consensus is growing that public authorities should prohibit or at least limit the use of fiscal havens. Does the EBRD think that such havens are in line with its own mission statement? Is it possible for the Assembly to receive information from the EBRD on all its operations that use fiscal havens?

Secondly, on investments in the agro-industrial sector, the EBRD is investing in the agro-multinational Louis Dreyfus Commodities Group, and is also considering providing financing of $40 million for a risk participation in the Monsanto portfolio. Both those corporations have broad access to the financial markets and are controversial because of the ways in which their business strategies contribute to markets “where environmental and social conditions reflect people’s needs.” The LDC Group is known as an ardent speculator on food crops. Through its huge storehouses, the company keeps its stock until prices soar. A recent report by Oxfam exposed such practices, as well as breaches of competition and participation in land grabbing. As for Monsanto, it is a world leader in the production of genetically modified seeds.

Are the contributions of the LDC Group and Monsanto in line with the EBRD’s mission? The EBRD is supposed to promote greater competition. How does the Bank hope to increase competition by supporting such a globally dominant company as Monsanto? How will these investments contribute to a market that can meet the social and environmental needs of the people? Are such investments a responsible way of fostering food security and sustainability? What measures are incorporated in the macro and micro processes of the EBRD to prevent its important work and noble purpose being tied with detrimental speculation on food crops, hampering of market dynamics and/or excessive stimulation of monocultural production?

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr van der Maelen. I call Mr Sasi.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate Mr Elzinga on his good and informative report. The previous speaker talked about fiscal havens. A good question to ask is, what are fiscal havens? We find fiscal havens in the European Union, such as Holland and Ireland, and in Council of Europe countries, such as Switzerland and Luxembourg.

      I think that it is wrong to label genetically modified organisms. I, for one, want to eat GM food because it is safer and fertilisers are not used that poison the food.

      We have to take austerity and growth measures to deal with the current sovereign debt crisis. Austerity is necessary to achieve fiscal balance in state economies. However, the more growth there is, the less we need austerity measures. If we want growth, we need investment. We can invest in our structural needs. That is fairly easy in under-developed countries. If we have new good ideas, people will invest in them and produce growth in that way.

      The EBRD is an important tool in rebuilding Europe. That is what the EBRD is and should be doing. There is a huge pile of things that need to be done to improve the infrastructure and company structures in transition countries.

      I have doubts about the EBRD going into new areas. For example, why should the Bank be active in Egypt? Is the administration of the Bank too big? Does it not have enough work? Can it not use the money in the current area effectively enough? The Bank should concentrate on the area where it is currently active, where it has a special task to do.

      It was a good idea to scale up the operations during the present crises. That has been important. However, when we make investments, we must always remind ourselves that they must be productive. We do not want to have airports like those in some European countries where no plane has ever landed. There should be no stupid investments. There has to be a return on our investments in the Bank.

      In Russia, it is important to invest in small businesses, because that country needs many small entrepreneurs and companies to revitalise its economy. Its links with the Council of Europe are very important.

      The infrastructure should incorporate our values of the rule of law and human rights. Those values create an environment in which businesses feel well and in which there can be growth for the future.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sasi. I call Ms Myller.

      Ms MYLLER (Finland) – We all know how difficult the economic situation is globally and especially in Europe. As the rapporteur said, the ongoing global economic crisis and eurozone debt crisis have left deep marks in national economies, with serious social consequences. Austerity measures have further increased social inequality, fuelling political unrest and the growth of extreme nationalist movements across Europe. Economic instability is a prime source of social instability.

      The EBRD has taken active measures to tackle the challenges described in the report. It has increased its capital base and the volume of its operations to promote economic growth and fight unemployment in transition countries. It has been a stabilising force in a time of crisis. However, to create truly sustainable growth in Europe, we must ensure that the Bank’s operations are both socially and environmentally sustainable. Fortunately, there is no need for trade-offs between those goals, because they support each other. For example, promoting green technologies can create jobs, increase equality and fight global warming. The same positive correlation applies to fighting unemployment. Job creation minimises inequality and social tensions, which in turn promotes people’s trust in democracy and helps to prevent extremism.

The decision to expand the Bank’s area of operations to southern and eastern Mediterranean countries is right. The Arab Spring of 2011 gave birth to new democracies that need our support in their transition. The big question is how we can strengthen democracy and multi-party systems in those countries. The right way to do so is to empower local people and strengthen civil society so that the shoots of democracy have good soil in which to take root. The will for change must come from the locals. That is also the Bank’s guideline, as I understand it. In all cases, we must strengthen basic citizens’ rights and ensure that the aid does not end up supporting actions that are against our values. The Bank’s new methodology for assessing its countries of operation has made it better at doing that.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Myller. I call Mr Kayatürk.

      Mr KAYATÜRK (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for this high-quality report. The activities of the EBRD deserve special attention because of the impact of the global economic crisis on democracies throughout Europe. The role of the EBRD, as the only financial institution with the mandate of democracy, is much more vital nowadays.

      Turkey is a supporter of democracy in the region, as was identified in the EBRD’s Life in Transition survey of 2011, and is an example of how democracy and economic development nourish each other. In spite of the global economic crisis, Turkey recorded significant growth, concurrently with taking numerous steps to consolidate democracy.

      Since the launch of the EBRD’s operation in 2009, its cumulative investment in Turkey has been almost €5 billion. The investment projects have focused mainly on private enterprises, with the aim of developing their capacity and competitiveness. I firmly believe that those projects will contribute to the structural changes that our economy is undergoing because of the initiatives of the Turkish Government.

      One of the challenges in Turkey, as was identified by the EBRD, is to increase private sector participation, sustainability and efficiency in the energy sector. The recent rise in energy prices and the consequent rise in the current account deficit showed that Turkey’s energy sector can be developed with a view to strengthening the stability of the Turkish economy. The expertise of the EBRD will be an invaluable asset in those endeavours. Once again, I thank the rapporteur and all those who put a lot of effort into this important work.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kayatürk. I call Mr Sheridan.

      Mr SHERIDAN (United Kingdom) – I, too, welcome this well-measured report in challenging times. We are all experiencing difficulties during these austere times.

      The EBRD, as I understand it, is there to promote transition and private entrepreneurial initiatives. I also believe that it is the responsibility of the EBRD and other banks throughout the world to show how growth can occur and to influence by setting examples in ethical investments and practices.

Paragraph 4.2.2 in the report deals with strengthened institutional co-operation. I do not think that the United Kingdom is different from anywhere else. Some of our small and medium-sized enterprises are going through extremely difficult times and competing with some of the most aggressive multinational companies in the world. SMEs are the lifeblood of our communities, and they are trying to compete for contracts with multinational companies; some people call them tax havens; in the United Kingdom, we call them tax avoidance or tax evasion companies. That is creating tremendous damage in all our communities. It is annoying to see multinational companies competing for government contracts and asking our taxpayers to fund them when those companies walk away from paying appropriate tax. While the good, honest taxpayers of Europe are paying their taxes, the multinationals are taking the money and walking away. I find that disturbing.

I ask that the Council of Europe consider examining multinational companies and tendering processes. If or when multinational companies or individuals are held responsible for using tax havens to avoid paying tax, they should not get the government contracts throughout Europe – some of them multi-government contracts – that they depend on. I hope that the Council of Europe will take the issue seriously and look at SMEs that provide good-quality employment but cannot compete with aggressive multinationals. I sincerely hope that we consider jobs, and particularly jobs for our young unemployed, to ensure that we get them back into work.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Bugnon.

Mr BUGNON (Switzerland)* – I have had the opportunity to visit the head office of the EBRD in London on two occasions while on former committees, and I was pleasantly surprised by all the cases that the Bank was dealing with. Diverse applications were being dealt with, some of them for very large amounts and some for smaller sums. All of them needed to be analysed properly before loans could be extended, and then efforts had to be made to ensure that the money made available was used properly. There was a lot of activity in the financial and other sectors where money can create an avalanche effect, which has contributed to the expansion of a lot of economies, and particularly of the agribusiness sector in many countries. I applaud the fact that the Bank’s managers have worked anti-cyclically. When economies are on a downturn, the amount of capital made available increases. The Bank also pays attention to protecting the environment.

I will concentrate on one specific aspect. I have often had the opportunity with international organisations, particularly in the framework of north-south relations, to indicate that some rich countries are not doing enough to support development. However, I think that the EBRD links loans to development, which is fundamentally important, and ensures that political pluralism is respected. From my discussions of the issue with other people, I know that democratic systems that do not work are like land that is not prepared to receive seeds: we can continue pouring money into a bottomless pit and never get a good outcome. The link between democracy and development should be taken into consideration. I would like to hear the vice-president’s comments on that. It is not just a question of economic development; the money must be well spent.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Boden.

Mr BODEN (Luxembourg)* – Article 1 of the EBRD agreement says that loans will be granted only to countries moving towards market economy that say that they will respect the principles of democracy and pluralism. The excellent report of Mr Elzinga, and the draft resolution, which I support, rightly underscore this political aspect of the Bank’s mandate, so it is natural that the Council of Europe should have a co-operation agreement with the EBRD and that the Assembly should have regular discussions on those activities in order to provide parliamentary supervision, particularly with regard to the political aspect of the Bank’s mandate.

The commitments accumulated by the EBRD since 1991 amount to about €80 billion, which underscores the important role that the EBRD plays in the countries in which it operates. I thank all the protagonists involved and encourage the EBRD to continue its important work. I congratulate those in charge of the EBRD on the new evaluation grid, whose aim is to evaluate the impact of EBRD projects and support in transitional measures. I also support the plan to include in the evaluation progress towards democracy and the rule of law, which are closely linked to countries’ transition to a market economy.

An essential economic factor is certainly the extension of the EBRD to give support to southern and eastern Mediterranean countries following the Arab Spring. I note that the Bank acted swiftly, and that despite the statutory imperatives, in 2012, it had already started operations in Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Tunisia. Before getting involved in any new country, the EBRD carries out detailed technical and operational activity, analyses the other financial actors in the country and works out in which areas it can best conduct its competences. That information is updated at every stage so that the EBRD can respond to turns of events, while taking into consideration the opinion of the international community, and hopefully that of the Council of Europe in particular as well. I am convinced that our Assembly is ready to co-operate even more closely with the EBRD in the years ahead.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Mr Nikoloski is not here, so I call Mr Šepić.

Mr ŠEPIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina) – The EBRD is one of the greatest institutional investors in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bank focuses its activities on the development of the private sector through support for small and medium-sized local enterprises, as well as on major privatisations, further strengthening of the financial sector and major investments in infrastructure.

Bosnia and Herzegovina and the EBRD have been successfully co-operating in all areas, as reflected in the EBRD’s investments in the country. Those investments are directed foremost at sectors that generate overall economic development: electrical energy, transport, finance and the communal infrastructure. I thank you for everything that you have done for my country.

The focus of the current strategy is on financing and supporting infrastructure, energy, finance and industry projects, as well as on support to export-oriented sectors. Successful co-operation is expected to continue. Generally speaking, the credit conditions offered by the EBRD are among the least favourable, but still they are more favourable than those offered by commercial banks.

The EBRD invests in development projects that also bring certain changes to the country, such as the highway that is part of Corridor 5C, which by shortening deadlines for road formation has an added value for the State. It is necessary to continue and advance that successful co-operation. Bosnia and Herzegovina expects the strong support of the Bank in implementing economic reforms in the country and in its progress towards Euro-Atlantic integration. Extra attention should be paid to increasing the scope and quality of portfolios of projects in the infrastructure and export-oriented sectors.

Finally, with the Bank’s authority in mind, we also expect support in encouraging foreign investment in the private sector, in small and medium-sized enterprises and for the new employment that is now essential for our country.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Leyden.

      Mr LEYDEN (Ireland) – I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I thank the rapporteur for his comprehensive and worthwhile document. I congratulate Mr Lankes on his appointment as a new vice-president of the EBRD. I am delighted that he is here because that shows recognition of and respect for the Council of Europe by the EBRD. It is rare to congratulate a bank at this time, but this is one of the few banks in the world that have been extremely prudent and successful. I compliment you on that. I am delighted that Ireland has a representative in the Bank in Mr Eoin Ryan, a former MEP, who is playing a very important role and is very involved in the work of the Bank.

      On past investments, I know that the Bank played a very important role in cleaning up the area around Chernobyl, with the investment of about €400 million, which was vital for that region of Ukraine and, in fact, the whole world, which was affected by the disaster.

      Turning to the future, it is important that there is consultation between the Bank and the Council of Europe, particularly the Monitoring Committee, of which I am a member. It would give a certain authority and force to our work if we informed the Bank of the deficiencies in certain countries that we monitor from time to time, and the Bank used its influence to ensure that those countries complied with the standards that we set here in the Council of Europe. Nothing would concentrate the minds of those governments more than being aware that our reports influenced the Bank.

      I am delighted that the Bank is extending its remit to the Mediterranean region because it is vital for democracy in that area that those investments take place. In the past, consideration was given to a project involving solar panels in the Sahara desert, a magnificent concept that would have provided alternative energy throughout the region and maximised solar energy. I presume that sustainable energy – wind, solar and wave power – is one of the Bank’s priorities. There is also the question of investigating the capacity of hydrogen, which has never really been tackled.

      I wish Mr Lankes well in his work and compliment him on his prudent management on behalf of the Bank. I wish him continued success. I also send my congratulations to the new president of the Bank. I met the former president here, and I must compliment him on his past mandate. Go raibh maith agat.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Marmazov.

      Mr MARMAZOV (Ukraine)* – Traditionally when making a speech, one wants to think of reservations to express and of shortcomings to criticise, but in this case the opposite is true. Having read the report on the activities of the EBRD and knowing in practice what the Bank does in my country, I think we can conclude that the Bank fully deserves its status of an international financial organisation with the highest possible credit rating.

      In Ukraine, which became a member State of the Bank in August 1992, we can see what kind of assistance is offered by the EBRD in completing economic transformation and solving acute socio-economic problems. Over 20 years of co-operation, Ukraine has signed 244 investment project contracts with the Bank, for which credit totalling €7.5 billion was provided. As of today, the EBRD’s project portfolio in Ukraine still has a value of €4.4 billion. Co-operation with the EBRD is a way for us to solve key problems of the transition period: diversification of our industrial base, overall improvement in the competitiveness of our economy, development of local capital markets, reform of the energy sector, improvement of corporate governance, and transparency, all of which is very important for my country.

      The projects are often very large, such as the modernisation of the nuclear power plants in Khmelnitsky and Rivne, the building of high-voltage electricity transmission lines, the introduction of high-speed passenger trains, the renovation of hydro-electric power plants, the modernisation and reconstruction of a gas line, and the building of expressways and of two metros.

The Bank has also contributed a lot to mitigating the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, as our Irish colleague said. The EBRD is the administrator of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, which was set up in 1997 to provide assistance to Ukraine for the rebuilding of the sarcophagus, which is to become an environmentally reliable security system. The Bank is also the administrator of the funds in the nuclear safety account. Now, a major investment project valued at €800 million is being worked on. It is an overall programme to improve the security of the nuclear power plants in Ukraine.

      We therefore have a very high opinion of the activities of the EBRD, especially in a situation of overall crisis. I stress that the lines of credit made available by the Bank do not come with any political strings attached, as in the case of the IMF. We very much hope that Ukraine will continue to co-operate closely with the Bank. The report should be supported and approved, and we should wish the EBRD every possible success in the future.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I now give the floor to Ms Allain.

Ms ALLAIN (France)* – Rapporteur, in your report you mention the activities of the EBRD to support responses to the crisis and recovery in those countries where the Bank is present. Europe as a whole is experiencing an unprecedented crisis, so, of course, we must welcome the fact that the EBRD and the EIB are engaging in funding infrastructure and support of SMEs and SMIs, because that is important for the recovery of growth. This is necessary, because people are more and more frustrated, given the inability of austerity policies to ensure the promised recovery.

Recent years have shed light on the excessive risks taken by the international banking system that is so quick to speculate on the debt of countries in difficulty. The IMF and the European Commission have just recognised that they underestimated the probable impact of a reduction in public expenditure at a time of slowing growth. In this respect, we cannot but welcome the policy of the EBRD. I should like to mention three areas of particular importance.

The current review of the energy policy of the EBRD is important progress. I am pleased that the funding of new nuclear power plants is excluded, but we must be vigilant when it comes to the funding of so-called sustainable projects or energy-efficiency projects. The EBRD must give priority to projects related to renewable energy. Let us not forget that climate change is not just an environmental challenge, but a democratic challenge. It is intolerable and unacceptable that the first projects funded by the EBRD in the countries of the Arab Spring are devoted to coal-fired plants, given how much solar energy could be produced on the southern shore of the Mediterranean.

You devote part of your report to the role of the EBRD in combating the food crisis. As a green parliamentarian and a farmer myself, I welcome that. However, next April, the EBRD will be taking a decision on providing a financial guarantee of $40 million to Monsanto to cover unpaid amounts under contracts that it signed with farmers in eastern Europe. We all know how many trials there are involving this company, and its virtual monopoly of the world market for seeds and agrochemical products, so we must wonder whether it is advisable for the EBRD to accord that guarantee to Monsanto.

Finally, the extension of the EBRD’s activities to the countries of the Arab Spring shows that it is necessary to re-establish the democratic conditionality of EBRD funding. In fact, the rapporteur underscores that the EBRD tends to forget the political aspect of its mandate when it grants loans. The example of Belarus is striking. The EBRD must refuse indirectly to support the last Stalinist dictatorship in our continent. That is important for its credibility. The political evolution in Egypt and Tunisia, particularly in respect of women’s rights, means that it is not, for the time being, a good place for massive involvement by the EBRD.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers.

I give the floor to Mr Lankes, to respond.

Mr LANKES (Vice-President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development) – I thank everyone for their comments, especially the positive ones, of course. There were quite a few and I need to be careful with time. I hope that we have other opportunities in the course of this year to discuss some topics in greater detail. I will get back to that.

On graduation from the EBRD, there was an expectation that, as formulated and built into our capital resources review – an exercise that we do every five years – eight central European countries would have graduated by 2010. However, because of the crisis this did not happen, as has been said. There was unanimous support for the EBRD’s return into these countries to support them in the crisis. We now have this expectation built into the next capital resources review, with the expectation that these countries would have graduated by 2015. It is, in the end, up to the countries themselves to take that decision.

We have been working with the countries on a post-graduation scenario to see in what form the EBRD can be helpful through technical assistance, and we have been helping companies from these countries invest in other parts of our region, and through capacity building, with a focus on sustainable energy, for instance. We have been building, together with them, to see how the post-graduation period could look. That may serve as encouragement to graduate. But in the end it is a decision that the countries have to come to themselves.

What about new countries of operations? That point was made not only in relation to Greece, but more broadly to southern Europe. There is nothing in principle that excludes new countries of operations for the EBRD, as we have seen. There has to be a request from the countries, of course, and we have not had a request from any southern European Union members for assistance to become recipient countries. There has to be support from the EBRD’s shareholders – three quarters of them have to support this – and that will primarily be based on questions of the EBRD’s mandate and whether a transition-to-market mandate in countries that are relatively developed market economies is justifiable. That is the kind of discussion that one would have in this context.

With regard to Greece, there has been a specific request to assist, but in technical ways, not through financing. The EBRD responded to that in the last quarter of 2012. We identified a number of ways that we can support Greece in this difficult time, including helping to stabilise Greek banks in the Balkans, where they are important players. Other Greek companies throughout the EBRD’s region have lost access to their house banks. Standing by these companies, it becomes easier for the Greek banks to improve the quality of their balance sheets. It is also done through cross-border investments, such as certain projects from Greece into Macedonia, for instance, that are under discussion now. We have also been engaged with the EIB, helping design a trade finance programme. That would be of great importance at the current time.

Does a country need to be democratic to be a shareholder? Yes, in principle. Countries that become shareholders of the EBRD have to subscribe to its charter. The example given of Egypt in 1991, for instance, was pertinent. Perhaps these conditions were not quite as strictly applied at the time. With regard to more recent member countries, such as Turkey, for instance, and new countries of operations in the Mediterranean, there has been a careful review, to which all our shareholders have contributed and agreed.

Some difficult questions were asked by Mr Van der Maelen about choices made on issues of sustainability and the way that projects address people’s needs. There was also the question of ethical investment. Let me just say a couple of things about that. First, in supporting the private sector – 80% of the EBRD’s projects are directly with private counterparts – you have to work in a demand-driven way, primarily. You cannot force anyone to take your money and to do the things you want them to do; these are private decisions by the companies.

We have to act partly in a demand-driven manner, but we can also act strategically, especially if we have something to offer these clients that they are interested in. Let me deal with these two types of projects. Where we are demand-responsive, we have a detailed screening process by the staff and then by the board, which represents 66 countries. Projects are sent to the capitals and are reviewed from many different perspectives. Various issues that have been mentioned here are part of that discussion. For example, governance in these companies is important and a component of almost every investment we make.

      Questions were asked about the environmental impact of projects. The Bosnian road project mentioned had an important component relating to displaced persons, but, in other cases, an environmental action plan might be agreed with a client. A transition impact review will also be made to assess how, through better transparency and other measures, a project can contribute to transition. Those are examples of how, through detailed reviews, an effort is being made to ensure that the Bank’s projects respond to its mandate.

In other cases, the Bank can be strategic – for instance, when it has the capacity to provide technical assistance, which can be attractive to clients. In 2006, 6% of the Bank’s projects were in the sustainable energy area, but last year that figure was 25%. A determined effort has been made, therefore, with the help of donors who have allowed us to do energy audits, for instance, and to help companies design energy efficiency plans and other things.

We can do the same with gender. An interesting project in Istanbul recently helped a ferry company to design more female-friendly facilities and to hire women into management positions. The company was interested, because we were able to help it. In such situations, we can proactively get clients to move in certain directions. In most cases, we make an effort to ensure that the projects correspond to our mandate.

The question of monopolies was raised. This is an issue that the board often debates. The sorts of questions we ask are: “Does it make sense? Does the benefit to the country of the project outweigh the risk that we might create more dominant market structures?” It is a constant concern and we often do not proceed because of it. When we do, it is because we feel that there are mitigating factors.

Another question concerned tax havens. Of course, we have large shareholders with a strong interest in this question. A few years ago, the Bank adopted an offshore jurisdictions policy. We essentially submit to OECD’s judgment, and when a country is on a certain list, we do not allow ownership to be held from it, directly or indirectly. When an offshore element is involved, special due diligence will always be shown on the tax side to assess whether companies are using them as tax havens or for other purposes. The projects contain a detailed legal annexe that gets scrutinised by our shareholders, and sometimes we refrain from working with clients because we have doubts about that. We also place conditions on clients to encourage them to change their domiciliation. That has happened a couple of times, but it tends to be quite difficult with private clients.

Anything I could say now about the link between democracy and development would be superficial. It was, Mr Bugnon, at the heart of the creation of the Bank. The year 1991 saw the end of history, according to Mr Fukuyama, and the idea that democracy and markets relate to, and drive, each other is built into the Bank’s charter. This year, we decided to study that issue again – we are probably not the only ones to do that – and investigate how it has been playing out in and outside our region. Most likely, we will produce a report on the subject later this year. It would be hugely interesting to discuss it with the sub-committee when it visits London in – we hope – the second part of the year. It would be interesting to compare our results with those of the sub-committee.

Finally – I am talking at length, I know – I turn to the Khmelnitsky-Rivne nuclear project. It is important to stress that it was not a modernisation project, as you know, but a safety project. We are operating in the nuclear field only to increase the safety of existing plants, not to increase capacity.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Lankes. I call Mr Elzinga, the rapporteur, to respond.

      Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) – I thank Mr Lankes for his address, for the answers he provided and for naming the Council of Europe, together with the United Nations and OSCE, as a reference point of the highest category. Our new sub-committee looks forward to the increased co-operation that you offered in your response to the report.

      Ms Fiala, I thank you for your warm support for the report, and I thank Ms Fataliyeva, Mr Braun, all other speakers and the political groups for their support too. Mr Dragasakis, I have no ready answers for you: I also asked Mr Lankes what the EBRD could do for Greece and other troubled countries in the south of Europe. I thank Mr Lankes for his extensive reply on this subject, which can perhaps be further investigated and debated by the sub-committee and the staff and management of the Bank.

      Mr Van der Maelen addressed two interesting and critical issues, and I thank Mr Lankes for his extensive and helpful answers on those subjects as well. I hope that they satisfied Mr Van der Maelen. Such matters could be discussed further in the future. I hope that Mr Van der Maelen will join the new sub-committee. Mr Sasi asked why the EBRD should be active in Egypt and other new countries of operation. In the same way that we want to help countries in the region with partnerships for democracy, I think that the EBRD can help to advance democracy and prosperity in these countries. That alone is reason enough.

      I fully agree with Mr Sheridan, that we should support shifting the EBRD’s attention to small and medium-sized enterprises. We would welcome further steps along those lines. I thank Ms Allain for addressing the food crisis that I also mentioned in my report. I welcome her question about Monsanto. As I said to Mr van der Maelen, I hope that she was satisfied with Mr Lankes’s answers.

We have had a good discussion. I thank Mr Lankes for the effort he made to address all the questions and I look forward to continuing this debate when the new sub-committee visits your headquarters.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Elzinga. I now give the floor to the Chairman of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, Mr Marcenaro.

Mr MARCENARO (Italy)* – I thank Mr Lankes for making such an important contribution to our debate, both in his initial presentation and in his precise replies to the questions that he was asked. We appreciate the seriousness with which he has gone about this. I also thank the rapporteur, Mr Elzinga, who has done a good job. He managed to strike a balance when weighing up the complicated issues involved, and the report was adopted unanimously by the committee.

Yesterday, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy decided to set up a new sub-committee, which will be responsible for monitoring issues connected to OECD and the EBRD. That is an innovation. We decided to set it up because such issues are at the top of our committee’s agenda. As we discussed briefly in a colloquy today, development and democracy matters are the major issues of the day, and they bear on foreign relations in Europe, which is why they are so important. I congratulate Mr Elzinga on his sterling work.

THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed. The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 1, which was unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under rule 33.11. Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Tuur Elzinga, Mr Dirk Van der Maelen, Mr Tiny Kox, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński and Mr André Bugnon, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, replace the words “welcomes the recent revision” with the following words: “notes the recent efforts towards revision”.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13089, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13089, as amended, is adopted, with 96 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gardetto.)

2. Ensuring the viability of the Strasbourg Court: structural deficiencies in States Parties

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report entitled “Ensuring the viability of the Strasbourg Court: structural deficiencies in States Parties” (Document 13087). After we have listened to the rapporteur, Mr Serhii Kivalov, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, we will have a statement by Ms Paola Severino, Minister of Justice of Italy, whom I welcome to the Assembly.

I call Mr Kivalov, rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr KIVALOV (Ukraine)* – I am very glad that we are welcoming Ms Paola Severino, the Minister of Justice of Italy. She will be participating in our debate on my report, which was discussed in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights at its meeting in Paris on 12 November 2012. The preliminary draft report and recommendation based on the report were also considered at that committee meeting and were adopted unanimously. In my speech, I will cover the main points and conclusions of the report.

      The report was the fruit of two years of work. The hearings organised by our committee secretariat were a useful and relevant source of information. Heads of parliamentary delegations were invited to attend, as were experts and government representatives from the countries discussed in the report. On my initiative, to provide for an exchange of views on the viability of the Strasbourg Court, an international conference for researchers and practitioners was organised on 15 September 2012 at the premises of our national university, the Odessa legal academy. The participants included judges from the Strasbourg Court, representatives of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, representatives of the judiciary, legislature and executive of various countries and distinguished academics and practitioners.

      Deciding which States manifest structural difficulties proved to be one of our hardest tasks. The list of nine states that my report covers was determined on the basis of Assembly Resolution 1787 (2011) and the terms of my mandate. However, after examining the question of structural difficulties in more detail, I concluded that there is no link between a country’s structural problems and the overall number of applications before the Strasbourg Court, particularly as 90% of applications are inadmissible. The countries with the most applications are Russia, Ukraine and Italy, but that does not tell us one important fact: most of the countries mentioned in the report are among the most populous countries in Europe. That is also a reflection of the relative load on their own court systems. We looked into the statistics and found that over the past year the Italian courts had considered more than 5 million cases, the Ukrainian courts more than 10 million cases, and the courts of the Russian Federation some 19 million cases. As we know, in every case the loser is always displeased at the court’s decision. In some countries, half of all participants appeal and sometimes the appeal goes all the way to Strasbourg. Therefore, in determining which countries should be placed in the category of having structural deficiencies, we took into account other criteria including the following: the number of applications per head of population; pilot and quasi-pilot judgments; where there is a sharp increase in new applications; and the degree to which judgments are being executed in each country.

      The most objective assessment is the number of applications per head of population of each country. In Serbia, there are more than five applications per 10,000 people. Other countries’ statistics, however, are closer to the average: 0.59 for Greece, 0.78 for Italy, 0.88 for Russia, 1.01 for Ukraine, 1.18 for Turkey, 1.32 for Poland, 1.61 for Bulgaria, 2.43 for Romania and 2.88 for Moldova. The report highlighted the model of a dual system of parliamentary control, where the default option will be the national parliament doing the monitoring, and Assembly monitoring will be activated only when necessary.

We suggest various measures to be taken at different stages: at the stage of evaluating the admissibility of applications before the court; at the stage of proceedings before the Strasbourg Court; and at the stage of execution of court judgments. There are also measures aimed at the elimination of structural or systemic deficiencies in State Parties. Many of these measures are mentioned in the draft recommendation and draft resolution, and were supported by the committee. Other proposals did not find enough support to be accepted by the committee, including having centres staffed by non-governmental organisation experts who would offer free consultations to potential applicants to the Strasbourg Court, although I personally continue to support that idea.

I thank our chair, Christopher Chope, who is present, and the secretariat of the committee for their help in preparing the report and collecting and collating information. I also thank the parliamentary delegations of Poland, Bulgaria and Turkey for offering suggestions.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Kivalov. You have six minutes remaining.

      It is my pleasure to welcome Paola Severino, Minister of Justice of Italy. It is an honour to welcome you to Parliamentary Assembly. You are an internationally renowned jurist, with many years of experience as both lawyer and law professor. You are the first woman in your country to be appointed to the post of Minister of Justice. It is a strategically important ministerial portfolio, particularly in respect of the Council of Europe’s priorities, which you know very well indeed: to promote human rights and the primacy of the rule of law.

      The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights report laments the fact that the Strasbourg Court remains swamped by repetitive cases from nine countries with dysfunctional legal systems. Italy is one of those countries, which is why we would like to hear your views on the report, based on your personal experience as a practising lawyer.

      I commend the work you have done already. You have been tasked with reforming your country’s judiciary, which I know is an extremely difficult undertaking. You have also made a start on setting up 20 commercial courts in order to simplify litigation between companies and to make legal proceedings more effective and less costly. I also welcome your efforts in the fight against corruption and in trying to empty some of the Italian prisons. That is not only a problem for Italy. My own country, France, also has that problem. We are very keen to hear about your experiences, therefore, as many of us are grappling with similar issues.

We are very keen to know what the fate is to be of those who are sentenced to terms of imprisonment and those law enforcement officers who are responsible for enforcing sentences, making sure that prisoners are not held in degrading conditions. It is difficult to tackle the problem of prison overcrowding, which is why we are looking forward to hearing what you have to say on the matter. Without further ado, I give you the floor so that you can air some of your views and ideas on all these various issues. You may want to respond to what our rapporteur has said. Immediately after that, we will make a start on our debate. You have the floor.

Ms SEVERINO (Minister of Justice of Italy)* – It is a great honour for me to be able to address this prestigious Chamber, which represents the heart of the Council of Europe. I have always very much appreciated the role that the Council of Europe has played and continues to play in promoting fundamental human rights and the rule of law and in supporting the growth of social and political rights in member States. This is designed to be contagious in a positive sense, having a knock-on effect on other social and legal systems, as is proved by the fact that non-member States have, to a large extent, signed up to some of the most important conventions. This long path, which began on 5 May 1949 on the killing fields of the Second World War, continues.

The position that I occupy in the Italian Government in the Ministry of Justice and my professional experience as a professor of criminal law and as a lawyer lead me to focus on subjects that have a specific cultural baggage. I am thinking in particular about the Committee for the Prevention of Torture. I appreciate the praise given by the representative of the committee concerning the professionalism of the staff in the Italian prison system. I am also happy to recall the repeated affirmation of fundamental rights, particularly those for the most vulnerable in our population—women, children, ethnic minority communities, prisoners and youth offenders.

I refer to the consolidation of the legal principles through the more than 200 conventions that have been adopted. I recall the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence and the conference that was held in Rome just last year on the Lanzarote convention, both of which Italy signed up to early on. I also recall the conferences in Rome in 2004 to launch the new charter for prisoners and in 2012 for the consolidation of that charter. I would also like to mention the thinking about and proposals for the monitoring of various phenomena, such as corruption and money laundering. We pay great attention in government to the Council of Europe’s work through the approval of laws and the preparation of wide-ranging reforms.

As the rapporteur said, the report is about a cornerstone of fundamental rights. It is important to bear in mind the role of the European Court. It is not only a stronghold of fundamental rights but a point of reference for national judges. In Italy, where the system is divided between the judges and others involved in the law, the laws must be read and applied in the light of the principles enshrined by the Convention, as the Court repeatedly indicates and as is repeatedly indicated by the Constitutional Court of Italy. I say with great satisfaction that the Italian judges are fully aware that the national legal system is multi-level: it is based on both internal and supranational laws. Therefore, interpretation is the fruit of hermeneutical circularity, which is added to by external contributions, including the jurisprudence of the European Court.

The profound respect that I harbour for your Assembly means that I must not dodge the fact that my country has been the subject of many petitions to the European Court. I do not wish to dwell on that, as the petitions to the Court are mainly a result of procedural violations, with questions of substantial violations following far behind. Nonetheless, I would like to talk about an important point that has been highlighted. I refer to the recent decision of the European Court, on 8 January, in the Torreggiani case. My country was held to be responsible for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment, because of overcrowded prisons. This problem is difficult to resolve, as the President said.

This subject is of tremendous importance to me. From the first day that I shouldered the tremendous and serious responsibility of being Minister of Justice, I made prisons a priority of my term of office. The Italian Government is fully aware of the important and repeated message of the president of our republic. I have acted on various fronts, all of them strictly structural. We wanted to introduce mechanisms to reduce the prison population and to eliminate the phenomenon of the revolving door through the possibility of house arrest. Of course, we have limited resources, but what we have done has been effective. The objective was to create by 31 December 2014 an additional 11 700 places for prisoners. In 2012, 3 178 new places were created and a further 2 382 places will be created by June this year.

In the emergency situation in which we found ourselves, we launched a law to reduce the impact of the so-called revolving door affecting prisoners who are arrested and imprisoned for just two or three days. Also, the length of a sentence that they might serve at home has been increased from 12 to 18 months. Within a few days, the proportion of such admissions dropped—in 2009, the figure was 27% of the total, while in 2013 it was 13%. Moreover, 8 363 people have been able to serve their sentences at home under house arrest. We have noted for the first time a reduction in the prison population, which dropped from
68 000 to about 65 000 within a period of 12 months. We have also provided for the closure of prison psychiatric hospitals by 31 March 2013. People will be interned in national health service structures and monitored from the outside by the police structures.

In order to complete the measures to combat overcrowding, but also from the viewpoint of its crime policy, the government has presented a Bill on probation and other alternatives to detention. It is a subject of regret that, because the parliament was dissolved early, it was not able to go ahead with that measure, which had already been approved by the broad majority in the chamber. However, the seed has been sown and the message has been favourably heard. Just a few days ago, in Milan, the prosecutor made provisions for limiting house arrest to cases of investigation, prevention and punishment. That is an extraordinary example of how our judiciary can take on board such measures and consider how sentences and judgments are applied, so subjecting the law to a profoundly new interpretation.

The new government and parliament will consider and go ahead with the measures we have taken, which shows how we have already started to make efficient and rationalise the legal system. Among the measures that our government has looked at are new ones on trial in absentia, in line with the case law of the Court; Bills regarding time-barred and statutory limitations, as well as decriminalisation; and the introduction of a crime of money laundering. There will also be a review of civil mediation, which will be made compulsory; our constitutional court has judged that to be illegal, but simply for formal reasons. That is an important measure to overcome the problems of the length of procedures in Italian justice. Such measures have already been fully considered and approved by the Italian Parliament.

There should be root-and-branch reform to encourage our system to be more efficient. There are too many legal circuits, which means that the court is far too cumbersome. In particular, I point out the overhaul of the legal geography, by which the number of circuits will be reduced, and the introduction of measures to reduce the backlog and introduce best practice. On the basis of consumer satisfaction, and at the suggestion of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, there will be greater control over the admissibility of charges, through pre-evaluation of their seriousness, so concentrating resources on the most serious or worthy cases. At the moment, about 68% of civil cases are confirmed on appeal, so that measure would avoid any abuses of the system. There will also be further computerisation of processes, and there will be commercial courts, in which judges specialise in law and tendering. We want to avoid delays in payments for lengthy procedures. Following the latest change to the Pinto law, which concerns compensation for the length of a procedure, we are taking administrative and legal measures to make the system more fluid and cut procedural delays.

Finally, I want to mention the anti-corruption measures that have been approved by the court. It has also approved the secondment of three magistrates to the court, which will certainly speed things up. I also want to mention how we can have a more effective monitoring system. I am sure that the legal system in Italy will receive a positive influence from the implementation of the measures that I have mentioned, so making it possible to overcome some negative opinions. I am also sure that the member countries of the Council of Europe will very much appreciate what the Italian Government has done and is about to do, which will increase the trust in future assessments by the Council of Europe. In future, bodies will be assessed on the basis of the present assessment, rather than on what the situation was in the past.

I thank you, Mr President, and all the honourable members of the Parliamentary Assembly for their attention. Let me say that we must aim for the impossible, so that we can at least carry out what is possible.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Severino. We have a long agenda, but it was fascinating to hear your rich contribution to the debate. If you wish to remain to hear the other speeches, we will be delighted to have you, and you will then have an opportunity to respond.

      In the debate, I call Mr Çavuşoğlu who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – I thank the rapporteur for a comprehensive, factual and timely report. I also thank him for how he organised the report – he arranged several hearings and conferences, one of which I had the opportunity to attend – and for his full co-operation with the countries named in the report. He rightly named and criticised countries for their structural deficiencies, including my own country of Turkey.

      The Parliamentary Assembly has given our full support to the reform process of the whole Council of Europe, including that of the European Court of Human Rights. Our President, Mr Mignon, has played a very important role as chairperson of the ad hoc committee and as the President of this Assembly. We also support the ideas coming from the Court, particularly about having a panel at State level, so that the Assembly has better lists and can increase the quality of judges. The Assembly proposed – paragraph by paragraph, and very precisely – other measures during the conferences in Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton.

In the end, however, we have to convince our capitals that member States have the main responsibility for taking measures to overcome the structural deficiencies and to implement Court judgments immediately and successfully. For example, two weeks ago, the Turkish Parliament adopted a law by which Turkey made an agreement with the Court: only one law will mean that Turkey takes back 3,000 cases from the Court so that they can be resolved in Turkey. That is a good step, but it is not enough. My country, like all countries, has to take extra measures to decrease the number of applications from member States’ courts, to overcome other problems and to implement all the judgments. The report covers all of that, and we fully support Mr Kivalov’s very good work. I thank him and the Secretariat for the very good report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Çavuşoğlu. I call Ms Backman to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Ms BACKMAN (Iceland) – The main responsibility of the European Court of Human Rights is to guarantee the protection of human rights in Europe, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Its role is of vital importance in the region and beyond. The Court is overloaded and has been ineffective for some years, especially due to cases from nine States Parties, preventing it from operating efficiently. For the Court to be able to fulfil its role, States Parties must implement the Convention effectively at national level and fully comply with the Court's judgments, as Secretary General Jagland noted this morning. To be able to uphold fully the Convention, it is vital that the States Parties in question swiftly tackle widespread structural and systemic deficiencies in their legal orders. The progress already made in some of the States Parties should be noted, and further reforms encouraged.

The Committee of Ministers, the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee and national parliaments of all States Parties must closely follow the Assembly’s recommendations, especially the States Parties that do not adhere to the Convention. Special assistance and support should, however, be given to those States Parties that are suffering due to a serious crisis, with the aim of solving the underlying reasons for the non-compliance with the Convention. The Court should examine cases that give precedents, as well as cases that have been managed appropriately but whose outcome has been unsatisfactory. The cases examined should be exceptional cases. Following the report's recommendations will allow the Court to achieve better results.

At the same time, it is as important as ever to ensure that the Court remains independent. Furthermore, national parliaments should have a role in the selection process of candidates for election as judges to the Court, to ensure that the process is as democratic and professional as possible. The Group of the Unified European Left supports the report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Backman. I call Mr Franken to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr FRANKEN (Netherlands) – A possible outcome of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the determination that a particular government is acting contrary to a legal obligation. Some governments in Europe do not implement the decisions of the Strasbourg Court in the right way and so frustrate the rule of law and the fundamental rights of their own citizens. I underline, therefore, the proposals in the draft resolution and the recommendations based on the good and clearly formulated report of Mr Kivalov. I thank him for his work and compliment him on its result. I also thank the Minister, Ms Severino, for having an open approach to the issue and for providing new information.

We must be aware – I refer here to several debates on this subject in the last year – that the big backlog of the European Court of Human Rights, and the long waiting time before an appeal is decided, which are criticised in the report, are the result of the lack of implementation of decisions already given. This brings about repetitive cases, so the main problem of the Court is at the end of the process, when its work is already finished. If decisions are rapidly and carefully implemented, the Court will be relieved of a big percentage of its backlog.

Governments of member States are the only ones that can solve the backlog problem of the Court. They must implement quickly and carefully the Court’s decisions. An important task for the Committee of Ministers is, therefore, for its members to monitor their colleagues. That does not mean just friendly and/or diplomatic words, but polite pressure on each other. Members of parliaments must urge their national ministers not only to implement the decisions regarding their own countries but to push their European colleagues to implement the decisions of the Court in a quick and correct way. I am convinced that our own action as parliamentarians in this way can solve the problem of the Court in a short time.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Franken. I call Mr McNamara to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr McNAMARA (Ireland) – On 5 May 1949, the Council of Europe was established by the Treaty of London, which is perhaps not often recalled. Two years later, the precursor to the European Union was founded. In a relatively short period of time, measured against the years of history, huge progress has been made in developing what many commentators would describe as a novum ius commune Europaeum. That ius commune has reaped huge benefits for the ordinary citizens of Europe. It has enabled them to travel across Europe and know that they will be safe, and to engage in business, found families, move home, exchange ideas, and generate wealth for the continent, just as the mediaeval ius commune did. However, for such a legal order to exist, there must be an ultimate arbiter of rights – the Court. In Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights, all high contracting parties agree to be bound by the decisions of the Court in cases to which they are party.

I commend Mr Kivalov for his detailed and measured report, and particularly for the recommendations and draft resolution that accompany it. It tells us that the Court is overloaded with a large number of repetitive cases, many of which relate to structural issues identified by well-established case law, such as excessive length of judicial proceedings, chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, deaths, and ill treatment attributable to law enforcement officials.

Non-implementation of the Court’s decisions also poses a huge problem. A previous report of the Assembly by Mr Pourgourides pointed out the increasingly politicised nature of the execution of judgments in the United Kingdom. Indeed, I had the opportunity to read in Hansard that in recent parliamentary debates there was a discussion of the “weasel words” of the European Convention, illustrating the politicisation of the implementation of judgments. Unfortunately, that politicisation is not confined to the United Kingdom. In my own State, it was claimed recently that a minister for European affairs had said that the state of Ireland was under no obligation to implement the decision of the European Court in the A, B and C case. Fortunately, that has not prevented the government in which she is a junior minister from proceeding with the implementation of the Court’s judgment.

      I commend Mr Kivalov and stress the importance of the legal order, of which we are all guardians, that is presented to the ordinary citizens of Europe.

      (Ms Maury Pasquier, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr McNamara. May I call attention to the time that has been allotted for each speaker? Please do not go over that time, because we want to have time for everybody to speak. I call Ms Mateu Pi on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms MATEU PI (Andorra)* – I warmly thank Mr Kivalov and his team for their excellent report, which puts a finger elegantly yet firmly on the problems in the work of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the huge number of petitions that reach it. In the view of many of our fellow citizens, its judgments are ineffective because they are not executed by the States Parties.

Unfortunately, for several months, the Court has been the subject of numerous criticisms in the media of certain member States. The criticisms are various, but they reflect the ill will of the States Parties concerned, which are not prepared to enforce the judgments that are handed down. That is the problem. Perhaps they do not want to accept criticism from a supranational body, but that is what commitments are all about. Respecting such commitments and the rule of law, and promoting and safeguarding human rights are the very heart of our Organisation, and the Court is our crowning glory. This matter should concern us all, because it is about our credibility and our raison d'être – the defence of our common values of respecting and safeguarding human rights.

That is why I stress once again that this report is very relevant. It proposes concrete solutions, such as setting up a single national body that is responsible for executing Court judgments to ensure that they are truly effective and operational. The report does not omit the recommendations and resolutions that we have adopted in the Izmir and Brighton Declarations and the Interlaken Action Plan.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Mateu Pi. The rapporteur does not wish to comment at this stage, so I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – If we genuinely wish to guarantee the viability of the European Court of Human Rights, above all other things we must recall the principle of subsidiarity. I was surprised that the former president of the Court, Sir Nicolas Bratza, was so reluctant to incorporate that principle into the Convention at the Brighton Conference.

What does the principle involve? First, each State Party should put in place domestic remedies, making it possible to sanction at national level all breaches of Convention rights. Secondly, each contracting State should apply the case law of the Court pre-emptively, particularly when certain decisions can be applied to its own legal system. Thirdly, as a matter of routine, each state should monitor whether its laws are compatible with the Convention.

Fourthly, each State should ensure that the Court’s case law is better known and more widely disseminated. When we talk about publicising the judgments of the Court, there is the problem of translation. For the time being, judgments are drafted only in French and English. I am pleased that over the past few months, the Court has added translated versions of its judgments and decisions to its database, and has played a role in producing and disseminating two guides in several languages: a practical guide to admissibility and a handbook on European non-discrimination law. It has also included some Russian data in the HUDOC database.

Fifthly, all legal training courses must include teaching on the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court’s case law.

Most of the points that I am making chime with the recommendations in the excellent report by our colleague Serhii Kivalov. The draft resolution emphasises the guarantees that need to be put in place to ensure that the Judges on the European Court of Human Rights are as independent as possible. I endorse the proposals on our complementing the reforms in the Assembly when selecting candidates for the post of judge. The Committee of Ministers has taken decisions along those lines, notably on 29 March, when it adopted its own guidelines. As a French national, I very much regret that no emphasis is being put on mastery of the two official languages of the Council of Europe, English and French.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Pozzo di Borgo. I call Mr Michel.

Mr MICHEL (France)* – I pay tribute to Ms Severino, the Minister of Justice of Italy, for her presence and congratulate her on the action that she is taking with her government. In the last few years, justice has not been treated well in Italy. That is not healthy for justice at all. I was a magistrate in a previous existence and I am very satisfied with what you are doing to bring the judiciary in Italy back to its rightful place.

      As President Mignon said at the Brighton Conference, the Court is the victim of its own success. Surely it is really the victim of the failings at a national level. The statistics demonstrate that since the creation of the Court, it has handed down more than 15 000 judgments and that more than half those judgments involve four States: Turkey, Italy, your country, Ms Severino, the Russian Federation and Poland. If nothing is done, those countries will soon be joined by a number of other States, which have been mentioned in the excellent report by our colleague, Mr Serhii Kivalov. The list of the countries that are most frequently sentenced coincides with that of the countries in which the judgments are least well implemented. To ensure the full application of the European Convention on Human Rights and the viability of the Court, the execution of the judgments must be complied with.

Monitoring the judgments of the Court is the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers. To improve the monitoring, it adopted new monitoring procedures in 2010, which put particular emphasis on pilot judgments. That made it possible in 2011 to decrease the number of new repetitive cases that were submitted. That was probably due to better co-operation between the Court, the Committee of Ministers and national authorities.

We need to go further. Should we completely disregard the idea of financial sanctions for States that persist in the non-execution of a Court judgment? Let me remind you that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has such a system and it has proved very effective. Perhaps we should look at that. We might also consider excluding or expelling members that refuse in the long term to implement the Court’s judgments. That would strengthen the credibility of the system. We need to look at the situation because it might stimulate the States concerned to implement the provisions in paragraph 7 of the draft resolution.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Sasi.

      Mr SASI (Finland) – I congratulate Mr Kivalov on a very good report. It is now for member countries to take steps to move things forward. I welcome the Italian Minister of Justice. Italy is an example of a country with cases involving excessive length, so it is good that she is here to listen to our worries.

      As you all know, the European Court of Human Rights is overloaded. One reason is that there are a lot of complaints. Many complaints are of low quality or inadmissible, and we should discuss what can be done about that. The second reason is that there are a lot of structural deficiencies. In my country, for example, the biggest problem is proceedings of excessive length, and something needs to be done in most countries. Very often, Justice Ministers just say, “We need more money,” but that is not the only solution. Many countries could simplify their processes. It is important to remember that justice delayed is justice denied. In that respect, proceedings in many countries could be more effective than they are.

      The second issue is non-enforcement of decisions. In that respect, today’s data systems could help a lot of countries. When you have good data systems, you can implement decisions rapidly if you want, and investigate. Often, it is a question of attitude – you can do things rapidly, or you can wait, as in a very bureaucratic system – or of educating the police in the right way. You do not always need money to improve things. In countries with systematic problems, enhanced supervision is required. It is important that we in the Assembly continue to raise questions about those problems.

      We have to work at national level. The proposals in the report sound good. It is important that every national parliament gets a report of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, if not every year then at least every other year. From my experience in the Finnish Parliament, I know that it is not enough to get a report; it must be dealt with properly in parliament. For that reason, I think that it would make sense for people from the Council of Europe to go to countries in order to go through cases thoroughly and push parliaments to push the government to move things forward.

      A national body is proposed. I am not fully certain whether it would have the authority to move things forward; ministries of justice might be the right place for that. There are other proposals concerning justice immunity, which I do not think are within the scope of the report. However, a database is important. It is a great idea, and it should be used. When the Court has given a decision, implementing that judgment is important. Finally, if the Court is changing its case law, it should be cautious to avoid conflict with national courts or parliaments. If case law is changed, we should have conferences with parliaments and national courts so that we know things will change in a certain direction.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. In the absence of Ms Mogherini Rebesani. I call Mr Timchenko.

Mr TIMCHENKO (Russian Federation)* – I thank Mr Kivalov for a very effective and deep analysis of the issue at hand. The Russian position on the function and reform of the European Court of Human Rights is consistent. Effective protection of human rights at the international level is possible only in a system built on the principle of subsidiarity and mutual complementarity. Human rights protection should take place, first and foremost, at the national level. International measures should only be additional; they should not displace or replace national systems. States Parties should have a substantial margin of appreciation when it comes to implementing and interpreting the Convention, due to the specificities of their legal systems and cultural, national and religious traditions.

The Court should deal with cases only when petitioners have gone through all domestic remedies or when effective human rights protection at the national level does not exist or is not effective. The European Court should be resolute in following the Convention’s criteria for the admissibility of claims and the time limitations of its jurisdiction. In its work, the Court must apply the criteria of clarity, predictability and consistency. There should be full equality among the States Parties to the convention, and the Court should concentrate on systemic problems.

Russia is in favour of continuing work on a draft statute of the Court, the adoption of which would make it possible to put into an international agreement a number of important procedural aspects of the rules of the Court. As many speakers have said, one of the Court’s main problems is that a huge number of repetitive cases take up much of its work, time and effort, due to the many shortcomings in the functioning of national systems. Those shortcomings are due mainly to structural problems, such as excessive length of judicial proceedings, chronic non-execution of Court judgments and so on. A number of standard-setting acts need to be adopted to do away with such shortcomings, and they should be monitored carefully.

I would particularly like to refer to some of the positive aspects mentioned in the report. Effective domestic means to protect human rights are needed in order to do away with structural problems. Complex measures must be put in place to disseminate the standards of the Convention in the Court’s interpretation, especially when precedent-setting decisions are made. As Mr Kivalov said, we need to deal with real statistics; absolute numbers mean nothing if we do not compare them to population. All in all, the report’s content is quite acceptable, and its recommendations are very appropriate.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Wach.

      Mr WACH (Poland) – We welcome this important and well-prepared report. The European Court of Human Rights is a meaningful institution, and as a result of its activities, people in Europe are better protected and do not feel helpless when they feel they have not found justice at home. However, two conditions should be met: the Court must act fast enough, and countries must respect and fulfil its sentences and judgments.

      We have some remarks on the report, and we tabled several amendments. Paragraph 3 lists the main structural issues, the last of which is “unlawful detention on remand and its excessive length”. In our opinion, those are two different problems. When we join the two, it becomes very narrow. For example, my country is not accused of unlawful detention, but we agree that we have cases of excessive length of detention. Our other remark concerns paragraph 4, where some countries are mentioned. We think that they are mentioned alphabetically, not in order of statistics. Another point is that the report is based on statistics from 2011. Later statistics from 2012 have already been published, and we would like it to be noted that there have been changes and improvements.

On a positive note, our parliament has passed a decision to fulfil the requirements and suggestions, and has already decided to create a sub-committee to supervise the implementation of measures on human rights sentences and structural problems. It will be composed of members of the foreign affairs committee and the committee for justice and human rights. I hope that my country and all countries will better fulfil the requirements in future.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Mr Aleksandrov.

Mr ALEKSANDROV (Russian Federation)* – The development of the European Court of Human Rights represents one of our great work themes. The rapporteur, Mr Kivalov, is a great jurist of excellent reputation. He has examined a fundamental question and his report will be well received. It is essential that we have a Court that we can rely on.

The status of the judges and their immunity in particular is of great importance. At the national level, it is essential that a judge has an honourable situation. They must always be accorded respect for their moral position and be assured of the implementation of their decisions. The judges work at a very high level and it is important that we attend to the taking forward of their business. That is the responsibility of the whole legal community. Greater attention to the execution of judgments would facilitate a better climate in Europe, and the world, because Europe’s citizens need democratic States that respect the law.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Zappone.

Ms ZAPPONE (Ireland) – The issues highlighted in Mr Kivalov’s highly commendable report go to the heart of what we are trying to do in this Assembly and through the Council of Europe: promote and protect the human rights of every citizen across Europe. By ratifying the Convention, each of our countries committed itself not only to the Convention, but to the Court system. This was not a commitment without responsibilities or simply a signature on a piece of paper. It was a commitment that we would do whatever was required of us to comply with the system.

I welcome the call in the report for an enhanced role for parliaments in the execution process. In Ireland, we have taken some steps towards this; for example, our Committee on Health and Children has held hearings on the issue of abortion following the judgment in A, B and C v. Ireland, to which my colleague has already referred. The Minister for Social Protection will refer draft gender recognition legislation for our parliamentary committee following a declaration by the High Court of Ireland in the Foy case that our laws were incompatible with the Convention. However, as a parliamentarian, I am deeply concerned that over five years have passed since the Foy judgment and two years since the A, B, C judgment, with no legislation forthcoming.

Preventive measures are also important to address the issues raised in Mr Kivalov’s report. I call on members of the Assembly to seek to identify mechanisms within their own national systems that would allow for consistent and comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of the compliance of draft legislation with the Convention.

There is also scope to enhance the role of independent, Paris principle-compliant national human rights institutions in the remedying of structural deficiencies and the supervision of the execution of judgments. I welcome the reference to national human rights institutions in the report. They are uniquely placed to identify structural issues and monitor compliance, to work with parliaments and to provide information to the Committee of Ministers on the execution of judgments.

Finally, I highlight the need for firm commitments by member States to education and training, including for the legal profession, judiciary and civil servants on Convention rights and the Court system. There are good practice examples of such training across Europe, including from Ireland, where the national institution trains civil and public servants on the Convention. I commend this project to the Assembly and call for consideration of how we can elaborate a Europe-wide model of education and training which, in the long term, will assist the remedying of structural deficiencies. I endorse the draft resolution and recommendations.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Orobets.

      Ms OROBETS (Ukraine) – The European Court of Human Rights is well known in Ukraine as the last hope of Ukrainians seeking justice. In 2012, Ukraine was among the top five nations whose citizens were trying to sue their country in the European Court, not because Ukraine has a huge population, but because our courts fail. It takes money, many years and huge hope to go through all the procedures and obtain a decision of the Court. Consider how deep are the regrets of those who went through all that only to find out that nine out of 10 of the Court’s decisions will never be executed in Ukraine.

      Do we support the idea to optimise the work of the Court? Yes. However, it cannot result in limits on the rights of citizens to seek justice. Do we support the idea of monitoring the execution of judgments? Definitely. We should also consider sanctions for States that fail, up to and including blocking representation by its members in the Assembly, or at least by those who represent the ruling party. No matter how much criticism there is of bureaucracy and procedures, the biggest problem occurs when member States ignore the judgments. Eight months ago, the decision in the Lutsenko case was adopted. Guess what? Nothing has happened. Three years ago, the decision in Ivanov v. Ukraine was adopted, with the same result.

      I was surprised to find who had been entrusted with the task of reporting on this issue for the Assembly, because Mr Kivalov is known to have a huge personal impact on the judicial system and court judgments in Ukraine and is a persistent supporter of the idea of limiting the influence of the European Court. He was also the author of a draft law aimed at empowering local courts with the authority to revise inconvenient decisions of the European Court.

      Dear colleagues, I ask you not to support Amendment 1, which would entrust a judge of the European Court with the right to prioritise cases. In conditions of weak democracy, that will result either in a situation where cases of political prosecution, such as those of Tymoshenko and Lutsenko, will never appear on the Court’s agenda, or in a serious threat to the health and life of the judge and her family members. Thank you for understanding.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. Ms Severino, do you wish to make some brief remarks in response to the debate? You have the floor.

      Ms SEVERINO (Minister of Justice of Italy)* – I listened with great interest to those who spoke. A whole series of speakers very much struck the same note as the Italian Government has in its indications to parliament and in the laws that it has passed. I would be most grateful if all that were taken fully into account. I know that it takes some time to draft reports, but I have every confidence that forthcoming reports will take into account the reforms that Italy has now implemented, which seek to achieve the aims set out in the report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Severino. I call Mr Kivalov, the rapporteur, to reply. You have six minutes.

      Mr KIVALOV (Ukraine) – I thank the representatives of all the political groups for their proposals and recommendations, and for their objective assessment of my report. I thank all those who have spoken this afternoon about the problem in the work of the European Court of Human Rights. Most of those who spoke, including Ms Backman and Mr Franken, noted the issue of making the work of the European Court effective. With regard to the effectiveness of the Court’s work, States Parties must play a key role in making the system of conventions work properly.

      Our work has also shown how important it is to enhance the role of national parliaments in monitoring whether the standards in the Convention are being implemented at the national level. The main principles of parliamentary control and supervision should be implemented in all States Parties. Parliaments cannot turn their backs on the need to implement and execute the court’s decisions and to ensure that all official bodies and State structures implement court decisions. It is the job of government to do that and it is often at this stage that the structural deficiencies become apparent.

      It is up to governments to understand where the bottlenecks are and deal with them. We, as the Parliamentary Assembly, should recommend to those States Parties with structural deficiencies a dual system of parliamentary supervision. The default system would be parliamentary control and the Parliamentary Assembly would be there as an extra layer of monitoring and control, when necessary. We think that that is the right way to go.

      I also apologise for not being able to take into account the statistics for 2012. Unfortunately, the report was already completed in November 2012, which meant that I was not able to take into account newer statistics later than 2011 – the statistics that I had – despite Mr Wach having those statistics now.

      I thank all the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and all members of the secretariat who played such an important part, not only in helping with the report but in gathering material for it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wish to speak?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The Assembly owes a great debt of gratitude to Mr Kivalov for bringing forward the report and for the measured, factual way in which he introduced it. The contribution from Ms Severino, which was frank and informative – far more information than we normally are privileged to hear – is an indication of her respect for this Assembly. We appreciate her giving us so much information. Those contributions have enabled the report and debate to be positive and optimistic. That is a good thing.

      The report was adopted unanimously in our committee. In a few moments we will consider amendments, some of which were not the subject of unanimity and were quite hotly contested in the committee. I hope that members who participate in the vote on and discussion of those amendments bear in mind that the committee is also considering a report on the need to reinforce the independence of the European Court of Human Rights. Some members may think that Amendments 1 and 3 might unduly restrict the ability of the rapporteur on that subject, Mr Cilevičs, to go into it in great detail. We have not had a chance, as a committee, to look in detail at some of the amendments that were tabled at a relatively late stage, but which could have far-reaching implications.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Chope.

The debate is closed. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which 10 amendments and one sub-amendment have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 2 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the Committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Is that so Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Çavuşoğlu, Ms Zhurova, Mr Popescu, Mr Seyidov, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Rzayev, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Vareikis and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.4.2, to insert the following paragraph:

“establishing non-governmental permanent centres for potential applicants in order to advise them on Convention standards;”

We will proceed to consider the amendments in the order set out in the Organisation of Debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Cilevičs, Ms Zhurova, Mr Çavuşoğlu, Mr Popescu, Mr Seyidov, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Rzayev, Mr Vareikis and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 3, to add the following words:

“The judge from the relevant State Party should be empowered to identify cases raising important and systemic legal issues so as to prioritize them and secure their prompt consideration in order to terminate a continuing violation.”

I call Mr Cilevičs to move Amendment 1.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The amendment is aimed at streamlining and strengthening the already existing system of prioritising cases. I am grateful to Mr Chope for reminding members about my forthcoming report, but with all due respect, I do not think that adopting this amendment will preclude my working effectively and prevent my further clarifying and studying this issue.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      I call Mr Sobolev.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – I discussed this amendment with the author. I think that, if it provides the possibility to stress the main ideas on this or that case, in countries where the influence of the state is seriously against the members of the Court in Strasbourg, in future it will be a problem for judges. My proposition is not to use this amendment. After we have real protection of judges, then we can make this amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee supported this amendment by five votes to two.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedron and Mr Borowski, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly confirms (as underlined in Resolution 1787 (2011)) that inter alia Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine (in alphabetical order) face major structural problems requiring prompt execution of the Court’s judgements.”

I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 4.

Mr WACH (Poland) – In our opinion, our solution to the problem is better balanced and takes into account the changes that have taken place in the year since the statistics were compiled.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Sub-Amendment 1 to Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is, in Amendment 4, replace the words “(in alphabetical order) face major structural problems requiring prompt execution of the Court’s judgements” with the following words: “face major structural problems which lead to delays in the execution of the Court's judgements.”

I call Mr Kivalov to support the sub-amendment.

Mr KIVALOV (Ukraine)* – The committee discussed the amendment and decided to introduce a sub-amendment softening it. In general, we partially support the amendment, but want it set forth with the following wording: “The Assembly confirms (as underlined in Resolution 1787 (2011)) that inter alia Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine (in alphabetical order) face major structural problems which lead to delays in the execution of the Court's judgements. The Assembly notes also the progress achieved in respect of some of these countries.”

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

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr WACH (Poland) – We agree.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee agrees with the sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended? That is not the case.

      The committee is in favour.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.

      We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, at the end of paragraph 5, to add the following sentence:

“The supervisory procedure of the CM should be able to effectively address structural problems leading to worrying delays in the execution of the Court's judgements but also effectively promote those states that diligently”.

      I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 5.

      Mr WACH (Poland) – If we want to involve the Committee of Ministers more, and be more effective, the amendment should be adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment. That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was against the amendment by 10 votes to one.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 5 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, in paragraph 7.1.2, after the words “the Committee of Ministers”, to insert the following words: “for its prompt and effective examination”.

      I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 6.

      Mr WACH (Poland) – This is a short amendment and self-evident.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was against it by seven votes to two.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, in the draft resolution, to replace paragraph 7.1.3 with the following paragraph:

“consider strengthening resources and competences related to the execution of the Court’s judgment of the agent representing the government before the Court or if appropriate establishing a national body responsible solely for the execution of the Court’s judgements, in order to increase the effectiveness;”

I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 7.

Mr WACH (Poland) – The amendment proposes two ways instead of one. It could only have a good result. It deals not only with establishing a national body, but with strengthening the resources and competences of the agent representing the government.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was against it by six votes to one.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

Amendment 7 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.2, after the words “the Court”, to insert the following words: “, ensure mechanisms for verifying the compliance of new legal acts with the Convention”.

I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 8.

Mr WACH (Poland) – The amendment calls for the compliance of new legal acts with the Convention. It supplements the original sentence.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was against it by eight votes to one.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 8 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.4, second sentence, to delete the words “In State Parties with major structural problems,”.

I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 9.

Mr WACH (Poland) – The measures listed in paragraph 7.4 should concern all countries, not only those with structural problems, although, of course, they are most important for the latter. It is a correct proposition.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee rejected it by eight votes to four.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.4.2, after the words “legal professionals”, to add the following words: “and the relevant authorities”.

I call Mr Wach to support Amendment 10.

Mr WACH (Poland) – This is a minor amendment supplementing the sentence with the words: “and the relevant authorities”.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment. That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was against it by nine votes to two.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 10 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Çavuşoğlu, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Hajiyev, Ms Zhurova, Mr Popescu, Mr Seyidov, Mr Rzayev, Mr Vareikis and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 7.5, to insert the following paragraph:

“strengthen legal guarantees of independence of the Court's judges and secure their immunity by:

– providing them and their families with diplomatic immunity ad vitam, including immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys and to national judges of the highest level;

– securing that, after the replacement of a judge on the Court, the former judge be entitled to a similar position, if he or she has not yet reached retirement age;

– including a judge’s term of office at the Court onto his or her national employment record in judicial or other occupation;

– securing that, when the former judge reaches retirement age, he or she is entitled to a pension equivalent to that of judges of the highest courts or that of state agents of a similar position.”

I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment 3

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The idea of the amendment is to strengthen the independence of the Court. This is a topical and urgent issue, as is confirmed by the fact that, unusually, all members received a letter from the President of the Court explicitly supporting the idea of strengthening the independence of judges, although he did not state any particular wording. Nevertheless, I believe that our amendment is completely in line with what he stressed.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Neill.

      Mr NEILL (United Kingdom) – I am not sure that the amendment is in line with what was in the letter from the President of the Court. The President’s letter, while stressing the need for independence, was nothing like as prescriptive as the amendment. The amendment is too prescriptive to achieve what is appropriate. It is therefore disproportionate and not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – The committee was in favour of the amendment by 13 votes to seven.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 3 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13087, as amended. A simple majority is required for it to pass.

      The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13087, as amended, is adopted, with 100 votes for, 1 against and 5 abstentions.

We now come to the draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled.

I understand that the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, should be declared as adopted by the Assembly under rule 34.10. The amendment is Amendment 11 to the draft recommendation.

Is that so, Mr Chope?

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Are there any objections? That is not the case.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Wach, Mr Iwiński, Mr Vareikis, Mr Toshev, Mr Krząkała, Mr Górczyński, Mr Girzyński, Mr Biedroń and Mr Borowski, which is, in the draft recommendation, after paragraph 1.3, to insert the following paragraph:

“ensure appropriate staff resources to the Secretariat dealing with the execution of judgments;”.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13087, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 13087, as amended, is adopted, with 102 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

3. Post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item is debate on the report entitled “Post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria”, Document 13085, presented by Mr Luca Volontè, on behalf of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, with respect to the post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria. You have a total speaking time of 13 minutes, which you can divide as you see fit between the presentation of your report and your responses to the speakers. You have the floor.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – After considerable work in recent years – the Parliamentary Assembly started looking into the monitoring of Bulgaria in 2000 – Bulgaria has made considerable progress. Over the years, it has adopted various reforms linked to the recommendations it has received during the monitoring process. Bulgaria acceded to the European Union in 2007, and during the two-year post-monitoring period it has made further progress. It has been my honour on behalf of the Monitoring Committee to follow those developments closely. Bulgaria has tried to adopt as many of the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendations as possible. The parliament and the various political forces in the Bulgarian Government have continued to demonstrate political will to honour and implement fully the commitments that the country entered into as a member of the Council of Europe, in conformity with democratic standards. The Bulgarian authorities complied with their undertakings to co-operate with the Venice Commission and the European Commission.

Bulgaria has done much to enhance transparency and increase the independence of the judicial system. In particular, between 2008 and 2012 the Act on the judicial system was brought in with a view to enhancing the recruitment procedure for the appointment of members to the supreme judicial council, and in 2012 decisions were made relating to magistrates. There has been ongoing reform of the judicial system, which only enhances its credibility and citizens’ confidence in it. There are, however, some outstanding issues, such as our concern about the presence of the minister of Justice in the supreme judicial council. That is of some concern to us, but the European Commission takes a different view and it does not seem to be concerned about the role of the minister of justice in the supreme judicial council. We have seen enhanced managerial capacities when it comes to the supreme judicial council within the overall judicial system, although the administration of justice needs to be improved.

Bulgaria has made other reforms. Between 2010 and 2012, the law on forfeiture of illegally acquired assets was adopted, as was the law on conflict of interests, following the support of the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe. In December, the Bulgarian Parliament ratified the convention on money laundering. Important steps have been taken, and other steps still need to be taken, as we have said in our draft resolution, if the Bulgarian authorities want to continue the fight against corruption and further enhance the quality of judicial investigations. There has been active and ongoing co-operation between the Bulgarian authorities and the experts in GRECO and the Venice Commission. We have seen further implementation of judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. An important law adopted by the national assembly – all the political groups participated in the decision in September 2012 – obliges the Bulgarian Government to submit an annual report to parliament on its compliance with judgments handed down by the Court. In the general Act on the ministry of the Interior in October 2012, Bulgarian authorities stepped up the fight against abuses of human rights.

In 2010, a new law introducing greater transparency in respect of print media ownership was adopted. We hope that law can be extended to television networks and telecommunications. These are positive and encouraging developments, and it appears that the Bulgarian authorities will make further progress in these areas.

      Bulgaria has long-standing democratic practices and we call on it, and on all other countries, to ensure the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and specifically to co-operate with the Venice Commission in respect of reforming the judiciary. We call on Bulgaria to take a fresh look at its system of appraisal of judges, and for a clear division of powers between politicians and the judiciary. The supreme judicial council should be supported by being endowed with further resources, including human resources. We have made calls for further administrative reform, too. We could call for all such measures in various other countries as well, and they would feature in any post-monitoring dialogue with any other member State of the Council of Europe.

      Our resolution calls for higher qualifications to be required of members of the SJC and its inspectorate, and for better appraisal of supreme judicial council staff. We call for reform of the code of criminal procedure, too. That has been going on for the past 12 years, and we encourage Bulgaria to continue with it.

The Venice Commission and the European Commission are supporting Bulgaria, too. We want defamation of journalists to become a criminal offence under the reformed criminal code. That point could be made about other countries as well, including mine. We call on Bulgaria to step up the fight against corruption. It is not that nothing has been done, but further support is needed in respect of GRECO. The recently adopted law on organised crime is important. There is also a law of forfeiture in favour of the State in respect of illegally acquired assets. I have mentioned the law on conflicts of interest. A better system of sanctions is needed, too, and institutions set up to combat corruption must be truly independent – although, again, that point could be made about other countries.

      We call on the Bulgarian authorities to analyse the major obstacles in the fight against corruption so that the system can be further improved. We call for the rapid and total implementation of the recent convention on money laundering. Measures have already been adopted to combat corruption among public officials and the police, and there is great resolve to do more.

We have condemned attacks on minorities, too. That is being addressed at the national level. Work needs to be done at the local level as well, and international conventions and measures must be adopted.

      We propose that we should end the post-monitoring dialogue. Dramatic events are no longer taking place in Bulgaria. Steps have been put in place and are bearing fruit, and we might have called on many member States to take similar actions. If we end the post-monitoring procedure, that will in any case lead to a further year of informal monitoring. We will certainly not be abandoning Bulgaria; instead, we will carefully follow further developments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you Mr Volontè. You have one minute remaining.

      I call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands). – Some 21 years after Bulgaria’s accession to the Council of Europe, we are now evaluating developments and how well it is carrying out its obligations and commitments. I congratulate Mr Volontè on his report. It states that the Assembly should welcome the substantial progress made by Bulgaria, and we certainly do. Bulgaria has made progress and we should pay tribute to those responsible for that, especially the Bulgarian citizens.

Bulgaria has learned that living up to our common standards is anything but easy, however, and the authorities and citizens of Bulgaria are entitled to an honest evaluation. I therefore have to say that my group has great worries about the many obligations and commitments with which Bulgaria has not yet complied. There is substantial progress in the organisation of elections, but they are still far from perfect after 21 years of Council of Europe membership. There has also been substantial progress with the legislative framework, and crucial reforms have been put in place, but Bulgaria does not yet have an independent judiciary.

Several Governments have declared that they will fight corruption – that great evil that, according to our Secretary General earlier today, threatens the stability of countries and the core values we all cherish. Corruption in Bulgaria is growing once again, however. Some one in four entrepreneurs pay government officials, one in four Bulgarians gives money and presents to doctors, police officers, customs officials and judges, and, according to recent studies, every month 150 000 bribes are paid to civil servants, which is more than in 2010, as the rapporteur must know.

      Democracy is developing in Bulgaria, and we praise it for that. Last week, however, someone showed that they had not learned the lessons of democracy and tried to kill someone else. After the attack, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group in the European Parliament asked for an European Union investigation into the state of democracy in Bulgaria.

      We might question whether Bulgaria would gain accession to the European Union on current evidence. In my country and others, there would be big problems, and even accession to the Council of Europe would be problematic in some regards.

      We should help Bulgaria. We should praise it where it carries out its obligations, but we should not end post-monitoring. The resolution proposes to continue the post-monitoring, but the rapporteur proposes to end it. That is a bit weird, and I do not see how the rapporteur’s opinion tallies with the discussions in committee.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Omtzigt, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I thank the rapporteur for an excellent report and exhaustive review of all the outstanding issues in Bulgaria, apart from one, although an attack that happened yesterday cannot be included in a report that was published a few weeks ago. The report gives a good overview of where Bulgaria stands, which is in a halfway position since its admission to the European Union. I find it difficult to speak on behalf of the group, but I voted in my country against the accession of Bulgaria, not because I do not think that Bulgaria is part of our European family – it is fully part of our European family – but because it was not ready at that moment.

We see a lot of progress. We see progress in the fight against corruption. I do not agree with Mr Kox on that. Transparency International rates Bulgaria eight or nine places higher this year than it did last year. In fact, it left the last place in the European Union to Greece, which is not under monitoring at the moment. We are touching on a sensitive issue, which is that Bulgaria is the only European Union country that has been under monitoring and post-monitoring. None of the other countries is under this procedure; only two applicant states, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey, are at the moment. Therefore, this is quite embarrassing.

It is interesting to note that the European Union started its own procedure to see whether Bulgaria is good enough. There is some discrepancy between this report and the report of the European Commission that came out in July. After five years, the European Commission did not close the new procedure, the co-operation and verification mechanism. I would like to give some of my time to the rapporteur, if that is allowed, as I have a key question. There are lots of amendments and we can vote yes or no on them, but the key amendments are the last ones, as Mr Kox said. Are we proceeding with post-monitoring dialogue, are we closing it or – there is a third option – are we partially closing it and leaving it open because of three issues? I would like a clear answer from the rapporteur on how we should evaluate his proposal to close the post-monitoring procedure and how the key issues that he has outlined – the reform of the penal code is perhaps the most important – would be monitored if we closed the procedure now. What could we do if Bulgaria backtracked? Why does he think that enough progress has been made?

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Schennach, who speaks on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – The rapporteur is quite right to say in his written report that the post-monitoring process should continue. He rightly justifies that in the report by saying that corruption is not being combated efficiently – it is all a bit dilatory. Where Bulgaria is required to bring things into line quickly, it is seeking to circumvent them and not to remove the shortcomings. Post-monitoring can therefore help in that process. In the committee, two amendments were proposed to bring an end to the post-monitoring procedure, but they were both rejected, so the text was left in its original version.

Bulgaria is a nice, attractive country, but important steps need to be taken. It has acceded to the MONEYVAL convention, but it needs to implement it. That is the problem. There are problems in the judicial area, too, relating to the independence of the judiciary and too long a probation period for judges. There is a lack of enforcement by officials and corruption is prevalent. All that has to be ironed out.

I have exchanged e-mails with the rapporteur on the treatment of minorities. There are a lot of minorities, including Turks, Vlachs and Pomaks. The Roma are marginalised, impoverished and stigmatised, but the authorities are not doing anything about that. They do not understand that they need to protect these people. Look at what happened in the cities of Maglizh and Katuniza. Without any warning, 30 houses were bulldozed. People were not even given the chance to get their things out of their houses. In Katuniza, right-wing thugs and hooligans were screaming, “Roma out!” The police were just standing there watching. There is a lack of basic understanding of what is needed. That is what the Council of Europe needs to monitor. This is about the protection of one of the most persecuted minorities in Europe, particularly in Bulgaria. It would be helpful for civil society in Bulgaria if we were to continue the post-monitoring process, as the report recommends.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Lundgren, who speaks on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden) – The rule of law, democracy and human rights are core issues, which we always talk about. This Assembly of the Council of Europe should develop and safeguard those rights. We all took that upon ourselves when we decided to be members of this body. This report concerns one of our members. We can see that progress has been made; that has been shown to be a reality for the public in Bulgaria and by the rapporteur, Mr Volontè. We congratulate both the Bulgarian people and Mr Volontè on showing that progress.

However, when we read the report, we can see a lot of “buts”. The report raises many questions for this Assembly to take care of. We can see that in the recommendations from the Venice Commission and the remarks on the judiciary, corruption, abuses by law enforcement officials, the problems faced by the independent media and how the rights of minorities are dealt with. The message of the report is that continued progress is needed on several of these issues. The sustainability of the reforms needs to be confirmed. We heard this from the rapporteur and we can read all about it in the report.

Then we come to the conclusion. With all the questions raised and all the concerns pointed out, the conclusion is that the post-monitoring process needs to be continued. However, a lot of amendments have been proposed. This is like trying to have the cake and keep it; it is like trying to open and close the window at the same time. We should be honest to ourselves and to our values. We should speak out clearly on the conclusion and vote for clarification. We should vote in favour of paragraph 20 and against all the amendments.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Lundgren. I call Ms Gerasimova, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Ms GERASIMOVA (Russian Federation)* – The report objectively reflects the development of legal and democratic institutions in Bulgaria. I express my gratitude to the rapporteur and the committee for their scrupulous work, which we can see in the documents.

      Like many countries, Bulgaria has several unresolved questions. Its main domestic problems are still the absence of an independent judiciary, the excessive use of force by law enforcement bodies and the restriction of the rights of national minorities and of freedom of speech. After entering the European Union, Bulgaria introduced significant changes to its corpus of laws and rules, which many speakers have mentioned. Bulgaria has taken measures and it has taken into account the assessments of United Nations human rights bodies – the Helsinki Committee and the Commission for Protection against Discrimination – and other documents that provide the basis for new laws.

      I want to dwell on two points that the rapporteur mentioned. An analysis of the growth in the number of cases of the Bulgarian police exceeding their authority – dozens of people have said that they have been affected by that – gave an opportunity in 2012 for the introduction of changes to the law on the Interior ministry and adopting measures to eradicate the impunity of law-enforcement officials. As a result of analysis by the European Court of Human Rights over the past five years, Bulgaria has dealt with some 92 violations of the right to a fair trial. In 2012, a law was adopted that compels the government to report to parliament annually on the number and nature of judicial decisions and their implementation.

      Monitoring of various aspects of the life and activities of the Bulgarian population is undoubtedly being used by various bodies in the country to take decisions, but there is much to be done on the legislature and the executive, a fact that is reflected in the draft resolution. The European Democrat Group supports the draft resolution, but we also want to draw attention to the fact that in the countries of Europe, over the past decade, there have been changes that are not for the better. One could name a whole array of countries that have the same problems as Bulgaria, but those countries are not being monitored. For example, we heard information relating to Italy and the European Court of Human Rights earlier this evening. Is it not time to have a single approach to all countries in Europe and to change the monitoring procedure so that we have other instruments to influence the situation in such countries? I thank Mr Volontè for his report.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Gerasimova. Does the rapporteur wish to respond immediately or to do so at the end of the debate?

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – I will respond later.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Volontè. I call Mr Toshev.

      Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Believe it or not, today we are approaching the 13th anniversary of the start of the post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria, after the establishment of the monitoring procedure in January 2000.

Since the adoption of the Assembly’s previous resolution, there have been many achievements. They were precisely listed by the rapporteur, Mr Luca Volontè, to whom I express my gratitude. I first want to mention the important amendments to the Act on the Liability for Damage Incurred by the State and the Municipalities. Several provisions were adopted about compensation for damages inflicted on individuals and legal entities resulting from a violation of the right to a hearing and to the pronouncement of a judgment within a reasonable time. Until now, that was the reason for many of the cases before the European Court of Human Rights.

On 21 September, thanks to the initiative taken by the leader of our delegation to the Assembly, the Bulgarian National Assembly adopted a decision that obliges the Justice minister to table an annual report on the implementation of Court judgments. The adoption of the declaration of 12 January 2012, which condemns the persecution of ethnic Turks during the communist regime, and the unanimously adopted declaration of 27 May 2011, which condemns the violation around the mosque in Sofia, are other such provisions. Regrettably, the new penal code is still in preparation, but it is expected to be tabled for adoption after the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

Problems remain in some areas. First, reform of the judiciary has not yet been accomplished, and its functioning deserves further attention. We did not reach consensus on the recent election of a judge to the Bulgarian Constitutional Court. The second area, which I have pointed out since the start of post-monitoring dialogue 13 years ago, is the freedom of the media, their social responsibilities and the transparency of their ownership. Lastly, there are tensions about the adoption of amendments to the new electoral code, which are in accordance with the reasonable recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, our partner organisation. The insufficient readiness to co-operate of the governmental faction of the Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria has, in that respect, regrettably caused some highly undesirable problems.

In conclusion, it is not reasonable to continue the post-monitoring dialogue across the whole of the wide scale of issues. If you decide that it should continue, it should concentrate on the most important ones. By the way, such matters could also be covered by the relevant committees of the Assembly or by other competent bodies of the Council of Europe. The decision is in your hands, and you should decide.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Toshev. I call Mr Stoilov.

      Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – The report gives a comprehensive overview of the problems and of the actions that have been taken. As well as the achievements, we must note that since 2010 there has been some regress in relation to the democratic process in Bulgaria and other countries, such as on the recognition of the principle of the separation of powers, the fairness of elections and the independence of the judiciary and the media. Corruption, the increasing concentration of ownership and attempts to distribute economic influence through the power of the executive challenge the democratic functioning of the political system and State institutions.

      The rapporteur noted some of the facts, but others that shake his positive conclusions did not find a place in his analysis, such as the failure of the election of a member to the constitutional court, due to the abuse of power and the conflict of interests of one of the nominated candidates, and the failure to respect the time frame for the election of a new chief inspector of the inspectorate to the supreme judicial council. The growing impression of people who have been in contact with the judiciary is that the courts are susceptible to political and economic pressure. Those problems have provoked a reaction by the European Commission, which, under the mechanism for co-operation and verification, is about to announce an interim oral report on Bulgaria by the end of this month. Economic interests and the executive power have a growing influence over the media. The government plans to spend almost €7 million on advertising European funds in the national media in the months before the elections, without any competitive procedure, and there are several outstanding issues relating to the electoral process.

We have to admit that it is not typical for European Union member States to be subject to the post-monitoring procedure. In the case of Bulgaria, it has been in place for many years, but we have to assess whether its goals have been achieved. I want Bulgaria to answer to the highest democratic requirements of the Council of Europe, after which the procedure should be ended. The draft resolution contains nearly two dozen recommendations, the fulfilment of which will require time and an assessment of the results. I understand that closing the post-monitoring dialogue is in the interests of the government, but it is not in the interests of the Bulgarian people. Without external observation, the situation in the country will most probably deteriorate. I ask members not to vote for the closing of the post-monitoring procedure, as it could be a vote for the termination of democratic development in Bulgaria.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Stoilov. I call Mr Nikoloski.

Mr NIKOLOSKI (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) – I welcome the report and the recommendations. I want to underline several topics mentioned in the report, and especially the implementation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights in respect of minorities.

Many reports, including this one, say that Bulgaria is not implementing or respecting all the decisions by the Court. It is good that the Assembly is building a platform to deal with the matter. I want to underline the situation of the Macedonian minority who live in one part of the country. They cannot organise themselves into political parties and non-governmental organisations, because the Bulgarian state is not respecting several decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, especially in relation to the OMO Ilinden PIRIN organisation.

      I welcome paragraph 17.5.2 of the draft resolution, which calls on the authorities in Bulgaria to “ensure full implementation of all the provisions of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, in particular those concerning the personal scope of application of the convention, in view of the non-recognition of the existence in Bulgaria of the Pomak and Macedonian minorities”. I ask members of the Assembly to reject the amendment that asks for the words “Pomak” and “Macedonian” to be deleted. It is good that a country should face the fact that it has minorities, who feel differently from the majority, and that it recognises that those minorities have rights. Macedonians and Pomaks are now part of the national council of minorities, and I would ask the Bulgarian authorities to invite representatives from both communities to take part.

      Bulgaria is an example of a country that has made tremendous progress from being a communist State to being a democratic country that is a member of NATO and the European Union. Furthermore, Macedonia and Bulgaria are the closest friends in the region. Bulgaria was the first country to recognise the independence of Macedonia and support us during our difficult period of the last 20 years, and our people feel very close and together. I will vote in favour of closing the post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria, because the years that have passed have been enough time for such development, and the institutions in the country are capable of discussing these issues.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Nikoloski. I call Mr Hancock.

      Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – The one thing we have learned tonight is that when our Dutch colleague Mr Omtzigt generously offers to give up his time to help the debate to be answered, it can be taken with a pinch of salt, because he then spent all his time and gave nothing up. He did, however, pose a number of interesting questions in his statement.

I congratulate Mr Volontè on the report. He has tried to put right the wrongs of the past. By that, I do not mean the wrongs of Bulgaria, but of this Assembly when we chose to close the monitoring exercise on Bulgaria. I urge some members to reread the report, on the basis of which we agreed to close the monitoring. If they genuinely believe that report, post-monitoring should have been closed way before now. The problem was that, once again, the Council of Europe got it wrong in the first place. Continuing the post-monitoring with Bulgaria will help no one, least of all Bulgaria and its people.

Mr Volontè has answered most of the queries that have long been raised, whether on the minorities, the problem of the judiciary, or the problem of corruption, which is not peculiar to Bulgaria. The same suggestions that are in his report are made time and again in this Assembly, as we saw this morning in the debate about Kosovo. We must put what we are trying to achieve into perspective, and Mr Volontè, to his credit, has tried to do just that. The challenge he has thrown out is to ask us whether we genuinely believe that monitoring is being done in the right way, and if not, whether the post-monitoring is helping the situation. I happen to believe that it should be done away with. We should not agree to lift the monitoring exercise for a country until we are properly satisfied with what, we hope, it will achieve.

Extending the post-monitoring for Bulgaria will serve no useful purpose at all; it will be destructive. Once again, it makes the Council of Europe appear inconsistent because we have closed post-monitoring in countries where that exercise should have continued. Let us for once be consistent and close it for Bulgaria tonight.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Hancock. I call Mr Ahmet Türkeş.

      Mr A. TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – One of the most important roles of our Assembly is to encourage positive developments by providing supportive suggestions on how to improve democratic governance, the rule of law and human rights in member States. The report prepared by Mr Luca Volontè carries out that difficult task eloquently and successfully. I sincerely welcome the achievements realised by Bulgaria, which are a direct result of the commitment of the Bulgarian people to consolidating their democracy.

The positive developments in the domestic politics of Bulgaria also have implications for its foreign relations. The flourishing and increasingly cordial relations between Turkey and Bulgaria show how domestic and foreign politics nourish each other. The establishment of a high-level co-operation council, and other high-level contacts between Turkey and Bulgaria, alongside burgeoning bilateral trade and cultural contacts, will certainly enrich both countries. However, these positive developments should not overshadow the need for more reform, particularly in the field of minority rights.

The declaration adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament on 11 January 2012 regarding the expulsion of more than 360 000 Turks from Bulgaria is clearly a step in the right direction. However, this declaration should be followed by concrete measures. One concrete step should be the construction of more places of religious worship. I express my dismay at the inadequate efforts made by Bulgarian authorities to enhance religious freedoms and cultural rights for their Muslim citizens. In fact, recently, the attempt to build a mosque by the office of the grand mufti has been prevented. Furthermore, the issue of pension payments to Turks who emigrated from Bulgaria in the early 1990s should be resolved in an expedient manner.

Taking into account the track record of Bulgaria regarding carrying out reforms, I believe the aforementioned shortcomings will be overcome in the coming years. Thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Türkeş. I call Ms Grozdanova.

Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – I want to express my gratitude to Mr Volontè for producing an objective and good report for Bulgaria. Bulgaria considers the advancement of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms as a core value of its domestic and foreign policy. The Bulgarian Constitution and the relevant national legislation ensure the protection of human rights in accordance with the highest international standards.

I will not repeat the facts that have already been mentioned, but members need to know that Bulgaria made fundamental changes to its legislation between 2010 and 2012. I am sure that we no longer have structural problems in our legislation, but we must use it to its full potential.

Amendments have been made to the legislation on the liability for damage caused by the State or municipalities, with the aim of ensuring effective compensation for persons affected by the unlawful acts or omissions of civil servants. Those legislative changes and administrative measures were greatly facilitated by the expert opinions of the Venice Commission.

In 2012, the Committee of Ministers adopted a resolution on the implementation by Bulgaria of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, in which it is explicitly recognised that the Bulgarian authorities have adopted an inclusive approach regarding the personal scope of the application of the Convention. In November of the same year, Bulgaria presented its third report on the implementation of the Convention.

In 2010, Bulgaria successfully concluded its first universal periodic review before the United Nations Human Rights Council. In 2012, my country successfully presented its reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Bulgaria is not the worst country in the Council of Europe or the European Union. We need acknowledgement and trust from the Council of Europe in order to proceed in the right direction.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Grozdanova. I call Mr Vareikis.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – We are discussing a country that wants to finish the monitoring procedure and to be voted a free and independent country. Bulgarian history, like the history of my country, is not simple. It has seen occupation by different empires. It had a very strange history in the 20th century. I am sorry to say that it has made several mistakes. It has not always chosen the right side, including in the First World War and the Second World War. Finally, it was occupied by the Soviet Union. That was a mental occupation.

Many of its current political ideas and decisions are not the right ones, particularly with regard to the Turkish and Roma speaking minorities. However, if one looks at the last 20 years of Bulgaria’s history, one sees that it is generally going in the right direction. My suggestion is that we finish the post-monitoring procedure and say that it is a full democracy. Later, we will see how this country is really developing. It is now a country of the European Union and of NATO. There are therefore many factors that will not permit it to go backwards. I suggest that the Assembly support the report because we need to say that Bulgaria’s development has been right and that the post-monitoring procedure is finished.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. I call Mr Loutfi.

      Mr LOUTFI (Bulgaria)* – All international media, including BBC, CNN and France Inter to mention just a few, have reported that on 19 January, there was an attack on the president of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms at that party’s eighth congress. It is the third largest political party in Bulgaria. Given that monstrous assassination attempt, everything that is said in Mr Volontè’s report about the progress that has been made to establish and consolidate the values and principles of democracy in Bulgaria seems all too strange.

I draw the Assembly’s attention to the problems in relation to the freedoms of conscience and expression, which are completely stifled in Bulgaria. Some media, however, have managed to safeguard their independence. I emphasise the importance of the rule of law in respect of the fight against corruption and organised crime. The struggle in that area has been a crushing failure for the current government.

I would also like to raise the rights and freedoms of minorities. My party, the liberal party, champions the rights and freedoms of all Bulgarian citizens, but especially those of minorities. Religious and cultural freedoms require that the teaching of the Turkish language is mandatory on the school curriculum. One of the priorities of our Assembly is the integration into society of national minorities. Let us not forget that cultural expression is the guarantor of freedom in a country.

I draw your attention to a trial that is currently under way against the imams of the Rhodope region in Bulgaria. They are accused of impairing the security of my country. In my opinion, the Bulgarian authorities wish to give a political dimension to that trial.

Given what I have just said and in the light of my concern over the way in which democracy is evolving in Bulgaria, I suggest that the post-monitoring dialogue be extended. I would even say that the consideration should cover the situation in Bulgaria after it entered the Council of Europe, because the country needs to be a genuine democracy.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Loutfi. I call Mr Chisu, an Observer from Canada.

      Mr CHISU (Canada) – I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. As a Canadian parliamentarian with strong eastern-European roots, I read with great interest the report and draft resolution on the progress in Bulgaria subsequent to the Assembly’s monitoring procedure that was completed in 2000.

Bulgaria’s important reforms in respect of the functioning of the judiciary, combating corruption and organised crime, the implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and combating human rights abuses by the law enforcement authorities speak to Bulgaria’s genuine commitment to the rule of law, human rights and democracy.

The specific reforms prescribed by the rapporteur, Mr Luca Volontè, are well developed and offer a detailed road map to help Bulgaria complete its project of democratic and legal reform. Bulgaria is to be commended for creating the favourable conditions that have enabled that to happen.

Bulgaria is an important member of the international community and a valuable partner in a number of important regions, including the Balkans and the Middle East. It has enhanced its relationship with Turkey and offered to provide technical assistance to support the transition to democracy in Iraq, Egypt and Tunisia. It also provides significant support to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, where the number of Bulgarian troops stood at 581 in December 2012.

      There are a number of areas of continuing concern, but efforts have been made to curb corruption, which appears to be a pervasive and ingrained social problem. The European Union, through its co-operation and verification mechanism assessment for the period between 2007 and 2012, concluded that Bulgaria’s efforts need to be stepped up. Transparency International’s corruption perception index ranked Bulgaria 75th out of 176 countries. Concerns about corruption are one of the principal reasons for resistance in some European countries to Bulgaria’s joining the Schengen passport-free zone in Europe.

      Overall, the committee’s post-monitoring dialogue assessment is encouraging, and gives confidence that the foundation is now in place for Bulgaria to meet fully its commitments to the Council of Europe. That can only be a positive development for Europe and the international community.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Volontè, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes remaining.

      Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – This is my last report on post-monitoring in the Assembly. Thank you for the attention you have devoted to this report; I thank those who have been critical of the work as well as those who have been flattering. Even those who have criticised it have done so honestly and without bias, despite the approaching election campaign in Bulgaria.

      I would like to respond to some of the specific points made. Tiny Kox and our Bulgarian colleague Mr Loutfi asked about a young Muslim man who tried to kill Ahmed Dogan recently. They used the case to cast doubt on the level of democracy in Bulgaria, but you could say the same about Norway because of Breivik. There are mad people in all our countries. That does not say anything about security, the mental health of all citizens or the state of democracy there. Of course these are terrible events that should be condemned, but if you are saying that they indicate a crisis of democracy, you need to be a little cautious about how you put things.

      In our resolution, which was originally designed to close post-monitoring, we asked Bulgaria to do many things. We recognise that it has taken major, sustainable steps, but we would ask many countries to do the same things. Somebody said, “Let us be honest.” Let us all try to be honest and use the same yardstick now that we have used in the past and might have to use again in future. On rejecting the closure of post-monitoring, look at a country like Italy, which has criminalised defamation and where recently, under different governments, there have been attacks against the Roma. Why did you not introduce post-monitoring there? We all have less desirable aspects. There is no absolutely perfect and transparent democracy; we are all undergoing a process. We should recognise which countries have made major steps forward that correspond to European standards, and which have demonstrated that they are willing to make further steps. That is the whole point of post-monitoring.

What it boils down to is that I think the most reasonable approach at this stage is not actually to close the post-monitoring but to allow it to carry on for another year, and to continue to keep an eye on Bulgaria.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does the chairperson of the Monitoring Committee wish to speak?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – On behalf of the committee, I thank the Bulgarian delegation for the good spirit of co-operation that we have always had. I congratulate and thank our rapporteur, Mr Volontè. As he said, unfortunately, it is his last monitoring report, regardless of the result of the upcoming vote.

As has been mentioned in interventions, significant achievements have been made but problems remain in the judiciary, freedom of the media, elections and so on. There are three options: you must vote whether to close monitoring, continue it or restrict it to some areas. I would like our Bulgarian colleagues and Bulgaria to address the remaining problems and resolve them, whatever decision we make today and whatever the result of our vote is. I thank you once again. Last but not least, I thank our secretariat.

THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution, to which 14 amendments have been tabled and one oral amendment. They will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

I understand that the chair of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that the following amendments, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11. Amendments 4 and 5 were also unanimously agreed to, but as sub-amendments have been proposed, they cannot be taken under Rule 33.11. The amendments that have been unanimously agreed are Amendments 7, 10, 8 and 1 to the draft resolution. Is that so, Mr Herkel?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object? That is not the case.

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 7, 10, 8 and 1 to the draft resolution are agreed.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, Mr Thierry Mariani, Ms Marie-Jo Zimmermann, Mr Hans Franken, Mr Joseph O'Reilly, Mr Václav Kubata and Mr Rom Kostřica, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly appreciates the important efforts made by the Bulgarian authorities, in particular the ratification of the Money Laundering Convention by the parliament on 19 December 2012, which was a significant step in the right direction and confirms the sustainability and irreversibility of the democratic process. The Assembly strongly encourages the Bulgarian parliament and government to fully implement all the provisions of that Convention.”

Amendment 10, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, Mr Thierry Mariani, Ms Marie-Jo Zimmermann, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Hans Franken, Mr Joseph O'Reilly, Mr Václav Kubata and Mr Rom Kostřica, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.2.4, insert the following paragraph:

“ensure full implementation of the Money Laundering Convention, which was recently ratified by the parliament and is an important step forward for the country;”.

Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, Mr Thierry Mariani, Ms Marie-Jo Zimmermann, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Hans Franken and Mr Joseph O'Reilly, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.5.1, after the words “against minorities”, insert the following words: “, in particular any aggressive action against Roma and Sinti peoples,”.

Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Latchezar Toshev, Mr Kirtcho Dimitrov, Mr Hans Franken, Ms Dzhema Grozdanova, Mr Agustín Conde and Mr Piotr Wach, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.5.4, replace the words “former prisoners” with the following words: “former political prisoners”.

We will proceed to consider the remaining amendments in the order set out in the Organisation of Debates. I remind members that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Stoilov, Mr Schennach, Mr von Sydow, Mr Iwiński, Mr Marcenaro, Ms Durrieu, Mr Moriau, Mr Xuclà, Lord Anderson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, to replace the words “notes with satisfaction that the Bulgarian authorities have shown” with the following words: “expects that the Bulgarian authorities show”.

I call Mr Stoilov to support Amendment 3.

Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – Authorities in Bulgaria are of a contradictory character. For that reason, it is better to insert expectation instead of assessment, in order to encourage Bulgarian authorities to continue their action and improve results in applying the standards of the Council of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Ms Grozdanova.

Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – I oppose the amendment because if we say that the Assembly “expects that the Bulgarian authorities show”, it means that we have not done anything until now – that there has been no development and no commitment – and that is not true.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee was in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Stefan Schennach, Mr Björn von Sydow, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Ms Josette Durrieu, Mr Patrick Moriau, Mr Jordi Xuclà, Lord Donald Anderson, Mr Yanaki Stoilov, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.1.5.3, insert the following paragraph:

“carry out the upcoming elections of the new member of the Constitutional Court and of the Chief Inspector of the Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity as opposed to the demonstrated bad practices.”

I call Mr Schennach to support Amendment 4.

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The judiciary has to be exemplary, as should be its professionalism and integrity, particularly in the supreme judicial council.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have received an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 4 from the Monitoring Committee, which is: “in Amendment 4, delete the words ‘as opposed to the demonstrated bad practices’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

I call Mr Hancock to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I suggested this change in the committee, and I am delighted to say that it was agreed. As it is, the amendment suggests that there is a choice to be made: you can make all these changes with professionalism and integrity, or, if you choose, you can demonstrate bad practice. We want it to be done properly, and to allude to bad practices being an option is not, in my opinion, a sane way of doing business.

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

      What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is in favour. The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 4, as amended? That is not the case. The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

      Amendment 4, as amended, is adopted.

I have received Oral Amendment 1 from the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows:

“In the draft resolution, paragraph 17.5.1, before the word ‘minorities’, insert the word ‘all’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated. That is not the case.

I call Mr Hancock to support Oral Amendment 1.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I was delighted that this was, I think, unanimously accepted by the committee and certainly by the proposers because it makes an improvement. It makes it clear the Council of Europe recognises that all minorities need this protection, and we are not prepared to separate the differences here. We accept that all should be served with the same sense of purpose.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?

That is not the case. The committee is in favour.

The vote is open.

Oral Amendment 1 is adopted.

We come to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Latchezar Toshev, Mr Kirtcho Dimitrov, Mr Hans Franken, Mr Petar Petrov, Mr Gebhard Negele, Ms Dzhema Grozdanova, Mr Piotr Wach, Mr Václav Kubata and Mr Egidijus Vareikis, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 17.5.2, delete the words “, in view of the non-recognition of the existence in Bulgaria of the Pomak and Macedonian minorities,”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 13.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria)* – I suggest that we delete this special recommendation to give special mention to minorities because in Bulgaria in 2000, when we ratified the framework convention, we decided not to follow the German example to have a list of recognised minorities and to reject the others, but to recognise the right of self-identification of each group without the intervention of parliament, so that they could directly enjoy the rights and freedoms described in the framework convention. That is a different system, and it was approved by the Council of Europe. For us, it is better than opening Pandora’s box and asking parliament to vote in favour of or against one particular minority.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Cilevičs.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – I am against this proposal because what Mr Toshev said is not completely fair. It is not written in legislation which minorities are recognised and which are not, but we know what the practice is. These two minorities are not represented in the minority councils and we are well aware of several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights about refusal to recognise official organisations representing the minorities.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 13 is adopted. (Amendment 2 falls).

We come to Amendment 11, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Rovshan Rzayev, Mr Şaban Dişli, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Mr Cezar Florin Preda, Mr Florin Iordache and Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.5.5, insert the following paragraph:

“ensure and guarantee equal opportunities in public employment to persons belonging to minorities.”

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment 11.

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – Public employment is a facilitator for economic and social integration of minorities, which is a basic human right. There should be no discrimination in that. I call all colleagues to support the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have received an oral sub-amendment to Amendment 11 from the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows: “In amendment 11, delete the words `and guarantee’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated.

In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Hancock to support the oral sub-amendment.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I am pleased to say that members accepted the idea that you cannot possibly include the word “guarantee” because it would be open to challenge every time someone did not get a job. They could say, “But you guaranteed that I would have an equal opportunity.” The word “ensure” means that everyone should be given that opportunity, but you cannot provide an absolute guarantee in every circumstance.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – I am in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is in support. The vote is open.

The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Latvia) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 11, as amended, is adopted.

We come to Amendment 12, tabled by Ms Pelin Gündeş Bakir, Mr Rovshan Rzayev, Mr Şaban Dişli, Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Mr Cezar Florin Preda, Mr Florin Iordache and Ms Tülin Erkal Kara, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.5.5, insert the following paragraph:

“sign and ratify bilateral agreements on Social Security with Turkey.”

I call Ms Gündeş Bakir to support Amendment No. 12. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms GÜNDEŞ BAKIR (Turkey) – There is no bilateral agreement between Bulgaria and Turkey on social security. This affects in a negative way the social rights of many ethnic minorities, including Pomaks, Roma, the Goranis and the Turkish minority who have migrated to Turkey from Bulgaria. This is the reason behind the amendment, and I call all colleagues to support it.

THE PRESIDENT* – I call Ms Grozdanova to speak against the amendment.

Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – I am against the amendment because we have these agreements – the first from 1999 and the last from 2010. I have an official statement from our Minister of Social Affairs, which I gave to my colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 12 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Yanaki Stoilov, Mr Stefan Schennach, Mr Björn von Sydow, Mr Tadeusz Iwiński, Mr Pietro Marcenaro, Ms Josette Durrieu, Mr Patrick Moriau, Mr Jordi Xuclà and Lord Donald Anderson, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 17.5.5, insert the following paragraph:

“With regard to the Electoral Code and electoral process:

in order to apply Council of Europe standards and to answer the identified concerns and recommendations of the OSCE, the Bulgarian Parliament should adopt amendments to the Electoral Code in order to ensure the equality and transparency of the electoral process and free and fair parliamentary elections in the summer of 2013.”

I call Mr Stoilov to support Amendment 5.

Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – The draft report contains a section on the electoral code, but there is no such section in the draft resolution. Besides which, the last president, during local elections in 2011, used mass application of controlled vote and administrative pressure, and there were other problems. The OSCE mission made a number of recommendations for amendments to the electoral code.

THE PRESIDENT* – I have received two oral sub-amendments to Amendment 5 from the Monitoring Committee. Oral sub-amendment 1 reads as follows:

“In amendment 5, after the word ‘should’ insert the following words ‘as soon as possible’.”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Hancock to support the oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – Once again, I am responsible for moving this oral sub-amendment at the committee. I did so because I felt that, if you are going to say something as strong as this, you really want it to be assumed that it will take place as soon as possible, so adding those words is beneficial.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?

Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

The vote is open.

Oral sub-amendment 1 is adopted.

We now come to the second oral sub amendment to amendment 5, as amended, from the Monitoring Committee, which reads as follows:

“In amendment 5, replace the words ‘free and fair’ with the following words ‘fully in line with international standards for the next’”

I remind the Assembly of Rule 33.7.a, which enables the President to accept an oral amendment or sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to it being debated.

In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of Rule 33.7.a. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I call Mr Herkel to support the oral sub-amendment on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – After a long and interesting discussion, the committee found that “fully in line with international standards” is more precise than “free and fair”.

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

That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of the amendment?

Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – I am not opposed.

THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

The vote is open.

Oral sub-amendment 2 is adopted.

Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 5, as amended?

That is not the case.

The committee is obviously in favour.

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

The vote is open.

Amendment 5, as amended, is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Ms Dzhema Grozdanova, Ms Romana Tomc, Ms Elvira Kovács, Ms Chiora Taktakishvili and Ms Theodora Bakoyannis, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 20 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly resolves to close the post-monitoring dialogue with the Bulgarian authorities.”

If this amendment is adopted, Amendments 9 and 14 fall.

I call Ms Grozdanova to support Amendment 6.

Ms GROZDANOVA (Bulgaria) – As I said in my speech, we made great efforts to fulfil the recommendations of Resolution 1730, which came after Mr Holovaty’s report in 2010. This report was bad, because my two colleagues from Bulgaria, who are here now and speak against their own country, did nothing to fulfil the recommendations for an eight-year period. I am in favour of closing the post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Stoilov.

Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – This amendment is a big challenge to the credibility of the Parliamentary Assembly. You have to know that, without external observation, the situation in Bulgaria most probably will deteriorate. That is a reason to fulfil many requirements and, after that, to assess the situation in Bulgaria again.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee was against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Luca Volontè, Mr Thierry Mariani, Ms Marie-Jo Zimmermann, Mr Joseph O'Reilly, Mr Václav Kubata, Mr Rom Kostřica, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20, replace the word “continue” with the word “close”.

If Amendment 9 is adopted, Amendment 14 falls.

I call Mr Volontè to support Amendment 9.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy)* – The reasoning is the same as Ms Grozdanova just explained. The intention is to close the post-monitoring dialogue. We want an arrangement based on the situation in November. Closing the dialogue would not be a step back into the dark. We have had 12 years of progress, so ending monitoring would imply confidence in the reform process in Bulgaria.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We just rejected exactly the same amendment. It would have been more polite of the rapporteur not to move his amendment. We decided not to close the dialogue, and we should stick to the decision we took 30 seconds ago.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 9 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Latchezar Toshev, Mr Kirtcho Dimitrov, Mr Václav Kubata, Mr Hans Franken, Mr Egidijus Vareikis and Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 20, after the words “post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgarian authorities”, insert the following words: “in respect of reform of the Judiciary, Media freedom and transparency of ownership, as well as the revision of the Electoral Code”.

I call Mr Toshev to support Amendment 14.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – As I said in my speech, after 13 years it makes no sense to continue with such wide-ranging items in the post-monitoring dialogue. We should concentrate on the most important ones, otherwise we will duplicate the work of other committees. This should be avoided. That is why I suggest concentrating on three issues: reform of the judiciary, freedom of media and transparency of their ownership and amendments to the electoral code. That is how I propose continuing with the post-monitoring dialogue.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We have now voted twice against closing the monitoring procedure. I propose that we stick to that decision, vote against this amendment and keep with the post-monitoring, because it is in the benefit of the people of Bulgaria.

THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – In this case, the committee was in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 14 is adopted.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13085, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13085, as amended, is adopted, with 108 votes for, 9 against and 5 abstentions.

4. Next public sitting

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10.00 a.m. with the agenda which was agreed yesterday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 8.25 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. The activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Presentation by Mr Elzinga of report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy in Doc. 13089

Statement by Mr Lankes, Vice-President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Speakers:

Ms Fiala (Switzerland)

Ms Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan)

Mr Dragasakis (Greece)

Mr Braun (Hungary)

Mr Van der Maelen (Belgium)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Ms Myller (Finland)

Mr Kayatürk (Turkey)

Mr Sheridan (United Kingdom)

Mr Bugnon (Switzerland)

Mr Boden (Luxembourg)

Mr Šepić (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Mr Leyden (Ireland)

Mr Marmazov (Ukraine)

Ms Allain (France)

Replies:

Mr Lankes (Vice-President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development)

Mr Elzinga (Netherlands)

Mr Marcenaro (Italy)

Amendment 1 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

2. Ensuring the viability of the Strasbourg Court: structural deficiencies in States Parties

Presentation by Mr Kivalov of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Doc. 13087

Statement by Ms Severino, Minister of Justice of Italy

Speakers:

Mr Çavuşoğlu (Turkey)

Ms Backman (Iceland)

Mr Franken (Netherlands)

Mr McNamara (Ireland)

Ms Mateu Pi (Andorra)

Mr Pozzo di Borgo (France)

Mr Michel (France)

Mr Sasi (Finland)

Mr Timchenko (Russian Federation)

Mr Wach (Poland)

Mr Aleksandrov (Russian Federation)

Ms Zappone (Ireland)

Ms Orobets (Ukraine)

Replies:

Ms Severino (Minister of Justice of Italy)

Mr Kivalov (Ukraine)

Mr Chope (United Kingdom)

Amendments 2, 1, 4 as amended and 3 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

Amendment 11 adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, adopted

3. Post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria

Presentation by Mr Volontè of report of the Monitoring Committee in Doc. 13085.

Speakers:

Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

Mr Schennach (Austria)

Ms Lundgren (Sweden)

Ms Gerasimova (Russian Federation)

Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)

Mr Stoilov (Bulgaria)

Mr Nikoloski (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr A. Türkeş (Turkey)

Ms Grozdanova (Bulgaria)

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Loutfi (Bulgaria)

Mr Chisu (Canada)

Replies:

Mr Volontè (Italy)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Amendments 7, 8, 10, 1, 3, 4 as amended, 13, 11 as amended, 5 as amended, 14 and Oral Amendment 1 adopted

Draft resolution, as amended, adopted

4. Next public sitting

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Francis AGIUS*

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Karin ANDERSEN

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Alessandro Rossi

Khadija ARIB/Pieter Omtzigt

Volodymyr ARIEV

Mörður ÁRNASON

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI/ Brigitte Allain

Þuriður BACKMAN

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Dirk Van Der Maelen

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Eka Beselia

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA/Darina Gabániová

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Olga BORZOVA

Mladen BOSIĆ

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL

Piet DE BRUYN/Ludo Sannen

Patrizia BUGNANO/Giuliana Carlino

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA*

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU

Mikael CEDERBRATT/Kerstin LUNDGREN

Otto CHALOUPKA

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Christopher CHOPE*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV/Stanislav Ivanov

Lolita ČIGĀNE

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON/Robert Neill

Deirdre CLUNE/Katherine Zappone

Agustín CONDE

Igor CORMAN*

Telmo CORREIA

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Giovanna DEBONO*

Armand De DECKER

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA/Carmen Quintanilla

Peter van DIJK

Klaas DIJKHOFF*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Jim DOBBIN

Karl DONABAUER

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Mikuláš DZURINDA

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA

Gianni FARINA*

Relu FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON/Jean-Pierre Michel

Erich Georg FRITZ

Sir Roger GALE*

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Paolo GIARETTA/Renato Farina

Jean GLAVANY*

Michael GLOS*

Pavol GOGA

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Anton Belyakov

Martin GRAF

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS*

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER/Péter Hoppál

Gergely GULYÁS/László Koszorús

Pelin GÜNDEŞ BAKIR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Ana GUŢU/Corina Fusu

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Andrzej HALICKI/Marek Borowski

Mike HANCOCK

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT/Fernand Boden

Alfred HEER

Martin HENRIKSEN

Andres HERKEL

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Joachim HÖRSTER

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Susanna HUOVINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI*

Vladimir ILIČ*

Igor IVANOVSKI

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Roman JAKIČ

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI

Michael Aastrup JENSEN

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ/Svetislava Bulajić

Antti KAIKKONEN

Ferenc KALMÁR

Božidar KALMETA*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Burhan KAYATÜRK

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV/Volodymyr Pylypenko

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Alev KORUN

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Václav KUBATA

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Orinta LEIPUTĖ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

Jean-Louis LORRAIN/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

George LOUKAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Younal LOUTFI

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX/Philippe Blanchart

Gennaro MALGIERI

Nicole MANZONE-SAQUET/Bernard Marquet

Pietro MARCENARO

Thierry MARIANI

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Riitta Myller

Frano MATUŠIĆ*

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER/Luc Recordon

Michael McNAMARA

Sir Alan MEALE/Michael Connarty

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Ivan MELNIKOV*

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON/ Bernard Fournier

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Federica MOGHERINI REBESANI*

Andrey MOLCHANOV/ Olga Kazakova

Jerzy MONTAG*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Patrick MORIAU

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Alejandro MUÑOZ-ALONSO

Lydia MUTSCH

Lev MYRYMSKYI

Philippe NACHBAR/Jacques Legendre

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ

Gebhard NEGELE

Aleksandar NENKOV

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Carina OHLSSON/Kent Härstedt

Joseph O'REILLY

Lesia OROBETS

Sandra OSBORNE/Linda Riordan

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Eva PARERA

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Lajla PERNASKA*

Johannes PFLUG*

Foteini PIPILI*

Ivan POPESCU

Lisbeth Bech POULSEN*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/David Crausby

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Andreja Črnak Meglič

Radoslav PROCHÁZKA/József Nagy

Gabino PUCHE

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS/Indrek Saar

Eva RICHTROVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Pavlo RYABIKIN

Rovshan RZAYEV

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Kimmo SASI

Stefan SCHENNACH

Marina SCHUSTER

Urs SCHWALLER*

Damir ŠEHOVIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Boris SHPIGEL/Yury Solonin

Arturas SKARDŽIUS

Ladislav SKOPAL/Kateřina Konečná

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Giacomo STUCCHI

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI/Imre Vejkey

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Romana TOMC

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Theodora TZAKRI

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov

Viktor USPASKICH/Egidijus Vareikis

Giuseppe VALENTINO

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS/Petros Tatsopoulos

Ljubica VASIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Volodymyr VECHERKO/Larysa Melnychuk

Stefaan VERCAMER*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN*

Varujan VOSGANIAN*

Tanja VRBAT/Melita Mulić

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER/ Cheryl Gillan

Dame Angela WATKINSON

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Øyvind Vaksdal

Gisela WURM

Karl ZELLER*

Svetlana ZHUROVA

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Montenegro*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

Vacant Seat, Romania*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Joris BACKER

Joe BENTON

Charles KENNEDY

Elvira KOVÁCS

Observers

Eloy CANTU SEGOVIA

Corneliu CHISU

Aldo GIORDANO

Partners for Democracy

Mohammed AMEUR

Bernard SABELLA