1401311000E

AA14CR09.	AS (2014) CR 09
	Provisional edition

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Ninth sitting

Friday 31 January 2014 at 10.00 a.m.

In this report:

1. Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3. 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 verbatim report.

(Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

THE PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business is further changes to committee membership set out in Docs. Commissions (2014)01 Addenda 7, 8 and 9.

Are these proposals approved?

The proposed candidatures are approved.

2. Revision of the European convention on transfrontier television

THE PRESIDENT* – Given the number of speakers this morning, I propose to limit speeches to four minutes instead of three minutes, unless there is any objection.

The next item of business this morning is the debate on the report, “Revision of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television” (Document 13383), presented by Mr James Clappison on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights with an opinion presented by Sir Roger Gale on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media (Document 13406).

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

MR CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – It is a pleasure to present this report. It has been my privilege to prepare it and to have had the excellent support of Agnieszka Szklanna and the staff of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

When I started work on this I was soon struck by the fact that the European Convention on Transfrontier Television – this Council of Europe’s convention – was something for which we could take great credit. As the draft resolution rightly states, it “was the first international legal instrument ensuring unimpeded transmission of programmes regardless of borders” across Europe. It was opened for signature before the European Union’s own foray into this area with its television without frontiers directive. Our convention has been ratified by 33 countries, including 13 states which are not also members of the EU. So this is another case in which we have to be mindful of the interests of member states who are not part of the EU but who are members of the Council of Europe.

The ECTT covers all transfrontier programmes and protects the core values of the convention. Its provisions deal with sensitive and important subjects – very sensitive subjects in some cases – which are set out in the report, and the way in which it deals with these subjects has been of benefit to broadcasters, including public broadcasters; that was also brought home to me during the course of my work when I met such broadcasters. It has also, I believe, been of benefit to individual citizens.

The subject matter of this convention changes rapidly, and has transformed completely since the convention was opened. It has been amended only once, however, in 2002, and now clearly needs revision to meet today’s needs in the field of broadcasting. That is the key point.

What was also brought home to me, however, was that broadcasters still see great value and potential in this convention, subject to appropriate amendment and revision. They want the convention to be brought up to date.

The circumstances in which work on revising the convention came to a halt are set out in the report. The European Commission stopped negotiating the second amending protocol to the ECTT, arguing that this subject matter fell within the exclusive external competence of the EU. That brought matters to a halt, as is set out in the report.

In my report, I reflect on how to handle this impasse due to the EU’s firm position and what the Council of Europe could do to revive the ECTT. I carried out a fact-finding visit to Brussels, when I met EU officials and representatives of broadcasting associations, and we had a hearing of experts before the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Unfortunately, during my visit to Brussels the EU officials I met reaffirmed what the European Commission had already made clear to the Council of Europe. I was made aware of that position very clearly and very firmly. The EU is currently not interested in resuming work on the second amending protocol to the ECTT. According to the EU, the broader geographical scope of the ECTT is no longer of added value, as the EU exports its norms through bilateral agreements with some non-EU member states – albeit not all non-EU member states who are member states of this Council, and not in the same way, in the case of those who are member states of this Council, as under a convention.

The EU’s concern and argument seems to be that the media landscape is changing quickly, and it has stopped negotiations on the revision of the ECTT mainly on political grounds. If there was political will, negotiations may well be able to be resumed. In the meantime, owing to the stoppage of work on its revision, the convention has become obsolete. One possible avenue to break this impasse is to draft a more general convention that focuses on the main principles stemming from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and addresses issues such as the freedom of expression, pluralism, diversity and cross-border flow of content.

There is a debate to be had on this and work to be done. My contention is that the work should continue; that is the important point. We should keep the work going and the convention alive. As I have made clear – I will stress this again – a revision of the ECTT will have a positive impact on numerous stakeholders, including broadcasters.

One cannot escape the point in all this: the blocking of the revision of the ECTT by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union has wider implications for other conventions – arguably all of them – of this Council. It would set a bad precedent, and it could later be invoked as a precedent against the revision of other Council of Europe conventions. It may also lead to normative conflicts in member states bound by the updated EU legal framework and the unamended ECTT.

Therefore, as proposed in the draft resolution, the Assembly should call on the EU to resume talks with the Council of Europe on the revision of the ECTT and eventually to provide clarifications about issues relating to the regulation of audio-visual services that are deemed to fall outside the scope of the external exclusive competence.

The Council of Europe is well placed to draft binding legal instruments on media law and policies. That is why, in the draft recommendation, it is also proposed that the Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television, whose activities have been suspended, resume its work on the revision of the ECTT. Moreover, if need be, the Committee of Ministers should consider other avenues, such as drafting a new convention and possibly also, or as an alternative, guidelines focusing on media freedom and adapted to the changing media landscape.

I hope that the Assembly will support the proposals. The essential point is that this is important work, and we need to keep it going. We need to keep our work and the outcome of that work, in the form of the convention, going, and to continue being of benefit.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Clappison. You have five minutes 28 seconds remaining.

I call Sir Roger Gale, Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, to present the committee’s opinion. You have four minutes.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – I begin by congratulating my friend and parliamentary colleague, James Clappison, and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, on an excellent and forthright report. I also add my thanks to the staff, both of the Legal Affairs Committee and of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, in particular Rüdiger Dossow, who has been of immense value throughout this whole process.

I was a part of the original Convention on Transfrontier Television, when I was a member of this Assembly more than 25 years ago. In 1989, I was one of the people who helped to draft it. I am aware of its value and importance. It has stood the test of time, until relatively recently, very well indeed. It has been amended once, as Mr Clappsion has said, but the time has come for further revision.

The convention is of importance to literally every household in the 47 states of the Council of Europe. Television, and now more modern communications, impacts on the lives of every man, woman and child. For that reason, it is essential that the work continues in a way that embraces all 47 member states. That is why I am pleased to give my wholehearted support – and that of the Culture Committee and the Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society – to the Legal Affairs Committee and its excellent work.

It is vital that not just EU member states but all Council of Europe member states have a say in a revised convention. The EU does not and cannot have exclusive competence over matters affecting many countries that lie outside the borders of the European Union. This was historically, and remains, a Council of Europe responsibility.

The Culture Committee, and the Media Sub-Committee, now under my chairmanship, have proposed several amendments designed to strengthen still further the Legal Affairs Committee’s report. These have been discussed and, as I understand it, accepted by the Legal Affairs Committee, and I hope that they will be accepted by the whole Assembly this morning.

I trust that the Committee of Ministers, under the Austrian chairmanship, will recognise the Assembly’s strength of feeling on the issue and forcefully indicate to the Commission that the Council of Europe’s work on the revision of the ECTT must now resume and be completed as swiftly as possible.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. In the debate I call first Mr Beneyto, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – I wish to congratulate Mr Clappsion on his report on the important issue of transfrontier television and what is entailed in the European audio-visual space. Our group agrees with the report to an extent.

There has been major technological change and legal developments of two different natures: one started by the Council of Europe through the convention; and the other that was developed almost immediately after by the European Union with its “Television Without Frontiers” directive. These two processes, as is the case with many other areas where there is overlapping competence between the European Union and the Council of Europe, do not have to be pitted against each other; they should dovetail. We need to envisage a Europe without borders, not a Europe in which we reconstruct internal borders between bodies and legal systems that are complementary, not contradictory.

It is therefore appropriate that the European Union should press ahead with its “Television Without Frontiers” directive to deal with specific issues, while the Council of Europe’s convention also deals with specific matters. We agree that there is a need to resume talks so that the Council of Europe can revise the convention.

However, this does not mean – this is where we disagree with Mr Clappison’s report – that we are faced with the situation described in the report: an attempt by the European Union to impose its own legislation on non-EU member states. That is not true.

The report also suggests that the Lisbon Treaty necessarily implies an increase in competences of the European Union at the expense of member states. That is also incorrect. The Lisbon Treaty was adopted by all EU states, including the United Kingdom. Providing a restrictive interpretation of possible forthcoming legislation from the EU in pursuance of the Lisbon Treaty is legally meaningless.

We support revising the convention and resuming talks in the context of the competence and jurisdiction of the Council of Europe over the legal aspects, but at the same time we must respect other legal orders, such as that of the European Union. The EU is currently not interested in resuming work on the second amending protocol to the ECTT. According to the EU, the broader geographical scope of the ECTT is no longer of added value, as the EU exports its norms through bilateral agreements with some non-EU member states – although not all non-EU member states who are member states of this Council, and not in the same way, in the case of those who are member states of this Council, as would be the case with a convention.

The EU’s concern and argument seems to be that the media landscape is changing quickly, and it has stopped negotiations on the revision of the ECTT mainly on political grounds. If there was political will, negotiations may well be able to be resumed. In the meantime, due to the stoppage of work on its revision, the convention has become obsolete. One possible avenue to break this impasse is to draft a more general convention that focuses on the main principles stemming from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and addresses issues such as the freedom of expression, pluralism, diversity and cross-border flow of content.

The Council of Europe is well placed to draft binding legal instruments on media law and policies. That is why, in the draft recommendation, it is also proposed that the Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television, whose activities have been suspended, resumes its work on the revision of the ECTT. Moreover, if need be, the Committee of Ministers should consider other avenues, such as drafting a new convention and possibly also, or as an alternative, guidelines focusing on media freedom and adapted to the changing media landscape.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Clappison. You have five minutes 28 seconds remaining.

I call Sir Roger Gale, Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, to present the committee’s opinion. You have four minutes.

The convention is of importance to literally every household in the 47 states of the Council of Europe. Television, and now more modern communications, impacts the lives of every man, woman and child. For that reason, it is essential that the work continues in a way that embraces all 47 member states. That is why I am pleased to give my wholehearted support – and that of the Culture Committee and the Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society – to the Legal Affairs Committee and its excellent work.

It is vital that not just EU member states, but all Council of Europe member states, have a say in a revised convention. The EU does not and cannot have exclusive competence over matters affecting many countries that lie outside the borders of the European Union. This was historically, and remains, a Council of Europe responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. In the debate I call first Mr Beneyto, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

We support revising the convention and resuming talks in the context of competence and jurisdiction of the Council of Europe on the legal aspects, but at the same time, we must respect other legal orders, such as that of the European Union. It is not at all helpful to establish contradictions between organisations or conflicts of jurisdiction. We take issue with the report on that.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Beneyto. I call Ms Oehri to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms OEHRI (Liechtenstein)* – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. Freedom of expression goes hand in hand with regulation of the media, and it is a subject to which the Council of Europe has attached a high priority. Freedom of expression needs to be guaranteed not only nationally but across borders. As part and parcel of that, people need to be able to express themselves in their own language, which is part of their culture and identity – it is how people understand themselves.

The media landscape has undergone profound change in the past few years and I think that will continue to be the case. The convention has been overtaken by developments and many decisions have been taken out of the hands of governments. It will have to be adapted to address those new technological developments of which we have only a vague notion today. Governments are lagging behind current developments, so it is important that we update the convention’s provisions. However, we must ensure that we draft them in a technologically neutral way, so that they can be adapted to address future developments.

Given Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights on freedom of expression, the freedom to receive and impart information should be a central concern of ours. We have to adapt to technological change while also minimising any possible risks. The EU is equally concerned with the issue of media pluralism, and in 2011 it adopted a directive in order to exert its exclusive competence in the field.

My own country, the Principality of Liechtenstein, is not a member of the European Union, but a revision to the convention would be of great importance to us. Given that members of the Council of Europe and of the EU are governed by the same regulatory framework, it is important that we resume negotiations and work on a common solution that takes into account recent technological developments and media pluralism and that provides sufficient flexibility to be able to adapt to future developments.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Oehri. I beg your pardon, Mr Marias: it is the end of the week and I forgot to give you the floor. I call you to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – On behalf of EDG, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Clappison, on his report. We endorse it and will vote in favour of it and the amendments.

The European Convention on Transfrontier Television is a very important achievement by the Council of Europe. It has been ratified by 33 countries since 1989, which is testimony to the very important role it plays. It complies with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and addresses the issues of media pluralism in mass media, the protection of young people, combating racist propaganda and public access to information.

It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable for the convention to be applied in the member states of the Council of Europe, but several governments and public authorities are trying to find ways to avoid doing so. Some time ago, the Greek Government took the arbitrary action of abolishing public television. We had black screens and every television official was dismissed. The convention is, therefore, relevant.

The issue overlaps with certain EU provisions and regulations. Since 2002, when the convention was revised – we were all keen on that revision – there have been major technological advances. As the rapporteur has said, his report’s proposed revision can be made only in co-ordination with the EU. The Commission has said that the EU has the exclusive competence to rule on matters relating to transfrontier television. Consequently, member states do not have the right independently to sign a revised convention by the Council of Europe.

This is an important issue and it is raising a series of difficulties. We acknowledge that the EU has law-making powers in this area, but its objectives are different: it wants to ensure that the internal market is properly regulated, but the Council of Europe convention is designed, first and foremost, to protect the democratic rights of citizens. By flagging up its own rules and the decisions of its court, the EU is saying that its member states cannot contribute to the convention. As a result, I think it is trying to impose a veto. Non-EU member states will also find it difficult to make a contribution and, on the issue of exclusive competence, let us not forget that the European Council also has to make decisions.

We agree with the report and will vote in favour of it. It is important that we revise the convention. The Council of Europe has a very important role to play, irrespective of the obstacles the EU places in its path in the form of its exclusive competence and its internal problems resulting from bureaucracy in Brussels.

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

Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – On behalf of my political group, I thank the rapporteur, who has really got to grips with the field of transfrontier television. The convention dates back to 1989, which seems like the Middle Ages, given the current technological situation and all the advances that have been made. Our borders are still relevant in the field of transfrontier television, but that is not the case when it comes to the open skies. I was delighted that the French Government removed the field of culture and media from the EU-US trade agreement.

We are talking about dominance. The strong position of larger states means that they can impose strict conditions. For example, there is such a movement in Germany, along with Switzerland and Liechtenstein, but it is difficult for the smaller countries to do this alone. There are also licence agreements and contracts that we can very much call into question.

Another issue to address is the access of minorities to television and freedom of expression. When considering our convention we need to examine the position of existing and new minorities, and take on board new population flows. For example, Mexico has created new TV stations in response to migratory flows. We need to revise the convention on the basis that there should be independent regulatory authorities in the different countries. It is important that such authorities exist so that we can have recourse to them. Mr Marias made the important point that we need to take preventive measures on campaigning; we need to have clear rules that can be applied to clamp down on what is carried out in the context of campaigning – we could be talking about hate or intolerance, or even political campaigning. The Council of Europe represents the pan-European area – the greater Europe – so our convention is very important. The European Commission seems to be pursuing the wrong policy, because it is only reducing an incredibly sensitive market. So many different interests, influences and borders are involved in this matter. Once again, on behalf of my political group, I thank the rapporteur for this very good report, which comes at just the right time. The convention dates back to 1989, which is very much in the Middle Ages as far as this field is concerned.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Schennach. Mr rapporteur, would you like to reply now to the statements made by the representatives of the political groups?

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I would indeed, as this has been a very good debate so far. I am grateful for the general support that has been forthcoming, which has been entirely along the lines of the report. I am grateful to Mr Beneyto for the entirety of his remarks, although I would make one qualification. He said that the report suggested that the European Union was trying to impose its laws on other states, but that is not quite the case; as paragraph 26 of the report makes clear, the EU enters into bilateral agreements with some non-EU Council of Europe member states, but not all such states are subject to such agreements. The agreements that are entered into do not cover exactly the same ground, and they are not the same as having a convention. I reassure Mr Beneyto that the thrust of the report is that we should work in co-operation with the European Union, because, as he rightly said, we need to dovetail with the EU’s work – that is a very good way of expressing it. As he also rightly said, it is important that we should keep on with our work. The real issue is: do we keep on with it at all? True co-operation should mean that we keep on with our work and find a way of working together with the European Union.

As if to emphasise the point about the importance of non-EU Council of Europe member states, we then heard from Ms Oehri, to whom I am very grateful for rightly pointing out that her country, Liechtenstein, is not a member of the EU and needs our convention to be revised. I am grateful to Mr Marias for his words on this issue. He made it clear that not revising the convention – stopping work on this – raises a series of difficulties. He was broadly right about this, because the European Union is about the market, whereas our convention is about the protection of citizens. He used the word “veto” to express the way in which work had been stopped. I am grateful for Mr Schennach’s support of the report, which was very forthcoming. He said that the European Commission was pursuing the wrong policy. If one had to select a part of the European Union that is blocking our further progress, it would be the Commission. In conclusion, I am very grateful for the very clear support that has been given to the report so far.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Clappison. You still have three minutes in which to reply to the speakers who are going to take the floor subsequently. First, I call Ms Giannakaki.

Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – The report is important because it considers an issue involving a conflict of jurisdiction and competence between the two most important organisations in Europe. The transfrontier television convention is the cornerstone of audiovisual policy among member states of the Council of Europe. It has been in place for 24 years and has been revised only once, some 10 years ago. That means that it has not kept track of technological developments in the various countries. I was a negotiator for Greece when the 2004 revision took place, and the bold vision of the convention was to have common ground among the member states on the production and distribution of programmes, and on protecting consumers from unfair practices in the fields of advertising, telemarketing and so on. The idea was to ensure the availability of non-exclusive coverage of events that are very important to society, in order to avoid practices that would prevent certain people from watching certain things. It was also important that we protected minors and the public, and that we put in place protection against fraud. First and foremost, we needed to protect minors, even though the means of protection are within the competence of member states.

For all its flaws, the convention was an important tool for regulating the audiovisual sphere, especially for non-EU member states of the Council of Europe. It was possible for the EU to resolve these issues through its directive. None the less, work on a second revision and on an amending protocol, for which a Standing Committee had been set up, was broken up because of the intervention of the EU, which had clearly stated that the revision of international agreements in the audiovisual field was exclusively the competence of the EU. Moreover, the European Commission, notwithstanding the appeals of the Council of Europe, refused to provide any explanation or clarification of what it understood by “exclusive competence”. On the basis of a resolution adopted unanimously in December 2013, an appeal was addressed to the European Union and its member states to expedite discussions with the Council of Europe, so that the convention on transfrontier television could be revised and so that we could find alternative means of adopting a modern legislative framework that would take account of technological change, and would protect freedom of the media and freedom of expression.

The Parliamentary Assembly put three things to the Committee of Ministers: it recapitulated the point about the work undertaken and the negotiations with the European Union; it reflected on the possibility of signing a new convention focusing on freedom of expression; and it proposed developing guidelines on freedom of expression, which should stem from the European Court of Justice’s case law.

Mr REISS (France)* – The legal tools governing transfrontier television are based on a simple principle: every European citizen should have access to all European programmes. It is clear that consistency between the content of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television and the European directive is essential for effective co-ordination between different laws and the transboundary circulation of television programmes. Digital technology is revolutionising the transmission of audio-visual programming, but commercial issues, such as copyright and distribution, do exist. The spread of premier league programming shows that some might be tempted to use technology to circumvent the rules of the internal market.

As stated in the report, however, the negotiation of international agreements in the audio-visual sector is important, which leads me to a second problem, namely that of cultural diversity. What will be the impact of new technologies on this area? Will they create an imbalance or will the cultural content of programming increase? The convention must factor in the various developments. We must not forget that at the borders of the European Union, such as in Belarus, access to transfrontier television is important for the fostering of openness, diversity and democracy. We must not lag behind the technology, so as not to allow conflicting interpretations of the interests of citizens and of the European audio-visual market. We know only too well that rights are threatened in several countries where freedom of expression and the media are empty promises.

In Alsace, we are fortunate to be bicultural and can understand German, and transfrontier television has contributed to a better understanding of our neighbours and to Franco-German reconciliation. That sort of thing should fuel our consideration of the revision of the convention, which cannot be seen in technical terms only. I thank the rapporteur for his interesting work.

THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Matušić is not here, so I call Mr Chope.

Mr CHOPE (United Kingdom) – I congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. I want to discuss the wider implications, rather than just transfrontier broadcasting, because the report demonstrates the difficulties that the Council of Europe encounters when dealing with the European Union.

The EU is engaged in competence creep and wants to take over more and more of the long-established and worthwhile activities of the Parliamentary Assembly and of the Council of Europe. The President of the European Parliament, Mr Schulz, told us on Wednesday in answer to Mr Clappison’s question: “My guess is that the next European Commission should, from a principled point of view, not think, ‘Is there a corner of Europe that we have not interfered with?’” Those were wonderful words, but we then find out that the EU has in practice blocked progress in this area. It is preventing a revised convention, which could then be signed by emerging democracies in the southern Mediterranean region and in north Africa, from being accepted. The EU is not even prepared to spell out exactly its intentions.

Back in December 2010, the European Commission promised that it would provide the Standing Committee with an “opinion on a list of issues related to the regulation of audiovisual media services, which are deemed to fall outside the European Union’s exclusive external powers”. More than three years later, it has not deigned to do so. What is the Committee of Ministers doing to defend the important role of the Council of Europe in dealing with issues such as transfrontier broadcasting? The report makes some clear recommendations that I hope will be acted upon by the Committee of Ministers. Otherwise, the prospects for the independence of the Council of Europe look pretty grim indeed. We have already heard from the rapporteur that the EU’s opinion is that it does not need to examine pan-European conventions or even those that go beyond the wider Europe, because it prefers to negotiate on a bilateral basis with individual countries, so that it can use its clout to get its own way instead of relying on conventions. That is an unsatisfactory way forward, but if that is its approach, that is totally incompatible with the future roles of the Council of Europe and of this Assembly, because the making of conventions has been an important part of our work. It seems as though that role will continue to be sabotaged by the European Union, which does not even have the guts to explain its motives and the legal justifications for its proposals.

The report is therefore very important in terms of not only the immediate issue that it addresses, but of the wider issue of whether the Council of Europe will be able to keep its important role or will continue to have to give way to the aspirations of the European Union, which, notwithstanding the sentimental words of the President of the European Parliament, is intent on a takeover

THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers. I call Mr Gerashchenko on a point of order.

Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – My point of order is not on the subject under discussion, but rather on yesterday’s activities. We discussed an important resolution on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine, which I obviously support, but I was surprised to see that the website suggests that I am against the resolution, and I would like that to be corrected. I want to make it clear that I wholeheartedly support the resolution.

THE PRESIDENT* – I made the same mistake myself when voting on the resolution, and I will ask the Secretariat to make the necessary corrections.

Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Further to that point of order, Mr President. I made the same mistake, so the details were perhaps not very clear. I am also in favour of the resolution regarding Ukraine.

THE PRESIDENT* – We have made a note of that. Did anyone else press the wrong button? That is not the case.

I call Mr Clappison, rapporteur, to reply to the debate. You have three minutes.

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – I am grateful for the support expressed for the course that we propose to take. Ms Giannakaki gave that support with the authority of someone who has been involved as a negotiator in this field, and she identified some areas where the convention could be of benefit and could protect citizens. I am also grateful to Mr Reiss for his words about European citizens having access to European programming. He also identified some areas where the convention could continue to have value were it allowed to move forward. Mr Chope took us through some of the wider implications. One cannot help but see wider implications; that is unavoidable. Mr Chope was right in what he said about the Commission not having communicated the material it promised to communicate. We have now been waiting three years to be told about the areas in which the European Union has exclusive competence. We were told – this quote is in paragraph 16 of the report – we would be given an “opinion on a list of issues related to the regulation of audiovisual media services, which are deemed to fall outside the European Union’s exclusive external powers”. That has not been forthcoming and that promise was made more than three years ago. I hope that, if nothing else, the European Commission will hold good to the promise it gave to this Assembly. The report contains a provision that expressly draws attention to that and asks for such a list.

We need to work in co-operation. The convention has value and needs to go forward. It can be of benefit to individual citizens both within the European Union and outside it. Co-operation has to be a two-way process and so far the process has been one of veto. We are not working together; we have been clearly told not to do any work at all. We might not have been given a full explanation of all that we were promised, but one thing has been made clear to us – the point was made bluntly to me when I visited Brussels – by the Commission: it did not want this work to go ahead. It is right for us to pass the resolution, to keep the work going, to keep the convention alive and to preserve its benefits. We need to do that while working with the European Commission. That is the thrust of the report.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, rapporteur. I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin to speak on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I congratulate Mr Clappison on his excellent report, which speaks for itself. I also thank Sir Roger for his good and useful amendments. All seven members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights voted unanimously for them yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which six amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation, to which one amendment has been tabled.

All the amendments have been agreed unanimously in the Committee. If there is no objection, I declare Amendments 1 to 6 agreed by the Assembly under Rule 33.11.

The following amendments have been adopted:

Amendment 1, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 2, insert the following paragraph:

“The Assembly recalls Article 24 of the Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 2007/65/EC, which stipulates that, in fields which this Directive does not coordinate, it shall not affect the rights and obligations of member States of the European Union resulting from existing conventions dealing with telecommunications or broadcasting.”Am

Amendment 2, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, second sentence, replace the words “current situation” with the following words: “current blockage of the revision”.

Amendment 3, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the second sentence with the following sentence:

“Therefore, the Assembly strongly shares the legitimate intention expressed by the high contracting parties of the ECTT to revise and modernise the ECTT in order to adapt it to the newest technological standards.” Am

Amendment 4, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5.1, replace the words “fall outside” with the following words: “it believes to fall within”.

Amendment 5, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 5.3 with the following paragraph:

“reflect on the need for a new convention embodying a modern legal framework on media issues at the trans-European level.”

Amendment 6, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 6.2, add the following words: “and the protection of freedom of expression and media freedom by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also properly reflecting the needs and interests of non-EU member States of the Council of Europe.”

THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13383, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13383, as amended, is adopted, with 43 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

THE PRESIDENT* – There is one amendment to the draft recommendation, which has been unanimously approved by the committee. If there is no objection I declare it approved by the Assembly under rule 33.11.

The following amendment has been adopted:

Amendment 7, tabled by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, after the words “European Convention on Transfrontier Television”, insert the following words: “as well as Assembly Resolution 1636 (2008) on indicators for media in a democracy”.

THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the draft recommendation contained in Document 13383, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 13383, as amended, is adopted, with 45 votes for, 1 against and 2 abstentions.

3. Accountability of international organisations for human rights violations

THE PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the debate on the report, “Accountability of international organisations for human rights violations”, Document 13370, presented by Mr José María Beneyto on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

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

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – International organisations, such as the UN, NATO and the EU, have become powerful actors on the international stage. They employ staff, impose sanctions and engage in peacekeeping and military operations that directly impact the lives of individuals, yet, when such organisations are alleged to have encroached upon the human rights of individuals, mechanisms to hold them accountable for human rights violations are underdeveloped and in many instances non-existent.

This subject is of much greater importance than first meets the eye. To put matters bluntly, by transferring or delegating certain state powers or jurisdictions to international organisations, states may be able to escape responsibility for human rights violations. For instance, the so-called “smart sanctions”, which target individuals and entities that are blacklisted by the UN Security Council’s sanctions committees in the fight against international terrorism, have, in specific instances, violated the rights of individuals. Examples of that include two famous cases: the Strasbourg Court’s judgment on Nada v. Switzerland, as well as the Luxembourg court’s famous Kadi judgment. One of the fundamental questions is on how we ensure that that does not happen. In my report, I have studied the subject from four often closely related angles, to determine how international organisations and, in particular, persons working under the jurisdiction of such organisations should be held accountable for human rights violations.

First, states ought to be held responsible in certain circumstances for action taken by the international organisations of which they are members by piercing the veil of international organisations. In other words, when international organisations cannot be held directly accountable, the member states of those organisations ought to be liable for implication in human rights violations.

Secondly, there is a need to set up international fora to challenge the actions of international organisations with respect to their human rights obligations and to permit individuals to seek redress when such violations are found. In my report I cite examples of certain human rights accountability mechanisms that monitor the administration of territories – the advisory panels created to monitor the actions of the UN and the European Union in Kosovo with respect to the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo and the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo – which in my view need reinforcement. These mechanisms are not sufficiently effective, and there are concerns about the implementation of their findings.

Thirdly, linked to this need to equip international organisations with effective mechanisms is the idea being developed within the UN of independent scrutiny by ombudsman-type institutions. Our member states should encourage this development. As most of you are aware, the creation of an ombudsperson institution in the context of UN Security Council anti-terrorism sanctions is commendable. But such mechanisms need to be provided with real teeth: in other words, with sufficient power and authority to act as a true check on the activities of international organisations.

Fourthly, today, international organisations still enjoy absolute immunity from lawsuits in national courts unless a waiver is provided. This matter deserves renewed attention. The principle of absolute immunity is increasingly being called into question. For instance, my report refers to the case of Stitchting Mothers of Srebrenica v. the Netherlands and the UN. In 2012, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch courts could not hear the claim as far as it was directed against the UN, because the UN “enjoys the most far-reaching immunity from jurisdiction, in the sense that the UN cannot be summoned to appear before any domestic court in the countries that are party to the [Genocide] Convention”.

Following another Dutch Supreme Court judgment, dated 6 September 2013, this position has been nuanced, in that the court – correctly, in my view – laid emphasis on who had “effective control” over the Dutch forces in the Srebrenica enclave, and found that the Dutch military authorities’ conduct could be attributed not only to the UN but to the state concerned: the notion of “dual attribution” was accepted.

The examples I have just given indicate clearly that this subject is a live issue, which both the highest courts of our member states and the Strasbourg Court are confronted with. This recent judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court also confirms the firm stand our Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has taken: immunity should not permit impunity. Rules of absolute state immunity have evolved in international law on the basis of developments in the national law of most countries. The shield of absolute immunity in respect of state activity – acts jure imperii – no longer applies in respect of commercial acts: acts jure gestionis. With the development of international human rights law, one should now be able to argue, mutatis mutandis, that there exists an obligation upon states to refuse immunity of international organisations in certain situations. This is the thrust of my report, which the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights presents to you today. It is a technical analysis with the legal and political implications I have described.

To my surprise, yesterday in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, our colleague Mr Marias tabled amendments – they are basically one amendment – that would introduce as the main subject of the report the Troika consisting of the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. I clearly had to speak against them, and once the members of the committee realised that they had nothing to do with the report, they too rejected all of them.

I am counting on your support in adopting – if possible, unanimously – the draft resolution and recommendation we are submitting to you this morning, and to conclude that the Troika, although a very important issue, is not the subject matter of this report. I thank you for your attention.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Beneyto. You have five minutes to reply later to speakers in the debate. In the general debate, I call Ms Gerasimova to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Ms GERASIMOVA (Russian Federation)* – I want to thank the rapporteur for the work undertaken in preparing the report on what is a vexed issue for all countries. The UN and its specialised agencies have developed a whole host of very important international agreements on the protection of human rights and freedoms. In compliance with the provisions of international treaties, a system of inter-state bodies has been developed concerning functions in the field of international oversight of human rights. Appropriate authority for the UN lies with the Commission on Human Rights. In the UN Secretariat, a human rights centre is in operation.

In December 1993, the General Assembly adopted a resolution establishing the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In addition to these agreements, there is a whole host of international legal instruments adopted by the European Community. A very important one was the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, creating an effective European Court of Human Rights. Various international organisations depending on those statutes have differing scope of legal competence and consequently, differing scope and limits of responsibility. The UN’s International Law Commission has examined the question of the responsibility of international organisations for internationally wrongful acts, and such articles have been adopted by the UN General Assembly.

This document establishes rules applicable to the responsibility of states in connection with the conduct of international organisations. The state bears responsibility for the wrongful actions of an international organisation only if it extends assistance to that organisation in the commission of that wrongful act and with knowledge of the details of such an act, or obliges the organisation to commit such an act, or voluntarily takes on responsibility for the commission of such an act.

However, as the report points out, this question has not been conclusively studied and there is a need for further analysis. Therefore, the resolution states that the activities of international organisations should be monitored for their compliance with human rights norms. Where such internal oversight mechanisms exist, their decisions must be implemented. Legally binding monitoring mechanisms need to be balanced with the principle of the independence of international organisations. The ideas contained in the resolution and recommendation for developing rules governing the waiving of international organisations’ immunity warrant further analysis and study, because such rules may undermine international law.

We need to stress that the question raised in the recommendation of whether a vacuum of responsibility would exist if international organisations implemented functions traditionally belonging to states needs further study. International organisations are playing an ever-increasing role in activities affecting civilians, and much still needs to be done. There needs to be further study of this issue, so that each individual feels genuinely protected.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Xuclà to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – I hail and salute the presentation of this report and laud the work that the rapporteur, Mr Beneyto, has done in preparing it. He has expressed the need for us to move further in strengthening and stepping up mechanisms for oversight of international organisations with regard to their human rights obligations. Mr Beneyto is a lawyer, and he gives very detailed consideration to areas where progress has been made and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in which we have clearly seen a positive trend developing. The legal instruments that have allowed us to strengthen oversight mechanisms for human rights in relation to international organisations are, in many cases, the upshot of grave mistakes that we and the international community have committed.

Mr Beneyto refers to the grave errors by the Europeans in the 1990s in the Balkans – first and foremost, in Srebrenica – and the legal consequences this has had, and to the recognition of the dual responsibility of the international organisations and member states: in this case the Netherlands, given the actions of the army vis-a-vis a massacre. This is a very important aspect. We need to reflect seriously on the fight against the impunity of armies performing international missions.

If I may, I will depart somewhat from the scope of Europe to recall that at this time we are seeing the end of the road for the United Nations operations in Afghanistan and the country is negotiating an international troop presence agreement that is replete with clauses involving impunity and immunities vis-a-vis the actions of such troops there since halfway through this year. In 2005, after the lessons learned from our mistakes in the Balkans, the United Nations legally enshrined the concept of the responsibility to protect. It has been dubbed the right to interfere, but it is not that; it is a right, or a responsibility or an obligation, to protect against barbarism, atrocities and violations of human rights.

Mr Beneyto’s report puts on the table the important evolution that we have seen in international organisations in equipping themselves with new instruments so that they honour their obligations regarding human rights. There is still a long way to go in terms of accountability and answering for the actions of international organisations. In any event, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Beneyto about the Troika. I say this in the light of the fair play and gentlemen’s agreements we have in this Assembly in dealing with such amendments.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Xuclà. I give the floor to Mr von Sydow from Sweden, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – So far the debate has shown a very positive reaction to the report and to the rapporteur. We in the Socialist Group are very grateful for the report, which brings to our attention issues that are highly relevant all over the world but where the European institutions can really do a lot. One interesting development is that of international lawyers’ associations drawing up principles on making compromises between the different principles that, since the time of the International Committee of the Red Cross, have regulated the presence of international organisations as regards individuals who are confronted with challenges to their human rights and well-being.

The other interesting development relates to the international military and civilian operations in Kosovo. These started with the United Nations interim mission in Kosovo, which was followed up by EULEX – the European Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo. Not immediately, but after a while, it was understood that there must be institutions for dealing with conflicts between the international organisations and local populations. The organisations can deal with very ordinary matters and also relate to issues that are of the greatest importance to individuals. The developments since Kosovo have not been a success in that sense, but important steps have been taken. The European institutions, and certainly the Council of Europe, have a very important role to play in this. Although the rapporteur’s proposal is limited, I am sure that he wants to promote an ongoing process.

The most important aspect is covered in paragraph 2.3 of the recommendation. Again, the rapporteur is cautious, because this is a difficult issue, but he ends up with the right way ahead, with a view to ending the lack of accountability regarding international organisations’ presence in troubled countries where, be it through a mandate from the United Nations or from others, there is a need to achieve the rule of law as regards the relationship between the international organisations and the local populations in terms of human rights.

I wish the rapporteur to stay in his position and to keenly follow up the reply from the Committee of Ministers. If that reply is not sufficient in terms of the strategy that he outlines, we should take the matter back to the members of the Committee of Ministers through various initiatives here in the Assembly. This is a task for European institutions and the Council of Europe in combining human rights with security as we move ahead.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. I call Ms Hovhannisyan, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms A HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – On behalf of the EPP, I thank the rapporteur for his excellent report and express our support for it. The report drew our attention to a very important and controversial issue while giving a lot of information that provides us with an opportunity to act and the knowledge we need to discuss the topic. The responsibility of international organisations has been discussed many times in recent years, but this report can be described as revolutionary, as it addresses the issue directly and clearly and makes a requirement for a decision. This is one step further on from all the prior discussions.

The role of international organisations has changed a lot since the time when the first such organisations were established. There is a special idea behind the absolute immunity that international organisations have. At the beginning of their formation international institutions did not have the power they now have. Absolute immunity was needed to help those new organisations find their place, reach their goals and implement their decisions. But nowadays international organisations have gained a leading role in international fora. They have power, rights and privileges; they directly affect the rights and freedoms of others by their actions and decisions; they have the armies and powers of the member states under their indirect control, but at the same time they are not responsible – or, rather, accountable – for actions that may lead to human rights violations.

Judicial practice, based on the decisions of the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, is against the waiving of the immunity of international organisations, including in cases where the organisations are in breach of jus cogens norms, but the theoretical work done by the International Law Association and the International Law Commission in 1996 is a step forward in the direction of rejecting absolute immunity. I agree with the rapporteur that functional immunity, if applied correctly, can be a solution to this issue, allowing individuals to protect their rights against violations of their rights and freedoms. At the same time it was noted in the report that the guidelines for the waiver of immunity of international organisations should be clear and limited so as not to leave a gap for applying pressure on an organisation and undermining its aim and role.

I draw your attention to the point that the report makes regarding possible changes that can be made in order to add international organisations to the list of subjects against which a claim can be brought to the European Court of Human Rights. This might sound radical but if we do not act we will not see the results. First steps are the most challenging but the result will be rewarding. As found by the European Court of Human Rights in Beer and Regan v. Germany and Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, reasonable alternative means to protect effectively the rights under the Convention should always be available. If it is not judicial protection let it be alternative means of protection such as binding arbitration, but the mechanism of redress for human rights violations should exist in any legal system against any subject of law. There should be no sphere in which the law is powerless when human dignity and other basic human rights are neglected.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much. Rapporteur, would you like to respond to the spokespersons of the groups, or at the end following the general debate?

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Afterwards.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – This report deals with a very important matter: the respect of certain obligations when it comes to fundamental rights on the part of international organisations. As we have heard, there are international organisations that flout human rights but, given the absolute immunity they enjoy, those organisations are not subject to scrutiny, and that is the subject of this report.

What is the situation in Europe? I have a number of questions. Currently countries in Europe are under scrutiny as a result of the assistance or aid they have received. There is an institution, the Troika, which is made up of the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund. This so-called organisation is taking important decisions that are imposing austerity when it comes to budgetary consolidation and similar measures. I am talking about countries that have received financial assistance, but these measures are filling the ranks of the unemployed in these countries. We are seeing an impoverishment of the people in the countries concerned.

Resolution 1684 states that austerity is a risk and a danger when it comes to democracy and human rights and can even be construed as a human rights violation. There is a report on equal access to health care in which we talk about the implications of austerity measures on access to health care in a number of countries, including Greece, where we are grappling with a humanitarian crisis. These are statements contained in reports that have been adopted here. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Muižnieks, said that when the European Union, as a central body with a view to getting to grips with the crisis, takes decisions in respect of economic governance in member states, and when the Troika takes decisions about the support packages to be made available, it would be better to take into account the consequences of such measures when it comes to human rights. We know that this matter has been dealt with by the European Parliament. Mr Karas, a member of the European People’s Party, has been a rapporteur on this very subject. The Socialist Group of the European Parliament is trying to exert some oversight of the activities of the Troika and has noticed a number of irregularities.

We all know that some of the decisions taken by the Troika flout human rights but the Troika enjoys immunity and can do what it wishes. We need to do something about these decisions taken by the Troika. We know that as a result of a number of measures, citizens are being pushed into the arms of extreme right-wing neo-Nazi organisations, so it is important that this Assembly sends out a message saying that the Troika, too, should be under the scrutiny of the Council of Europe and it should not enjoy immunity. I have tabled a number of amendments and I remind the rapporteur that the committee went along with Amendments 1 and 5 – it did not reject all the amendments.

We are an Assembly made up of national parliamentarians. How can we defend our position if we do not take a stand with regard to the Troika and certain decisions taken by the Troika? After all, we have to face our electorate when we go home. We cannot allow the Troika to do what it wishes.

THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Berdzenishvili is not here, so I call Mr Casey.

Mr CASEY (Observer from Canada) – Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the Assembly on this important topic.

Over the years we have all witnessed the proliferation of international organisations, both in numbers and influence. International organisations play an important role in a number of policy fields and facilitate co-operation and collective action in an ever-connected community of nations. Their contributions to international policymaking and standard-setting are undeniable. However, this rapid growth has occurred in the absence of an efficient and effective accountability system for some international organisations. Mechanisms need to be developed and strengthened in order to prevent and mitigate when human rights are threatened or violated by the actions, operations or policies of an international organisation, and to enforce accountability.

The risk posed by this potential lack of accountability is not insignificant, for it threatens the credibility of international organisations, undermines the positive contributions they make and undercuts the international community's efforts at ending impunity and upholding the rule of law. As former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg once observed, "An international accountability deficit is no good for anyone, least of all the local population. No one, especially an international organisation, is above the law”. That bears repeating: no one, especially an international organisation, is above the law.

I commend the comprehensive report drafted by the rapporteur, its technical study of the issue and its outlining of the different options available to states and the international organisations of which they are a part to increase the accountability of these organisations. Among the options presented in the report, I note particularly the need to address the role national courts can play in limiting the breadth of the immunity international organisations currently enjoy. Tackling jurisdictional immunity needs to be done with due regard for international organisations’ ability to perform their functions and their autonomy from member states. However, those considerations must not provide blanket impunity for human rights violations or present undue road blocks – especially financial and bureaucratic obstacles – to a victim’s search for justice. As parliamentarians, we have an important role to play at the institutional level in holding accountable the organisations that our countries support with their membership. More importantly, at a practical level we must continue to facilitate a victim’s ability to access national judicial systems to remedy any human rights violations and to do so in a timely manner, for as we know justice delayed is justice denied.

In our role as legislators and representatives, we can promote limiting the immunity currently enjoyed by international organisations to only the strictest matters related to their functions. In particular, no claims of immunity from prosecution should be permitted for violations of human rights. Similarly, we must urge our governments to push for international organisations to implement and enforce stricter internal accountability mechanisms that include judicial overview.

Let us work towards meeting our common goal of upholding and promoting human rights – a goal that, of necessity, includes the elimination of impunity for everyone, everywhere. I thank the members of the Assembly for focusing attention on this important issue.

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

Ms AMBLER (Observer from Canada) – I thank the Assembly for allowing me the opportunity to speak about the accountability of international organisations for human rights violations. This is an important topic for Canada, Europe and the world.

Over the last century, international organisations have played an increasing role in the lives of many. For some, they are employers or provide funding for crucial development projects; for others, they may provide the basic necessities of life such as food and shelter. They play many roles in modern life. I particularly want to focus my attention today on the issue of accountability for the violation of women's rights, given their unique vulnerabilities. We have all heard of peacekeepers in various countries being involved in sexual abuse and other crimes against women and girls. The local courts cannot prosecute them because they have immunity while working for an international organisation and many home countries do not prosecute when they return. The perpetrators act with impunity.

Women are also increasingly working on the international stage and, at times, face sexual harassment and discrimination in international organisations, as they do in other workplaces. Why should women have no meaningful recourse in such situations, simply because the perpetrator was working for an international organisation? UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions on women, peace and security, address, among other issues, the importance of involving women in decision-making at all levels to ensure long-lasting peace and security worldwide.

For women to have meaningful participation, their rights must be protected at all levels, including in their interactions with international organisations. It is not enough to recognise women’s rights in theory; we must ensure that there are mechanisms by which individuals can be held accountable for violating such rights. We must work within our own states, as well as internationally, to ensure that no one is allowed to violate human rights with impunity. In Canada, for example, the criminal law allows for prosecution within Canada for a number of sexual offences committed overseas by Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Our government recently added a number of new sexual offences against children to the list of such offences. The provisions can be used to hold Canadians working overseas for international organisations accountable, even where local justice systems are too weak to do so.

As noted in the rapporteur’s report, various mechanisms are being developed to ensure that international organisations are accountable for human rights violations. Let us work towards strengthening and expanding the number of such mechanisms, so that there is accountability for human rights violations wherever they take place and whoever the perpetrator may be. I thank members of the Assembly for focusing attention on this important issue today.

THE PRESIDENT* – Mr Yatim is not in the Chamber, so I give the floor to Ms al-Astal from Palestine, Partner for Democracy.

Ms AL-ASTAL (Palestine) – I congratulate you, Mr Beneyto, on this important report about the important issue of respect for human rights. The concept of accountability has gained widespread attention in recent decades and has often served as an umbrella term encompassing concepts such as good governance, responsiveness, transparency, democracy and the rule of law. The rules on the accountability of international organisations come from the International Law Association and the International Law Commission. The biggest obstacle to the implementation of accountability is the immunity of international organisations from being tried by national courts. Providing international organisations separate international legal personalities from those of member states, and transferring powers to them without subjecting them to effective accountability mechanisms to remedy the potential human rights infringements, creates an obvious accountability mechanism gap. We need to close that gap by respecting human rights standards that prevent human rights violations.

The fundamental challenge is to provide an effective remedy for individuals while guaranteeing the independent legal personalities of international organisations. Organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union engage in military action and operations directly impacting on the lives of individuals in Afghanistan and other areas of the world. They should be accountable for illegal violations of their human rights obligations – in some cases, such accountability is non-existent. I propose that the accountability of international organisations should be increased in respect of human rights, the rule of law and justice. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Rouquet.)

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. That concludes the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur to respond to the debate. Mr Beneyto, you have five minutes left.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – Colleagues, I thank you for those valuable contributions to an important topic. The Council of Europe is taking its first step; this is our first report on this issue. No doubt we will have to continue discussing these issues, following them up and ensuring in the end that international organisations are fully accountable for violations of human rights.

The report is particularly concerned about the issues that I described at the beginning. I am grateful for the balanced approach taken by Ms Gerasimova, Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan and Mr von Sydow. On the one hand, we clearly have to respect international law and organisations and, on the other, we must proceed with further steps towards full accountability. The main issue is the question raised by Mr Marias. I am not in favour of introducing the Troika into the report because that will kill the report; it is not part of what the report is concerned with. The Troika is a very important subject, and I would be able and willing to prepare a motion of resolution with Mr Marias to discuss the Troika in the Assembly. However, that has nothing to do with the current report. Including the Troika would change its nature and kill it, particularly if that was done through seven amendments, as Mr Marias has suggested. That does not make any sense and is why the committee rejected the amendments.

Our fellow British Conservatives voted in favour of the amendments. I think they wanted to include the Troika out of a feeling of Euroscepticism. This is not the place to take a Eurosceptic stance. We are talking about accountability for human rights and international organisations. The report must not be manipulated in order to attack the European Commission and the EU. That would be completely outside the nature of the report.

My fellow parliamentarians, thank you very much for your support for the report. It is a first step. It can bring us closer to international organisations. They need this kind of reference and support from our side. We should vote on what is in the report, not something else.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

I now give the floor to the chair of the committee.

MR CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – I congratulate Mr Beneyto on his excellent report and his careful work that lay behind it, and I invite the Assembly to support it. He has undertaken a difficult and complex analysis of problems relating to the accountability of international organisations. He has done a very thorough job. At its meeting in November, our committee unanimously adopted the text he presented to us.

May I make one comment about this, in addition to what our rapporteur has rightly said? I have recently come across an article written by Judge Sicilianos, a judge in our Strasbourg Court. It was published in the “Human Rights Journal”. He writes: “There has been a growing trend among national and international judges to support the view that the need for effective human rights protection must lead to the curtailing of certain traditional privileges and immunities of the state whenever such privileges run contrary to imperative human rights norms such as the prohibition of torture.”

In this article he also specifies: “the European Court of Human Rights has also sought to minimise the effects of jurisdictional immunity of international organisations through the principle of equivalent protection.”

I have taken due notice of what Judge Sicilianos has written. I am in full agreement with him and our rapporteur that we cannot allow states or international organisations to escape responsibility for alleged human rights violations of the type described. When the need arises, states and international organisations should not be able to enjoy immunity for these alleged violations of human rights.

These issues are ripe for consideration by us in our respective national Parliaments and by the Committee of Ministers as indicated in the draft recommendation submitted to you for adoption this morning.

THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

The debate is closed.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which three amendments have been tabled; and a draft recommendation to which four amendments have 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.

We come now to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the words “international organisations”, insert the following words: “and ad hoc bodies such as the so-called ‘troika’ consisting of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 1 on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, which was asked for its opinion.

Mr MARIAS (Greece.)* – This amendment is about the Troika. The subject of the report is not a technical one; it is a political one. The European Parliament has discussed the matter addressed in the amendments, as requested by the Group of the European People’s Party, the Socialists and all Europeans. I ask you to approve the amendment, because it supports Europe. Otherwise we will create an anti-European climate before the European elections.

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

What is the opinion of the committee?

MR CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – In favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 1 is adopted.

We now come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.1, after the words "international organisations", insert the following words: “and ad hoc bodies such as the so-called ‘troika’ consisting of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 2.

Mr MARIAS (Greece.)* – The Assembly has made the right choice, but we need to continue along these lines. We request that the Troika be subject to checks in respect of human rights violations. We want it to be held accountable. This is an open issue that has been debated in the European Parliament. We therefore feel it is important to continue on this path.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain.) – The committee thinks it does not make any sense to introduce seven amendments, all with the same text. The report would then become a report on the Troika. This has nothing to do with the report. The committee therefore rejected the amendments. The Troika is not an international organisation so the amendments are not rigorous in that regard. Also, it will kill the report if we agree to all these amendments about the Troika.

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

MR CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 2 is rejected.

We now come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.3, after the words “international organisations”, insert the following words: “and ad hoc bodies such as the so-called ‘troika’ consisting of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 3.

Mr MARIAS (Greece.)* – This amendment is important because the Troika is not an international organisation. If it were, it could have been subject to checks. We are talking here about an ad hoc international organisation, which enjoys immunity. There have been judicial proceedings and according to the decision it has immunity. If we do not accept this amendment it will mean that for Greek citizens and all European citizens the Troika can do what it likes. It can tread over human rights.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain.) – In fact, the legal status of the Troika is completely unknown. That is a matter for consideration by this Assembly, but this has nothing to do with the report, which is why we must reject it.

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

MR CLAPPISON (United Kingdom.) – Against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 3 is rejected.

We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13370, as amended.

The vote is open.

The draft resolution in Document 13370, as amended, is adopted, with 47 votes for, 1 against and 0 abstentions.

THE PRESIDENT* – We will now consider the amendments to the draft recommendation.

We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 1, after the words “such organisations”, insert the following words: “and ad hoc bodies such as the so-called ‘troika’ consisting of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 4.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – You have just voted in favour of the draft resolution, which provides for controls over the Troika. That was an important decision, and we need to continue along that line. Therefore, I would ask you to approve the same amendment to the draft recommendation.

The fact that no one knows what the legal status of the Troika is does not mean that it can do what it wants – in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland or Italy. We need to limit the role played by the Troika in the draft recommendation, and we need to include a clear message from the peoples of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – Who says that the Troika can do whatever it wants? Certainly not me, and certainly not the report. Please do not introduce a completely different matter into the report. Do your own report, or table your own motion on the Troika; that would be completely reasonable. We do not need the amendment in the draft recommendation.

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

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 4 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.1, after the words “the European Union”, insert the following words: “and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 5.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – The amendment is quite straightforward. The committee approved the amendment not because it did not understand what it was voting for. There was quite a lengthy debate, and it knew fully what it was voting for.

The amendment is about an international organisation, which is what the report considers. The report itself refers to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – All the agencies of the United Nations and international monetary and commercial organisations are included in the report. The IMF is implicitly included, so we do not need to emphasise it. The subject is important, but it is not the main thrust of the report. That is why I am against the amendment.

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

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is in favour.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 5 is adopted.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.2, after the words “international organisations”, insert the following words: “and ad hoc bodies such as the so-called ‘troika’ consisting of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 6.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – I would like to say to my colleague Mr Beneyto that this is not a personal issue. Your report is not a technical report. You must understand that our job here is to represent the peoples and citizens of Europe. The major issue, even in your country, is the work of the Troika. You know that the Troika is doing whatever it wants, even in Spain. That is something Spanish members have talked about in the European Parliament. Let us be frank here. Please accept the amendment. It will also be good for your voters in your country.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain) – So we are back to square one, because amendments 6 and 7 are doing the same thing: trying to include the Troika. My arguments are clear: this is an important subject – Mr Marias, I even offered you the opportunity to sign a motion together to discuss the matter in this Assembly – but the Troika is not the main issue of the report.

I am sorry; this report has many political and legal consequences, but it is not concerned particularly about the Troika. If you put the Troika in the middle of the report, you will neutralise and dilute the report.

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

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 6 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Marias, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Neill, Mr Clappison and Mr Donaldson, which is, in the draft recommendation, paragraph 2.3, after the words “international organisations”, insert the following words: “and ad hoc bodies such as the so-called ‘troika’ consisting of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund”.

I call Mr Marias to support Amendment 7.

Mr MARIAS (Greece)* – I remind Mr Beneyto that his colleagues in the European Parliament and president of the social committee were critical about the Troika. They have explained what has happened everywhere. I would therefore like the amendment to be accepted.

In the United States, they say that it does not matter what you say; it matters how you vote. It is now up to you and everyone to vote against the Troika, which is doing whatever it wants in the member states of the European Union.

THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Beneyto.

Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – I have already provided my arguments against the amendment. It has the same text as Amendment 6, and the committee has rejected it because of the reasons I have already talked about.

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

Mr CLAPPISON (United Kingdom) – The committee is against.

THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

Amendment 7 is rejected.

THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13370, as amended.

A two-thirds majority is required.

The vote is open.

The draft recommendation in Document 13370, as amended, is adopted, with 47 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

4. Reference to committees

THE PRESIDENT* – The Bureau has proposed a number of references to committees for ratification by the Assembly. They are set out in Document AS/Inf (2014) 05.

Is there any objection to the proposed references to committees?

There is no objection, so the references are approved.

5. Constitution of the Standing Committee

THE PRESIDENT* – The final business today is to constitute the Standing Committee.

The membership of the Standing Committee is fixed by Rule 16.3, as follows:

the President of the Assembly,

the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly,

the leaders of the political groups,

the chairpersons of national delegations, and

the chairpersons of the general committees.

A full list of members is set out in Document Commissions (2014) 02.

The Standing Committee is accordingly constituted.

Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – On a point of order, Madam President. Unfortunately I made a mistake when voting for the draft resolution. I voted against, but my intention was to vote in favour. I would like to rectify that, if possible.

THE PRESIDENT* – Your notice of rectification has duly been noted.

6. Voting champions

THE PRESIDENT* – I am pleased to be able to announce the names of our voting champions, those members who have taken part in all votes during this part-session. Nine members have tied in first place.

They are:

Ms Bonet Perot

Ms Christoffersen

Mr Ghiletchi

Mr Gross

Mr Koç

Ms Maury Pasquier

Mr Moreno Palanques

Mr Schennach

Mr von Sydow

I congratulate you all – bravo. You really are an example to all parliamentarians. We have small gifts for the champions and invite them to come and collect them.

7. End of the part-session

THE PRESIDENT* – We have now come to the end of our business.

Before closing this sitting, I wish to thank each and every one of you for the confidence you vested in me on Monday. I will not repeat my inaugural address, but I will say that we need to continue to work together, because that is the only way we will succeed in further promoting the values of the Council of Europe, irrespective of our political and geographical differences. It is only through dialogue that we will reach understanding. As Mr Martin Schulz said in his impressive statement earlier this week, it is only by talking to one another, rather than over one another’s heads, that we will achieve that.

I thank all the staff. It is a very small team that keeps this Assembly running smoothly and it is not an easy task. I would like the Secretary General to convey those thoughts to all the staff. I also thank the interpreters, who have no easy task and without whom we would not be able to speak with each other. Dialogue would be impossible without them, so I give them my deepest thanks for their invaluable assistance.

I also thank the presidents of the political groups, with whom I have worked for many years and I am delighted that I continue to do so. My gratitude also goes to the vice-presidents, who have kindly stood in for me at the podium, especially Mr Rouquet, who is almost a permanent substitute. I thank him deeply for standing in for me.

The second part of the 2014 session will be held from 7 to 11 April 2014.

I declare the first part of the 2014 session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe closed.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Changes in the membership of committees

2. Revision of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television

Presentation by Mr Clappison of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13383

Presentation by Sir Roger Gale of the opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 13406

Speakers: Mr Beneyto, Mr Marias, Ms Oehri, Mr Schennach, Ms Giannakaki, Mr Reiss, Mr Chope

Amendments 1 to 6 to the draft resolution in Document 13383 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13383, as amended, adopted

Amendment 7 to the draft recommendation in Document 13383 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13383, as amended, adopted

3. Accountability of international organisations for human rights violations

Presentation by Mr Beneyto of the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 13370

Speakers: Ms Gerasimova, Mr Xuclà, Mr Sydow, Ms A. Hovhannisyan, Mr Marias, Mr Casey, Ms Ambler, Ms Al-Astal

Amendment 1 to the draft resolution in Document 13370 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13370, as amended, adopted

Amendment 5 to the draft recommendation in Document 13370 adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13370, as amended, adopted

4. Reference to committees

5. Constitution of the Standing Committee

6. Attendance and voting

7. Closure of the part-session

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI*

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ*

Gülsün BİLGEHAN*

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL*

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ*

Olga BORZOVA/Evgeny Tarlo

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON*

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO*

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU*

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA*

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES*

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/ Fatma Pehlivan

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO*

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA*

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Jim DOBBIN*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS/Maria Giannakaki

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA*

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSSON*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI*

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU*

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU*

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON*

Carina HÄGG*

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON*

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD*

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Olga Kazakova

Vladimir ILIĆ*

Florin IORDACHE*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI*

Denis JACQUAT/ Frédéric Reiss

Gediminas JAKAVONIS*

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ*

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI*

Ulrika KARLSSON*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/ Marek Černoch

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN/Christine Muttonen

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE*

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/ Jussi Halla-Aho

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE*

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON*

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ*

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI*

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/Jonas Gunnarsson

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK*

Ivan POPESCU*

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT*

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/André Schneider

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Kimmo SASI*

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Ömer SELVİ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN/Michael Connarty

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS*

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI*

Yanaki STOILOV*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE*

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Igor Chernyshenko

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS*

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD*

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Croatia/Ivan Račan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Angeliki GKEREKOU

Observers

Stella AMBLER

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Sean CASEY

Corneliu CHISU

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Bernard SABELLA