AA16CR12

AS (2016) CR 12

2016 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Twelfth sitting

Tuesday 19 April 2016 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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

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

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

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.00 a.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Slovenia

      The PRESIDENT – This morning the agenda calls for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Slovenia. The list of candidates and biographical information are to be found in Document 13982, and the committee’s opinion is in Document 14016, Addendum II.

      Voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair. At 1 p.m. the ballot will be suspended. It will re-open at 3.30 p.m. I shall close the ballot at 5 p.m. As usual, the count will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

      The names of Mr Köck and Mr Bildarratz have been drawn from the ballot as tellers. They should go to the area behind the President’s chair at 5 p.m. I hope to announce the result of the election before the end of the sitting this evening.

      I now declare the ballot open.

2. Address by Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission

      The PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission. After his address, Mr Juncker will take questions from the floor.

      President Juncker, it is an immense honour for me to welcome you today to our Chamber as well as to the city of Strasbourg, “cette capitale de la Grande Europe”, as you called it in one of your previous statements in our Assembly. Your personal commitment to the development of relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union is well known. Thanks in particular to your report on the relations between our two organisations, our co-operation was put on a completely new level. During our recent meeting in Brussels, I particularly appreciated your statement about the fundamental role of the Council of Europe in the European architecture and your personal commitment to pursuing the process of accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a historic process that has to be successfully completed.

      The challenges Europe is facing – the refugee crisis and the wider migration phenomenon; the terrorist threat and the dangers of extremism and radicalisation; the rise of extreme and populist political forces; and frozen and burning conflicts, to name but several – require multilateral action and a common response by all European actors and States on the basis of our shared standards of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, we look forward to hearing your views on how to strengthen multilateral mechanisms of co-operation within a pan-European framework. President Juncker, I give you the floor.

      Mr JUNCKER (President of the European Commission)* – Mr President, Secretary General, ladies and gentleman, parliamentarians – and, I can say to many of you, friends – I am truly delighted to be on this side of the building this morning. As you know, every month I have a regular date with the European Parliament so I spend a lot of time on the other side of this building, but my political career has given me the chance to get to know both sides of this building and it is a real pleasure to be here with you today. Here in Strasbourg the Council of Europe and the European Parliament are close neighbours in every sense of the word. For many years we shared the same Chamber and I certainly know this Chamber very well because I spoke in it many times to the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament. I was even here on the day this building was inaugurated. I was a student in Strasbourg at the time and I was involved in a protest against Mr Giscard d’Estaing, the then president of France, so I was outside the building and I knew the outside better than the inside at that time. Now I know it inside, outside, both sides.

      Today, as I say, the Council of Europe and the European Parliament are neighbours. We live alongside one another. But we do not live beside one another on separate tracks, as it were; we live together, we are complementary. People often talk about Europe as if the European Union alone was Europe. But if we think about what Europe is, we are talking about one house that has 28 rooms and another that has 47. If you put those two houses together, you end up with a European house, a house that is built on the same foundations. Here in the Council of Europe, we really see greater Europe – Europe for all – coming together. In Strasbourg we are in a city that is a symbol of Europe, a city where France and Germany have reached out to one another and joined hands, and a city where the great values and the great ambitions of all of Europe are embodied.

      Those of you who have good memories will remember, I am sure, that at the summit of the European Council in Warsaw a number of years ago, I was given the responsibility of looking at the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union. Indeed, 10 years ago exactly, I submitted a report on that very topic in April 2006. Some of what I hoped for then has indeed come to pass. The European Union now recognises the Council of Europe as a fundamental benchmark for human rights. Further, the Council of Europe came to be headed by a former prime minister from within the European Union; this was another thing that we had very much hoped for and it came to pass. That report made it possible for a memorandum of understanding to be reached between the two organisations and since then we have worked hand in hand in seeking to strengthen the foundations that we share, the foundations of our common home. Human rights, democracy, the rule of law are the things that uphold a free society and we are all seeking to strengthen them.

      Co-operation between us is increasingly robust, and we are now moving from words to actions. The European Union is funding certain Council of Europe projects. The neighbourhood project reaches out to other countries that are candidates to join the European Union. We are seeking to ensure that democracy can truly take root everywhere in Europe. The job that we are trying to do is not easy, and it never has been. However, people who have been around in Europe for a long time know that things that are supposed to be easy do not always get you to where you want to go. There can be nothing more ambitious or difficult than seeking to bring together liberty, equality and diversity, but we believe that we have to follow that difficult path because prosperity and justice move together hand in hand. As the French philosopher Blaise Pascal so rightly said, prosperity and social justice have to go together – there is no other way.

      Today we face tough times. There is the global refugee crisis and there are attacks on our free societies. All our institutions are under immense pressure today and are sometimes pushed to their limits. But we seek to uphold the democratic values that underpin all our societies; in doing that, we in the European Union often turn to the Council of Europe for inspiration. I pay tribute to the work of the Secretary General and Commissioner for Human Rights. Throughout the refugee crisis you have given us wise advice and pointed the way ahead. I am grateful for your support. Sometimes, of course, it had to be very carefully judged, but it was always there. We agree about the essential things. We all say no to racism, no to the rejection of other people and no to stupid attacks that, sadly, are occurring increasingly in Europe today.

      As your Commissioner for Human Rights has said, we must not be afraid of refugees. People who come from other parts of the world bring us their talents, energy and knowledge – all things that we need in the Europe of the 21st century.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      The Commission has done everything possible to deliver a European response, providing humanitarian assistance wherever it is needed, supporting the member States that received the highest number of refugees, relocating asylum seekers across the Union in a spirit of solidarity, returning irregular migrants to their home countries and creating safe and legal routes for asylum seekers from outside the European Union. The agreement between the European Union and Turkey belongs to this European approach. Our plan respects European and international norms. Each request for asylum is handled individually. Each person can appeal; the principle of non-refoulement is respected. The plan is starting to work. Since the agreement took effect, there has been a sharp decrease in the number of people crossing the Aegean from Turkey into Greece. The first returns to Turkey and resettlements from Turkey have taken place. We are replacing treacherous journeys across the Aegean with safe and legal paths for Syrian refugees who need our protection. We are breaking the cruel business model of the smugglers who exploit human misery.

      The facility for refugees in Turkey is improving conditions for Syrian refugees in the country. This morning, a further €50 million was contracted for 15 different projects – for the International Medical Corps, the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the International Organization for Migration. These projects address the immediate needs of Syrian refugees, bringing the Commission’s total support so far for the facility to €145 million. All in all, the European Union has mobilised more than €10 billion from its own budget in favour of the refugees. As part of the agreement, we are working towards visa liberalisation for Turkish citizens. Turkey must now fulfil all remaining conditions so that the Commission can adopt its proposal in the coming months. Visa liberalisation is a matter of criteria, and the criteria will not be watered down in the case of Turkey. We have moved to open a new chapter in Turkey’s accession negotiations and we are working more quickly to support refugees in Turkey, giving them access to education and health care and hope for a better life.

      If the Council of Europe is a major partner in our work on migration, it is equally central to our mission against terrorism. From Brussels to Lahore, from Paris to Suez, we are confronted with a blind and brutal extremism that is indifferent to human life. If their goal is to divide us, ours must be to stand together. We know what we need to do. Our intelligence services need to work more closely together and our external borders need to be stronger and smarter, and they will be. Our efforts to understand the roots of radicalisation need to dig deeper, and they will. The Riga protocol is a fine example of what our organisations can achieve when we work together. The Council of Europe now has the legal instrument that criminalises the first steps towards terror, such as training in a conflict zone. In times such as these, the wisdom of the Council of Europe is necessary. You help legislators to find the right balance between security and liberty so that we can protect our citizens without compromising our freedoms.

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      It is precisely for that reason that we have the European Court of Human Rights and similar courts such as the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Together they guarantee human rights to the citizens of the 47 member States. The commitment to uphold human rights is anchored in the human rights treaties. The accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is, of course, a political priority for the Commission of which I am the head. It is also a personal commitment. We are working on a solution to that accession and we will not rest until we have found a solution to the European Union’s accession to the Convention. Perhaps I can use this opportunity to give my full support to the Secretary General when he appeals to member States to ensure that the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are fully executed. Governments cannot choose what judgments do and do not suit them. If they disrespect the Court, they are flouting the Convention and if they are playing with human rights, that is a disservice to their own citizens because they are weakening the institutions that protect us all. That is why the Secretary General has my full and entire support when he takes up this issue forcefully.

      Our institutions are only as strong as the respect that we pay them and our resolve to implement their decisions. That is why we need to redouble our efforts to shore up these institutions; our freedom and dignity depend on that. In 2006, I presented a report on relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union. I made it clear that to a certain extent the European project was running out of steam. There were disappointments, and I do not think the situation has fundamentally changed – on the contrary, one could say. But I am and remain an optimist because I believe in the strength of our institutions and I know the strength of the European ideal.

      The European Union and the Council of Europe are partners. The foundation on which our institutions rest is the same, as are the ideals that we uphold. The resources available to us are not always the same, but I think we always complement each other. In particular, in times of uncertainty I think we need to use common resources to provide guidance to our societies. Our partnership is all the more important because together we defend what makes us Europeans. In fact, if you look at the list of our achievements, I think we can be proud of Europe’s post-war history. In our continent, where war and violence prevailed in a brutal form, Europe is now associated with peace. Following the changes in central and eastern Europe, those parts of the continent have grown into Europe. We can therefore look with reassurance, knowing on what firm foundations the European house is built.

      The PRESIDENT* - Thank you very much, Mr Juncker, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

      Mr FISCHER (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – President Juncker, on behalf of the EPP group, I thank you very much indeed for your most impressive speech, in which you took stock of the situation. You touched on a number of issues with which we very much identify. I was pleased when you said that we, the European Union and the Council of Europe, are neighbours but we complement each other. What are the most important challenges that lie ahead of the European Union and the Council of Europe for working together in the future?

      Mr JUNCKER* – My feeling is that I have answered this question in parts, but I am quite happy to share my thoughts on this matter to give you some more details. We can work on a pragmatic basis – a more pragmatic basis, even – in a number of different areas. Of course, a number of declarations can be made, and they may be of interest, but where there are difficulties and problems the European Union and the Council of Europe really have to be decisive and work hand in hand. That is important when it comes to tackling all the difficulties we have on the European continent, and that is also the case with regard to difficulties outside the European continent. It is important to work on international developments. Europe is also not only a project for Europe as such but an important service provider for outside.

      Ms BÍLGEHAN (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – President, despite your explanations, parts of Turkey and Europe accuse you of giving in to blackmail and sacrificing the Copenhagen criteria by signing a controversial agreement with the Turkish Government in exchange for assistance with migrants. Who will benefit – the migrants, the Europeans or the Turkish nationals, who for many years have rightly awaited free movement in the European Union?

      Mr JUNCKER* – We have come to a number of agreements with Turkey to make future progress. What is important is that nations will understand each other better if people are brought closer together. That is why I am certainly in favour of the agreement between the European Union and Turkey. That is not about surrendering European values. I am really not happy about the criticism being levelled at the European Union, stating that it is surrendering its values by signing an agreement with Turkey, saying that 3 million refugees can be sent to Turkey. That is not the case for the European Union. The money that we are providing is for refugees to be accommodated in Turkey. I mentioned liberalisation earlier, which is not about a discount for refugees – that is not the case at all. The same can be said for Turkey as well as for Georgia and other countries.

      Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – President, thank you very much indeed for following up the invitation I sent you two years ago to address our Assembly – my successor has had far more luck in that than I did. Solidarity between countries is, as you have said, a cornerstone on which European construction is predicated. That solidarity, however, is crumbling. People are becoming more inward looking and nationalism and populism are on the rise. In some countries, even in the European Union, the rule of law is under threat, and that is a violation of our democratic principles. How can we reverse those dangerous trends, given that we increasingly need solidarity to be able to cope with the large number of challenges faced by our entire continent?

      Mr JUNCKER* – Ms Brasseur, you can see that I am rather embarrassed not to have responded immediately to the invitation you extended to me in 2015. The impression that you may have that I waited until you finished your term before coming to the Chamber is wrong. As your term of office has ended, I want to say how much I appreciated the way in which you presided over the Assembly.

      To attain the goals you mentioned, both the Council of Europe and the European Union must stress, with renewed vigour, the importance of the rule of law. What brings us together is respect for the law, and all those who talk about freedom with regard to established democratic norms and all those who do not respect the Court’s judgments are making a serious mistake.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I suspect that British politicians with the name Nigel give you the odd sleepless night, Mr Juncker. The British referendum is on a knife-edge. Last week, the Netherlands had a vote that rejected a proposal for expansion with Ukraine and Swedish polls show unease with the European Union. Does the European Union recognise that there is a problem? If so, what action will the Commission take to improve the situation?

      Mr JUNCKER – We are not blind, and we are listening to those who are expressing their views. You are right to say that the European project has lost part of its attractiveness. What can the European Commission do? The European Commission is doing less. One of the reasons European citizens are turning away from the European project is that we are interfering in too many domains of their private lives and in too many domains where member States of the European Union are better placed to take action and to pass legislation. That is why we decided, at the very beginning of our mandate, to withdraw 83 pieces of legislation. That is why we have launched only 23 new initiatives, whereas our predecessors launched 136 on average. We are doing less and doing it better – that is our approach.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Mr President, I remember how, 10 years ago, you said in this Assembly that both the Council of Europe and the European Union shared the same spirit and ambition. You then presented your valuable ideas, including membership of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Union by 2010. Now we see an ever-growing number of citizens losing trust in the idea that European co-operation is a solution to a problem. It is more often seen as part of the problem. May I ask you to reflect, with some self-criticism too, on what we politicians did wrong and why we are losing the trust of our citizens in what was, and I hope can still be, the great idea of European co-operation?

      Mr JUNCKER* – Two or three minutes ago, I confessed that we were wrong in over-regulating and interfering too much in the daily lives of our fellow citizens, and we were wrong in failing sufficiently to respect the principle of subsidiarity, but we would also be wrong if we insufficiently respected the principle of solidarity. So I take issue with the suggestions that in all cases Europe should give priority to national solutions, to the detriment of European solutions.

      It is true that we are not very popular when we advocate for Europe. We are no longer respected in our countries when we emphasise the need to give priority to the European Union, but we will eventually end up with the ruins of this ideal if people want more national decisions at the expense of European principles. They will find themselves defenceless and the European Union will no longer be respected around the world. A hundred years ago, 20% of human beings were Europeans. At the start of this century, 11% of the global population was European. At the end of this century, 4% of 10 billion citizens will be European. We are losing in economic clout in a very visible way with our low birth rate. If that continues in the face of the major problems that are emerging, that is not the sort of image I want of Europe. We want a strong, influential Europe in the world, pushing our principles and values.

      Mr ROUQUET (France)* – Mr President, Europe seems to be unravelling, both in Brussels and Strasbourg, as a result of the very many crises. The very idea of supranational standards seems to be losing out, given the rise in power of the nation State, and that can only worry us given the history of the European continent. What can we do to allay those fears, and do you share them?

      Ms MIKKO (Estonia) – It is not common for the President of the European Commission to come to address the Council of Europe, so welcome and thank you. My question is about the refugee crisis, security and liberty. The European Union-Turkey agreement promises Turkey visa liberalisation from June. Eastern Partnership countries are seeking visa freedom but face criteria. Can you confirm that Turkey will fulfil all the criteria that are obligatory, for example, for Georgia and Ukraine? If not, what is step two for the European Union as far as visa liberalisation for Turkey is concerned?

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – Supporting the mobility of citizens and visa liberalisation is one of the important aspects of the Eastern Partnership highlighted in the Riga declaration. While Armenia European Union visa facilitation and readmission agreements are being implemented successfully, we need to take the next decisive step to further relations between European Union member States and Armenia. When will the European Union launch a visa liberalisation dialogue with Armenia, and on what will that be contingent?

      Mr JUNCKER* – I may be repeating myself, but I would like to say once again that I am deeply convinced that Europe has to make itself felt on the international stage, but it has to be reticent about intervening in areas where it is not necessarily competent. Modest and timid on smaller issues is what we are trying to be. For many years now I have also been of the view that there is a flaw in the way Europe is constructed. We do not attach enough importance to the social dimension of European development, and in recent weeks for that very reason the European Commission has launched several initiatives.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      On the criteria that are the prerequisites for visa liberalisation, all the negotiations we had over the last period showed that the two countries are delivering. It was difficult for the two of them, but Ukraine and Georgia have received a positive opinion from the Commission and I hope that in the coming weeks the European Parliament and the Council will step in.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

When it comes to Armenia, we do not have negotiations on visa liberalisation, but we are working on mobility and allowing people to move from one place to another, because that is crucial if we are to live together.

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey)* – Some European Union members discriminate against refugees based on religion – they have already declared this fact. Some European countries are adopting discrimination-based migration policies. What is your take on that, and does the European Union have an action plan to solve the problem?

      Ms SCHOU (Norway) – Many of us believe that one sustainable response to the refugee crisis is better burden-sharing, more co-operation and solidarity between the countries of Europe. That has proved to be difficult. What would it take for the European Union and Europe to come together in solidarity, share the burden and find common solutions that give good results?

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Thank you, Mr Juncker, for coming here and giving such a clear speech. I am from the Netherlands, where, even though we were campaigning in favour, the referendum said no to the European Union-Ukraine association treaty. Still, the treaty is being applied provisionally in about 80% of its provisions. If the Netherlands were not to ratify it, would the provisional application of the treaty end and, if so, when would it end? What is the Commission’s alternative plan for a trade deal with Ukraine if the present trade deal does not go ahead?

      Mr JUNCKER* – I am allergic to over-generalisations or simplifications. In other words, people are mixing up the issue of refugees and the issue of several different religions. People who lump those issues together are very much mistaken. That is something that I am always saying: religion is a factor that should not divide us, but unite us.

      I am pausing for a moment as I always have the same problem; I make notes and I cannot read them afterwards. Ms Schou was talking about solidarity on the refugee crisis. Solidarity should be on a European scale. The solutions to the refugee crisis should be European solutions and should be reached through a resettlement mechanism. If we adopt exclusive national solutions, we will not achieve our main goal. The European Commission has made a number of proposals over the past few months that the European Council has adopted but which the member States are failing to apply. That is why I said that we are running a very serious risk if we fail to apply the laws that we have promulgated.

      As far as the Netherlands and the referendum are concerned, I was very dismayed when I saw the results because they failed to take on board the scope and size of the problem that we are confronted with. It is not down to the Commission to come up with an alternative plan. It is the duty of the Dutch Government.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – This morning, Mr Juncker, I almost bumped into you in our hotel. I regret that I did not take a selfie with you. My question is: in spite of many bumps and challenges, what is your opinion of the future of the Eastern Partnership, which my country, the Republic of Moldova, is part of?

      Mr OBREMSKI (Poland) – The institution of the European Union is in crisis. Very often, results and reasons are mixed up. Even at the tactical level, we differ – for example, on whether Assad should go out or stay in power. What are your short-term and long-term proposals for Syria, which is key for solving the refugee problem?

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan) – For more than 20 years, Armenia has kept the territories of Azerbaijan under occupation and made obstacles for hundreds of thousands of IDPs who want to go back to their homeland. That has increased the tension in the South Caucasus region, where huge energy and transport projects are being affected. Increasing tension in the region is a problem not just for the security of South Caucasus, but for the whole of Europe. As the President of the European Commission, what kind of contribution could you bring for the solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? One million Azerbaijani IDPs wait for your support. What would you like to tell them?

      Mr JUNCKER* – Friends, you are inviting me to get involved in talking about a programme that it is just not possible to talk about now. You are asking very big questions. If I give you just a brief answer, you will tell me that I have not answered the question in its entirety. When it comes to Azerbaijan, all I can say is stop shooting and stop fighting. That is all I ask for.

      I agree with our Polish colleague in emphasising the Syrian aspect of the refugee problem and emphasising the role of the international community, including the European Union. As you know, we are now involved in negotiations. We are considering a number of possible solutions. I can only wish the negotiators every success in their work. I do not venture to say that they are in the course of resolving the problem, but at least they are getting the parties around a table.

      I heard what was said by our colleague from Moldova, whom I bumped into in the lift in our hotel earlier. He is right to underscore the fact that we need to continue the work that we have started within the auspices of the Eastern Partnership. If we talk about the Eastern Partnership, however, we have to start talking about something that means a bit more than in the past. We European leaders have, living right beside us, places where there are very serious problems but things are not as serious as they ought to be. I hope that, in the future, we will not miss opportunities to tackle such issues.

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania)* – A number of people are putting pressure on the Schengen agreement and some serious issues are being raised with regard to the Schengen area. Is the position of the European Commission positive or favourable when it comes to the legitimate requests of Romania to accede to the Schengen space in two stages, starting with the air borders, bearing in mind the accomplishment of criteria as of 2010 and the measures taken with a view to security the eastern borders of the European Union?

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – Mr Juncker, first I am interested in your reaction to the case of Nadia Savchenko, who is being held illegally and was convicted illegally in the Russian Federation. Your reaction is very important. Secondly, Moscow is financing political parties in the European Union, using media for propaganda and distributing conscious disinformation. That has caused the growth of Eurosceptic and radical moods in Europe. How can you prevent the use of democratic institutions to destroy European unity and democracy?

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium)* – Of course, I am in favour of an agreement with Ukraine, but I would like to come back to this issue once again, Mr Juncker, because I do not think your answers have been that clear. In the event that the Netherlands does not ratify that association agreement with Ukraine, will that agreement be applied? Yes or no?

      Secondly – and I am sorry that this is a rather direct question – you sometimes give the impression in a number of European countries that you are giving excessive weight to Germany and are too close to Ms Merkel. Are you not the President of the Commission that represents all Europeans?

      Mr JUNCKER* – Well, you are not going to oblige me to describe in your presence all the details of my relationship with Ms Merkel. I have a working relationship with Ms Merkel, just as I have a working relationship with other Heads of State or Governments. Perhaps the one exception is that I disagree with Ms Merkel more often than I disagree with the former Prime Minister of Luxembourg. The idea that other member States are kow-towing to Germany is a false impression. I have had a long European career – I chaired the European Council on a number of occasions, the Council of Ministers five times and the Eurogroup over a period of eight years – and I have never observed or thought that Germany is more demanding than anyone else of other countries, notably Greece. I think some people have cultivated this impression. Others in Europe have fallen in line with it to shrug off their own responsibilities, but as I say that impression does not really reflect the reality as far as I am concerned.

      The European Union – in its institutions and member States – has been consistent in pleading for the release of the poor Ukrainian pilot, who has our every sympathy. We have a serious disagreement with Russia on this and we raise the issue of Ms Savchenko with the Russian authorities every time we have the opportunity to do so.

      On Romania’s accession to the Schengen area, perhaps I can repeat here what I have said on a number of occasions. The Commission is right to advocate Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the Schengen area. When countries comply with the criteria, it is elementary that they should then enjoy access to the Schengen area.

      Ms TOLHURST (United Kingdom) – It is my belief, and that of many Britons, that there has been a gradual deterioration in the management of the European budget. I would be very grateful if the President outlined what steps he is taking to reduce the Commission’s expenditure at a time when many members’ treasuries are tightening their belts.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – Visa liberalisation in Georgia has been mentioned. I represent the main Opposition party in Georgia and I want to say that the Opposition in Georgia wholeheartedly supports the granting of visa liberalisation this summer. We have heard, however, that new conditions, which have not been negotiated, might be imposed on Georgia. On behalf of the voters I represent, I want to express the hope that the Georgian people will not be punished for their government’s mistakes, which, in some cases, are rather serious.

      Mr GULYÁS* (Hungary) – Immigration is a major challenge for Europe. Since the beginning of the year, with the crisis and the changes made to the Schengen agreement, the Commission has had to contend with a number of challenges. We know that in private life and in public life it is very difficult to recognise when an error has occurred. We realise that the protection of the Schengen borders is a priority. What solutions should the Commission find if member States leave the Schengen mechanism, and what, in your opinion, is the current situation in Europe?

      Mr JUNCKER – First, the budget of the European Union is not a matter for the Council of Europe. The Commission does not interfere in the budget of the Council of Europe, so I will step away from this question, which is related to the Brexit debate and not to the debate we are having here today.

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – Answer the question.

      Mr JUNCKER – Do you really think I should engage with you in a debate on the European Union budget? The European Commission is proposing a budget. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliament are adopting that budget. The budget is adopted by the European Parliament, so any discussions have to be addressed to the European Parliament.

      On the budgetary proposals for the European Commission, we have made many efforts, which have never been made before, to bring down in 2016 the expenditure of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. I do not think we can make any further progress this year in this respect. We have had to dramatically reshuffle the budget to be able to organise the huge amount of money that has been needed to deal with refugees. We have reshuffled the budget to increase initial expenditure on refugees to up to €10 billion. We are not spending extra money; we are reorganising and reshuffling the budget to where it is needed.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      There will not be any new conditions on Georgia with regard to the liberalisation of visas. In a few minutes, I will be meeting the Turkish Prime Minister, and in half an hour I will be meeting the Georgian Prime Minister. I can reassure the Georgian Prime Minister that there is solidarity in relation to the Commission’s proposals. I think the proposals will do justice to the Georgian people. The Commission has published a positive opinion in relation to the liberalisation of visas in Georgia.

      The PRESIDENT – I must now finish proceedings. Allow me to thank you most warmly, President Juncker, for your presentation and for a very interesting exchange of views. You have shared with us some very interesting ideas and proposals. You can count on the support of the Assembly in implementing them. Thank you very much.

      (Ms Mateu, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Agramunt.)

3. Free debate

      The PRESIDENT* – We now come to the free debate. Pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure, we have just one hour and the speakers must be those who are on the list of speakers. I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the agenda agreed yesterday and that it has been agreed that speaking time in all debates this week is limited to three minutes. Members should begin their speeches by identifying the topic they wish to raise. I will have to interrupt the list of speakers at 12 noon.

      Before calling the first speaker, I remind you that the vote for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights for Slovenia is under way and that those who have not yet voted should do so.

      Mr ROUQUET (France, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I would like to speak to the question of peace in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Council of Europe was established in the aftermath of the Second World War with a view to promoting peace. The Socialist Group notes with some pain and consternation the flare up of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh. The situation is serious and could easily degenerate into open warfare. Under pressure from Russia, the weapons have been silenced, at least temporarily. Should we be happy with that? Quite obviously not.

      Given the situation, the first difficulty relates to the fact that Azerbaijan, despite cosmetic improvements, remains a dictatorship and is like an absolute and hereditary monarchy. Of course that makes any discussions difficult and the outcome uncertain.

      The second difficulty relates to the fact that there is a conflict in the principles of international law, with the intangible nature of borders on the one hand and the right of people to decide their own fate on the other. I do not think that any seriously minded person would contest the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh has been populated by an overwhelming majority of Armenians for centuries, or the impact of the vicissitudes of history, marked by imperial domination, on the area. Most recently the USSR handed the area to Azerbaijan. It is therefore a difficult subject, but conflict resolution here, as elsewhere on the planet, suggests that we should deal with the fate of persons displaced as a result of war and that they should be compensated for the property that they have lost and cannot recover – a problem that is encountered in a slightly different guise in Cyprus.

      The list of obstacles to overcome is not exhaustive, but it is clear to us all that we cannot succeed by having recourse to arms. It is to be hoped that discussions between the parties to the conflict take place directly, with committed support from the United States, France and Russia, the co-chairs of the Minsk Group. It is a long-term process, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe can make its contribution only by not taking a general stand because, given the present context, that would inevitably be exploited by one or other of the parties to the conflict and could only exacerbate an already difficult position.

      We need to be wise and limit ourselves as a Parliamentary Assembly. Although we might wish to remain faithful to our individual obligations, we should restrict ourselves to humanitarian, legal and human rights issues and encourage dialogue between the parties to the conflict. Given the present context, that is already an ambitious aim.

      Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I will speak about the motion tabled in this Assembly on 28 January and signed by 53 of us about the murder of Boris Nemtsov. More than a year has passed since the former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and respected and charismatic leader of the opposition against President Putin was murdered just outside the Kremlin the night before he would have led the protest march against the war in Ukraine. He was murdered when finalising an investigative report on the involvement of the Russian military in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

      Now, more than a year after the murder, it is time for us to look into what is happening with the investigation into Boris Nemtsov’s assassination. It is time for the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly to shed light on the background of the murder. There is space for the international community to monitor the course and results of the ongoing investigation to help to ensure that all aspects of the case are properly considered by the competent authorities. The background of the crime must be investigated to ensure not only that the man who pulled the trigger is punished, but that those who ordered or organised the murder are not protected. That is important not only to members of Boris Nemtsov’s family, relatives and colleagues, but to Russian citizens who seek justice, democracy and security.

      We should not hesitate to make progress with the motion for fear of the Russian leadership or of anyone else; neither should we fool ourselves into thinking that this is nothing to do with us because we do not investigate cases that involve specific individuals. We have examples of carrying out such investigations in the past – remember the report on Magnitsky – and we can do them well in the future. It is now up to us to urge members of the Presidential Committee not to hide away but to make progress on a motion for a resolution and not to take it to the Monitoring Committee, where it will be dealt with in 10 years’ time and we will see no result. I urge you to approach the Presidential Committee this week and to raise the issue in your political groups. Fifty three of us have signed the motion. Let us go for a resolution on the murder of Boris Nemtsov.

      The Earl of DUNDEE (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – In my remarks today on local democracy within Europe I will draw attention to two current processes. The first is internal to our nation states: the scope for transferring certain powers away from centres to regions. Within the United Kingdom this begins from Westminster to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Yet the latter are also administrative centres, so the aim is that, as much as possible thereafter, they, in turn, would also pass on powers to their own regions and localities.

      As a corollary to that, the second aspect is external, for to their mutual advantage there is an increasing opportunity for Europe’s cities and regions to form working partnerships together. The purpose is to improve the quality of life in each of the two or several different places that may come to work together. Education and cultural exchanges are the obvious starting points. They stand to benefit everyone – not least young people as they grow up in schools and universities; and equally to do so when they take on apprenticeships and employment.

      We should bear in mind the association between economic and cultural activities; for the more two cities or economic centres have direct trade and financial dealings with each other, the more likely it becomes that both culture and quality of life will be advantaged in each place as a result. In that way, economic and cultural ventures are closely linked. In assisting the well-being of localities and communities, clearly such working partnerships also enhance Europe’s democracy and stability.

      That leads to the way in which governments and institutions can best encourage the process. First, they must do so through an arm’s-length approach; otherwise, the success and energy of local initiatives would be undermined by government interference. At the same time, there are plenty of ways in which governments can guide, co-ordinate and facilitate by providing relevant information and contacts. That is to inform cities of how to proceed if they should wish to do so; how and why good practice is thereby built up not just within the areas concerned but also within European States themselves; and how restricted budgets and economy downturns neither stand against nor prevent actions in any case, since there are so many simple, inexpensive and creative expedients with which to progress the initiatives in the first place. Not least can the latter re-energise national democracy as well through local democracy at grass-roots levels.

      To some extent, traditional political theory has indicated otherwise. Until the 19th and 20th centuries nationalism held sway in Europe, and pursuit of state pride came well before that of the well-being of citizens. Yet, to the contrary, current evidence demonstrates that improved democracy at local levels does not upstage or threaten the State at national levels at all. The reverse is actually the case. It helps to restore trust and confidence in European States, often accused of being out of touch with their own people. Fortunately in our 21st century it is acknowledged that national success should be measured much more at local levels, particularly so within Council of Europe States where by including the internal process of devolution and the external one of working partnerships we welcome useful measures to progress local democracy.

      Mr VORONIN (Republic of Moldova, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – Twenty-five years ago, the Republic of Moldova became independent. None the less, many issues remain unresolved in my country. In fact, we really have not understood where we are supposed to go from here and how we are going to develop in future.

      The problem with signing the agreement is not that Moldova wants to hold up certain issues but that the European Union does not seem to be holding out its hand to Moldova. Life is becoming worse and worse for people in my country, and the standard of living is clearly plummeting. In such a context, criminal elements have been able to come to the fore. We have seen the very parliament of our country in many ways being held hostage by criminal forces in the country, and the results of recent elections have not been respected. People are able simply to do what they like. The very constitution has been overhauled and reformulated in the interests of certain groups.

      The whole parliamentary and institutional system is simply paralysed at present. We do not have the kind of bodies we were supposed to have. We find that even the Venice Commission is not able to work with us in the way it ought to, despite the fact that for 20 years we have been monitored by that commission and have been a member of the Council of Europe. The mass media in our country cannot tell people the truth about what is happening. They give people the impression that they are part of the international community, but they are not talking about the corruption and arbitrary abuse of power in our country. One TV channel has for many years simply not been telling people the truth about what is happening. We have experienced all those problems for many years. Indeed, four years ago we informed the European Court of Human Rights that one of our TV channels had been shut down for no good reason, and yet we are told there has not been enough time to consider that issue.

      I do not have enough time to go into the details of why the situation has arisen, but for some reason the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is not monitoring Moldova in the way it ought to, meaning that people who have taken Moldova hostage are able to do what they like. Our country has been captured and is being held hostage.

      Mr FEIST (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – I would like to place an emphasis on a matter that is very important for us all in the context of human rights: education and young people. If we are not in a position to enable young people in our countries to have proper education and training, we certainly cannot expect them to fight for human rights or to play a key role in democracy and politics. It is therefore very important for us to fully get to grips with that issue in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and to monitor it closely.

      One important point that lies close to my heart is the dignity of people, which does not only start once we have completed our academic careers. We must ensure that young people in Europe and outside Europe have proper vocational training. When young people meet in the context of vocational training, there are not as many barriers between them. For instance, if we look at vocational championships, we see Iranian, American and Georgian teams all together. We see Israeli and Palestinian teams competing on an equal footing, and that is a very good thing indeed. People who have good vocational training can play a much better role in and make a better contribution to democracy.

      If we simply discuss this issue from an abstract point of view, we will not make much progress. We need to promote concrete measures and focus fully on education and training. Education is, of course, important for an individual’s career, and we must take that on board in our member States. If we only focus on the top level of human rights, it is not enough. We need to also look at the importance of good education and training for young people. In other words, in schools we should not only focus on cultural education. We should also give people an opportunity to have fulfilled careers, so that they can take full part in the discussions being held in the Parliamentary Assembly and help to bring about change.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Before we continue, may I remind members that the vote for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Slovenia is ongoing? I call on all those who have not yet voted to do so. I give the floor to Mr Rochebloine.

      Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France)* – My statement relates to the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. For some time, we have observed clashes along the contact line in Nagorno-Karabakh. Many such incidents have taken place. Tragically, they are frequently punctuated by sabre-rattling words from President Aliyev – words that betray his wish to break the ceasefire that has held for 22 years. In the end, that is what he did. Troops from Azerbaijan, or rather militia hired by the regime, launched an attack in the north of Nagorno-Karabakh. It was not enough for them to leave many killed and wounded among the soldiers who resisted them. Those thugs went on to commit unacceptable atrocities against civilians, including women, children and elderly people, many of whom were also mutilated.

      Those are the kinds of things that Mr Aliyev dares to describe as representing a re-conquest, but what else can we expect from such a leader? What have we been led to expect other than a travesty of truth? Mr Aliyev and his regime are so afraid of truth that, with every day that goes by, they violate freedom of expression and freedom of the press in the most shameless possible manner. Mr Aliyev and the ruling class in Azerbaijan have confiscated and taken for themselves the wealth of their people. The Panama papers have shown the whole world what Mr Aliyev and his family have done in pillaging and looting their own country.

      In launching an offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, Mr Aliyev and his family are distracting the attention of the people; they are terrorising their own people, and they are playing upon nationalism and using it to hold the people of their country to ransom. They represent an ongoing threat to security in that part of the world. Restoring peace is therefore essential for the regional community and vigorous action must be taken to that end. On behalf of the international community, the co-chairs of the Minsk Group have a crucial responsibility to ensure that diplomatic contact and talks can be resumed, in order to negotiate lasting peace. That can happen only if the negotiations of the Minsk Group are open to all parties to the conflict, including the Government of Nagorno-Karabakh. No one who truly wants peace can deny the legitimacy of that country in representing the Karabakh people.

      It is time to demand that the leaders of Azerbaijan truly put into practice the commitments that they are supposed to have entered into years ago to ensure that everyone in the region can live in peace – the peace to which the people in that part of the world aspire. They are not going to get to that position by themselves, so they must be made to understand that they have everything to lose if they continue to refuse to negotiate. We must be just as stubborn in imposing peace.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – My speech is on the execution of two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Almost two years ago, on 26 June 2014, the Court found against France for its refusal to grant nationality to, and recognise the parentage of, children born abroad of a surrogate mother. The judgments kicked up quite a fuss in France, and we were emerging from a long and heated debate on same-sex marriage. Some felt, or wanted to believe, that the Mennesson and Labassee judgments were a legalisation through case law of surrogate motherhood, which is banned on French soil, but that is certainly not the case – there is no talk in the judgments of authorising surrogate motherhood. The judgments deal with the best interests of the child and only that. Every child has a right to a nationality and to parents.

      More than 2 000 children in France are thought to have been born abroad of surrogate mothers, but as of today no couple has managed to get even one of those children registered within the birth registry. Those families have come up against the absence of any regulatory text that would comply with the judgements handed down in 2014. Worse still, the process revealed that at the beginning of 2015, instructions were given to consulates to refuse to enter children into the registry if there is a suspicion of surrogate motherhood. The prosecutor’s office competent in the matter systematically appeals against any judicial decisions ordering the inclusion of such children within the registry of births.

      Almost two years have gone by, and the administration still stands in the way of the issuing of any French birth certificate. There has been no communication, and no initiative has been taken, since the presentation in March 2015 to the Council of Europe of an action plan by the French authorities with a view to executing the Mennesson and Labassee judgments. As the rapporteur responsible for the execution of judgments of the Court within the Assembly, I regret that. I understand that the execution of a Court ruling could raise difficulties, but I do not understand the prolonged period of inaction and the fact that there is no explanation.

      Behind all this is the children. Those little lives need protecting. How can we guarantee their right to health or their ability to go to school if they are not included in the birth registry? Of course, that leads to a series of difficulties. They do not have access to social security and family welfare payments, they do not have identity cards and inheritance laws do not apply to them. It is a terrible term, but those children have been dubbed the phantoms of the republic. They exist and should have rights like others – they just want to be able to grow up like other children. For them, it is essential that France fully executes the Mennesson and Labassee judgments without further delay.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – My speech is on the removal of children from their families. According to the relatively recent Resolution 2049 (2015) of the Parliamentary Assembly regarding legislation on the practice of removal of children from their families in Council of Europe member States, children have the right to be protected from all types of violence, but they also have the right not to be separated from their natural parents against their will in an abusive manner.

      In respect of Resolution 2049, in the absence of a child being judged to be at an imminent risk of suffering serious harm, in particular physical, sexual or psychological abuse, if they are to be removed from their parents, or even worse if family ties are to be severed completely, it is not enough to show that they could be placed in a more beneficial environment for their upbringing. I am glad that Commissioner Muižnieks confirmed yesterday that that is the right approach.

      In the recent years, Barnevernet, the Norwegian child protection service, has had a worrying increase in the number of children removed from their natural families. In 2010, the United Nations Children’s Committee report on Norway expressed concern “that the principle of primary consideration of the best interests of the child is not yet applied in all areas affecting children, such as custody cases and immigration cases, and that those responsible for taking the child’s best interest into account are not always sufficiently trained to conduct a thorough case-by-case assessment of the best interest of the affected child”.

      For example, in Naustdal, on 16 and 17 November 2015, the Bodnariu family saw their five children removed in an abusive way by Norwegian child protection on the basis of allegations of violence made after a complaint from their school director. The children were taken, separated from each other and placed with different temporary foster families far from their parents, who were prevented from seeing them. Moreover, their smallest child, who was only three months old, was literally taken while being breastfed and driven to a location four hours away. Other removals that are highly likely to have been abusive have caused a series of diplomatic incidents in cases involving Slovak, Lithuanian, Russian, German and other citizens of the high contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights.

      The first issue is whether the measure of removal by an administrative interim order is in line with the Convention and Resolution 2049 (2015). The removal is done by means of an interim order issued by the head of the local child welfare administration, which later needs to be confirmed by a welfare board, which is also an administrative body. While the interim order can be attacked later in a court of justice, it can take up to three years to obtain a court decision, which leaves parents who have subsequently been proven innocent hopeless, with families suffering irreversible and cruel damage.

      The second issue that needs investigation is whether in the previous exemplified cases the removal of children was done in the child’s best interest, considering court cases such as Johansen v. Norway, which showed that taking a child into care should normally be regarded as a temporary measure to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit, and that any temporary care measure should be consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parent with the child.

      Ms CROZON (France)* – After Malta, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland, the Norwegian and Luxembourg Governments have recently announced their wish to legislate to facilitate the change of the gender marker on the civil status documents of transgender persons and I hail those trail-blazing States for their courage and express my resolve that France, in passing the Bill that I have tabled, will soon follow suit.

      I mention courage because we know how slowly legislation is being enacted to respect principles that we have been asserting here since Resolution 1728 of 2010. The slowness is explained by the fear of upsetting public opinion. The question of trans-genderism is daunting because it makes each and every one of us face our innermost experience of our identity and gender. Gender is often viewed as immutable, and its change is too often perceived as a disease or a perversion. The realities are too little known and we should therefore laud initiatives such as the film, “The Danish Girl”, which contribute to popularising the subject and generating better understanding of these stories, which are per force private and intimate.

      We must remind all our governments that legislating on modification in civil status documents is not a matter of opening a societal debate or of authorising or encouraging gender change, but of dealing with situations that already exist in our societies, and it is not for us to make a moral judgment. We should shoulder our responsibility to protect the freedoms and fundamental rights of trans people. In France, civil status for trans people has been possible for nearly 25 years without the lawmakers ever getting to grips with the problem. By shirking their responsibility and passing it on to the judges, politicians have allowed grave inequalities to develop, as well as case law that is contrary to the Council of Europe’s resolutions, leading to attacks in the Court of Human Rights for violation of privacy and inhuman and degrading treatment.

      Apart from procedural difficulties, the mismatch between legal gender and the gender in which one projects one’s identity in society is at the heart of much discrimination. It deprives people of jobs, housing, loans and sometimes even the right to vote. It makes people vulnerable to much trans-phobic prejudice and violence. It leads to economic insecurity and isolation and makes transgender people more prone to prostitution and suicide.

      The principles that we champion here – the right to self-determination and to simplified, swift, de-pathologised, secure access to change of civil status must be taken on, explained and upheld in our national parliaments.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – On 2 April, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military operation over the entire line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh, causing the first serious outbreak of war after the ceasefire, which was signed by the Defence Ministers of Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan in 1994 and has largely held since then.

      The four-day war has taken a serious toll on human life on both sides of the line of conflict and enormously endangered security in the region. By seeking a military solution to the conflict, Azerbaijan has once again demonstrated its utter disrespect of the rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh – the very people they consider to be citizens of Azerbaijan – to live in security and freely choose their own fate.

      That is why the conflict started in the first place. When Nagorno-Karabakh opted for independence from Azerbaijan through legal means, including the 1988 decision of its parliament and the 1991 referendum on independence, Azerbaijan made efforts to suppress that self-determination through pogroms, ethnic cleansing and military action. In 1991, Azerbaijan, in co-operation with Soviet troops, uprooted the Armenian population of 24 villages in Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1992, its disproportionate bombardment of Stepanakert took more than 1,000 lives. In response to such actions, the self-defence forces of Nagorno-Karabakh created the security zone around it.

      The current peace plan that the co-chairs of the Minsk Group proposed envisages the recognition of the right to self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to be expressed in an internationally recognised referendum on its final status, and the provision of international security guarantees, connected with the return of the security zone.

      However, Azerbaijan refuses to negotiate in good faith, rejects direct negotiations with Nagorno-Karabakh and refuses to accept ceasefire-strengthening measures such as removing snipers and enhancing the monitoring mission. For a decade, it was busy with military build-up, the only purpose of which is to exterminate the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh rather than reach a reconciliation with them. The international community should ensure that Azerbaijan respects one of the most fundamental principles of international order – refraining from threat or the use of force for the resolution of conflict.

      Mr MIGNON (France)* – We have had to wait for large-scale attacks, which have plunged European and other countries into mourning and caused unprecedented fatalities among innocent victims and people being injured and mutilated for life, to become aware of the significance of the terrorist threat. We need to take co-ordinated measures and ensure that our legislation across Europe is co-ordinated to clamp down on this terrorist scourge.

      The European Parliament finally voted for the directive on passenger name records (PNR) for air travel. Of course it is not a panacea for all ills, but the PNR has already shown its worth across the Atlantic. We need to ensure that all the conditions are met so that we give European States a new means to combat this phenomenon. The PNR is one step in the right direction, but it needs to be approved by the European Council. Before that happens, it needs to be enacted in national legislation of the 28 European Union member States.

      It is the responsibility of all member States to take action. We are lucky enough here to have a so-called dual mandate. Let us use it to put pressure on our national parliaments to take action within and outside the European Union. Let us not wait another two years before the directive is fully enacted in our national legislation. How many more fatalities, innocent victims and casualties will there have to be through criminals behaving so despicably in Europe and across the world? Let us give resources and means to our States to combat terrorism efficiently and effectively. The PNR directive is one way of doing that. Let us ensure that we can take proper action in the next two years.

      Mr BABAOĞLU (Turkey) – Climate change due to anthropogenic global warming is a scientific conclusion, and deep cuts in net emissions of carbon dioxide are required to avoid a global calamity. Besides that, degraded access to water increases the risk of social tension, political instability and intensified refugee flows. It is even worse to see water used as a weapon of war. We must therefore address the problem as quickly as possible before the last ice sheet dissolves.

      Turkey has signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, our national climate change co-ordination board was established in 2010 with a national strategy, followed by a climate change action plan and adaptation strategy in 2011. Furthermore, Turkey participated in the Paris climate change conference with a large group represented by President Erdoğan. Turkey demands that the technological and financial support in the Paris Agreement be given to developing countries. The country officially declared its intention to host the 26th Conference of the Parties in 2020.

      We think that fighting climate change is a process based on technological regeneration and innovation and that this can be achieved not only with international co-ordination but with the active participation of the private sector. Thus the importance of clean energy diffusion appeared in the final declaration of the 2015 G20 Summit chaired by Turkey. Turkey designated its 2030 climate change road map as aiming at reducing emission increases by 21% by 2030. That means a total cut of 1.9 billion tonnes of emissions between 2012 and 2030. We expect to do this through high-quality infrastructure projects, extensive renewable energy projects and realising energy efficiency in all sectors.

      Since we are half way to the critical 2 degrees Celsius threshold, with March 2016 1.28 degrees warmer than the long-term average, there is no other way than sincere action. The world needs to go beyond words and take action. If not, there is a real danger that we will hand future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control, approaching the point of no return.

      Ms LE DAIN (France)* – I will speak about developments in the area of sexual and reproductive rights. International instruments make little reference to this major issue and European instruments are the same, as if a person’s intimacy should not and could not be the subject of a public discussion, as was the case for a long time in respect of rape and conjugal violence. Indeed, the European Convention on Human Rights makes no reference to it at all. Does this gap in international instruments bear witness to some difficulty in appraising such rights, which essentially concern women and their bodies?

      It seems that the incipient liberalism in democratic societies is going so far as to attach a mercantile value to the freedom to avail oneself of one’s body to benefit third parties. The question of prostitution has been dealt with, and I am delighted that France has now voted, albeit with some difficulty, for the abolition of the criminalisation of prostitutes, who are now considered victims, and the criminalisation of clients and prostitution networks. This is a major break with tradition, which holds that a woman’s body is neither for sale nor for hire. Likewise, surrogacy is nothing other than a trade in women’s bodies, which is to be condemned. These women take every possible risk, for money or not, to satisfy the wish of people they do not know to have a child. Children born from such a trade will have three or even four parents, including two women who will just be discarded: the instigator and the surrogate mother. This is effectively producing child-breeding farms, gradually spreading around the world, from the United States to Asia and certain European countries to India, where these women may stay for nine months, cut off from their families. They are nothing other than factories in which poor women are paid to produce children for those who can afford it. Are we not thereby seeing a new manifestation of the class struggle?

      Some people in the Council of Europe champion the concept of ethical surrogacy. It seems to me that ethical surrogacy is pathetic, precisely because the person who will not be paid is the woman who takes all the risks; that is, the surrogate mother. All women will be paid – doctors, clinics, go-betweens and lawyers – other than those who actually give birth. Aside from the risks of childbirth, Caesarean and postpartum problems, this is the reality of the cruel world of surrogacy, all so that people can transmit this myth: their genes. Ethical or not, surrogacy is a dangerous road developing in a deafening political silence, in which the transmission of one’s genes is becoming more important than women’s lives.

      Our democracies are bringing about a new enslavement of women’s bodies, despite inhuman and degrading treatment being prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are talking about people who are taking risks to satisfy a need which nature has denied others.

      Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey) – The Council of Europe’s founding values are based on human dignity and the right to life. Are these values to be negotiated when it comes to the exchange of immigrants? If we violate these values, conventions will only cover up the injustice and violence rather than protect humanity against these crimes.

      At the end of a nine-day visit to Turkey, Mr Muižnieks expressed his concerns about the legality of open-ended curfews in south-eastern Turkey. Some 102 children, 100 women and a total of 872 people were killed in the war-like conditions in Turkey in the past few months. Nearly every class of the war crime articles of the Rome Statute has been violated by security forces in Kurdish cities: wilful killings; torture or inhuman treatment; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury; and extensive destruction and appropriation of property. Nevertheless, the European Commission has kept silent for an unbearable length of time.

      Meanwhile, the European Commission affects our daily lives only through amendments passed at light speed in the Turkish Parliament. We vote every day for a new amendment in order to comply with the 72 criteria set by the visa liberalisation road map. What really matters is monitoring whether these conventions are implemented. Particularly in the past few years, with the rise of security policies human rights are widely ignored. I find this situation very alarming.

      Today in Turkey there are currently 1 845 criminal proceedings for insulting the president of the republic. Academics for peace have been subjected to proceedings. Four academics currently in jail are nominated for the Nobel Prize this year. The notion of terrorism is used as an excuse to convict academics, journalists, politicians and even us, the members of parliament. Our legislative immunity from prosecution might be waived under a proposal submitted by the Turkish Government. One voice has been dictating to women and LGBTs (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people) how they should live and act. As long as we compromise basic human rights and refugee laws, the benchmarks set by the European Commission will only cover up the injustice and violence that go on, both in Turkey and in Europe. I strongly emphasise that these conventions will be effective tools only if they are implemented. It is time to remember that our principal role is to protect our fundamental values, not to negotiate over them.

      Mr KORODI (Romania) – I want to present to the Assembly the unfortunate fact that minority issues in Romania are getting worse and worse year by year. I shall set out simple issues that underline the fact that further action is required in Romania to protect minority rights. For example, in recent months local councils have been sued because of Hungarian inscriptions on buildings. The inscriptions cannot be translated into Romanian but represent institutions that cover not only public but private projects strongly connected to the local authorities. The inscriptions have symbolic and historic significance in our communities and all the official inscriptions used by local authorities in Hungarian communities are always translated into Romanian.

      Another problem is that our public or NGO projects are strongly connected with the local communities. For example, there is the issue of settler land. Tourism projects aimed at economic development in the medium term use traditional symbols and values to attract tourists from other parts of the country or outside Romania. The problem is that such tourism associations cannot legally be registered as settler land. Hungarian communities are not allowed to register such names in co-operation with other similar projects in other parts of Romania – for example in Brașov or Bukovina and the regions around them.

      A third issue is to do with the freedom to participate in human rights demonstrations. A month ago there was an important demonstration, after which 1 000 members of the community were fined simply for participating in a registered and officially accepted demonstration. All these issues show that Romania’s recent action in respect of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities is just about what the Government or the big Romanian parties wanted to show Strasbourg. It is not acceptable that public debates on the relevant reports, which cover 1.5 million inhabitants, cannot be disputed in Bucharest.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – Yesterday, when discussing the issue of migrants, we talked about the drama involving more than 10 000 children belonging to the huge number of migrants moving to Europe. I want to raise another issue to do with children that we tend to overlook. There are 230 million children under five who have no registered civil status in the world today – who were not registered when they were born. They do not have any identity, civil rights or protection, despite the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989. According to UNICEF, one such child is born every 10 minutes. This is a major problem. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is to give priority to this matter for its debates in Dhaka in 2017.

      In 2015, the United Nations, with its 193 member States decided that by 2030 we should guarantee all those children a legal identity by ensuring that they are registered at birth. Let me repeat that 230 million children under five do not have a civil status. We should deal with this very important matter at the Council of Europe and it should be referred to the relevant committees.

      Mr FARMANYAN (Armenia) – Colleagues, you will know that Azerbaijani military forces recently carried out an attack against the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. A new phrase – “a four-day war” – has already been coined to describe it. Azerbaijani armed forces used deadly offensive weaponry obtained in the course of the past 20 years in gross breach of all international norms set by the OSCE. The use of force by Azerbaijan is contrary to the key documents of international law – the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and others. The Azerbaijani attack amounts to an act of aggression under international law. The Azerbaijani army targeted civilian infrastructures and peaceful populations. Twelve-year-old Vaghinak Grigoryan was killed and two other children seriously injured in a playground bombarded by Azerbaijani forces. That is not the only case of violence against the civilian population. Valera and Razmela Khalapyan, an elderly couple, were shot in their home by the Azerbaijani military, who also cut off their ears. They also executed 92-year-old Marousya Khalapyan and tortured a 104-year-old woman, who by the way is six years older than Azerbaijan itself. All the people who were killed and tortured were elderly and somewhat infirm. Moreover, three soldiers from the Nagorno-Karabakh defence army, including Karam Sloyan, were beheaded by Azerbaijani troops as ISIS would have done. You can find all the photos on social networks and they provide evidence of the cruelty of Azerbaijani soldiers, who posed with Karam Sloyan’s head as a trophy. Later the head was passed to the local Azerbaijani population as a trophy for them, encouraging hatred and aggression against Armenians.

      Baku has taken no official action to punish the guilty. It has once again violated numerous international treaties such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva conventions on the protection of victims of war and many others. Another incident included the torture of prisoners of war and the mutilation of the bodies of 18 Nagorno-Karabakh soldiers handed over to the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities in the presence of the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross a week after the hostilities.

      Colleagues, we cannot close our eyes to these crimes committed by the Azerbaijani military.

      The PRESIDENT* – I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given, in typescript, to the Table Office for publication in the official report. That must be done electronically as far as possible.

      The debate is closed.

      The ballot to elect a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights is still open. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s Chair.

      (Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Mateu.)

4. Address by Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, Prime Minister of Turkey

      The PRESIDENT – We will now hear an address by Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, Prime Minister of Turkey. After his address, Mr Davutoğlu will take questions from the floor.

      Prime Minister, it is a true honour to welcome you to our Assembly, which is not unknown to you. Your visit, at a time when your country faces unprecedented challenges from the evil threat of terrorism, is extremely important. We all recognise the immense generosity of the Turkish people and the efforts the authorities are making to host and protect 2 800 000 Syrian and other refugees. That should not be a task for Turkey; we need to work together to find comprehensive solutions. The recent European Union-Turkey deal is a key element of the larger immigration and Syrian puzzle that you will speak about to us. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on how to tackle the main challenges Europe faces from the perspective of Turkey, a key European partner. You have the floor.

      Mr DAVUTOĞLU (Prime Minister of Turkey)* – It is a great pleasure for me to address you at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has become the symbol for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I extend my deepest gratitude for the kind invitation extended to me by President Agramunt.

      In Europe we are going through a period in which we are facing problems that will affect our imminent, near and distant future. Therefore, any steps we take and anything we say in this period will affect multiple dynamics in the short and medium term. Whenever Turkey and the European Union have acted together with a vision for a common future, regional and global issues have been resolved more rapidly and the European Union has become more efficient in global politics.

      Today is special, because I am the first Turkish Prime Minister to address you in Turkish. Turkish has become one of the working languages of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, so our language will be used as a working language in the Chamber and in committees of the Council of Europe. I thank all my friends who made that possible. The Turkish people are an inseparable part of Europe and Turkish is one of the oldest European languages.

      We have a saying in Turkish, which is, “Friends always tell the truth, no matter how painful it is.” Criticism is a mark of friendship and, since we are friends, we criticise each other and explicitly express right and wrong. I would like to talk about our global problems openly and with that understanding.

      Five years ago, I addressed you in my capacity as a foreign minister and shared my views on the need to construct a common vision for the future of Europe. I still remember that day. I have reminisced with the Secretary General, Mr Jagland, that at that time the Arab Spring had just started and there was such excitement. We paid a visit to Tunisia, where we were taking responsibility for neighbourhood policies as head of the Committee of Ministers. We were well aware of the problems and risks and had some concerns. It is five years since then, so we now have to sit down and make an assessment.

      I wish I could have made a speech with a more positive note today, following those five years. I wish I could say we are now living in a Europe that is stronger, more free and more prosperous, where extremism and xenophobia have been dealt with and where there is no discrimination on the grounds of religion, language, ethnicity or race, and people live in peace together, with all individuals and groups enjoying fundamental rights and freedoms, terrorism has been eradicated, and there is a fight against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. The situation is worse today, and we see that discrimination and intolerance is rising in European societies. The ongoing repercussions and effects of the economic crisis, and some mass migration flows, unfortunately push Governments to seek remedies in strict and protectionist policies. This climate provides a conducive environment for xenophobia and racist tendencies. Muslims, migrants and Roma people unfortunately become the primary victims of discrimination. Some political tendencies that associate those groups with unemployment, poverty, crime and insecurity unfortunately find support in Europe. Such approaches damage the spirit of Europe and contrast with European values such as equality, democracy and the rule of law.

      We have once again seen the magnitude of terrorism with the latest attacks in Paris, Istanbul, Ankara and Brussels. Turkey has always advocated that global measures should be taken against global issues, and global sensitivities must be applied. We are of the same opinion today. We believe that sensitivity to and reaction to terrorist attacks in Europe are very important and valuable, but we expect to see the same sensitivity and reaction to terror attacks in Turkey. No justification can legitimise different approaches to terrorist acts. If we think there should be a common reaction against terrorism, we should not discriminate between people who lose their lives as a result of terrorist attacks on the grounds of political tendencies, cultures, sects or religions. This is not rhetoric: it is the stance that is required by European values and the prospect of a common future. In this framework, we have to act in unison in the face of the threat of terrorism.

       There are still loopholes in Europe’s legal area, and some of our demands have not had a response. For example, we have not had any significant progress in the European Union joining the European Convention on Human Rights. We see that Europe cannot overcome crises such as Crimea, Nagorno-Karabakh, Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. These remain the fault lines in Europe, and Turkey feels the effect of the deep crises in a couple of countries on its borders. Turkey therefore attaches great importance to the resolution of these crises within the framework of international law.

      Today, Europe faces the biggest mass migration flow in its history. According to UNHCR data, in the world today 230 million people are migrants, and 70 million of them have refugee status. Those data unfortunately put Europe and the rest of the world to a new test. I am proud to say that Turkey hosts the highest number of refugees in the world. Syrians are coming to provinces like Kilis and settling there, and we have seen no protests against refugees, Arabs or Syrians. That is a humane stance that we can be proud of. Extending a helping hand to people who are escaping from a crisis is a common responsibility for all mankind. It is both a moral and political responsibility. Globalisation has a hold in every walk of life and we have to legitimise and globalise justice and freedom: otherwise, we cannot talk about justice, freedom or security anywhere in the world.

      Throughout the six years of crisis in Syria, Turkey has adopted an open-door policy as a result of its humane and moral responsibilities. I have repeated this on many other platforms. Our door is open to these people, our country is open to these people and, more importantly, our hearts are open to these people and will remain so. We will take this approach in future, too. According to United Nations data, Turkey has the highest number of refugees in the world. At the moment, we are hosting 2.7 million Syrian brothers and sisters, and almost 300 000 Iraqi and other nationals. We have not seen any inkling of alienation or xenophobia in those years, and that is why I reiterate that I am proud of my people. I extend my deepest gratitude and appreciation to the 78 million Turkish citizens.

      I find it strange that there is some maltreatment of Syrian refugees and migrants in Europe, although they are few in number. Some 270 000 Syrian brothers and sisters are staying in camps in Turkey. Their food, education and health requirements are met by our government. Those staying outside camps have temporary protection status, and their health and education requirements are also met by the government – free of charge to them. We all have to be aware of the risk of a lost generation. We have to think about our moral responsibility, the political dimension and the possible problems inherited by future generations. In the last four and a half years, 152 000 Syrian babies were born in Turkey. They have only ever lived in Turkey and have never seen their own country. We give priority to the education of Syrian children in Turkey and provide education opportunities to 78 707 children in shelters in our country. The schooling rate is 90%. We also provide education to 200 000 Syrian children outside shelters, which corresponds to a schooling rate of 35% but, unfortunately, the remaining 400 000 children have no access to education. We urgently need new schools, classrooms and teachers.

      To date, we have spent more than $10 billion on refugees staying in camps, and the figure we have spent for all Syrians is much higher than that. However, the international contribution we received is not even $0.5 billion. Unfortunately, our friends have not assumed their responsibility in burden-sharing but I reiterate that I am not here talking about this just to be appreciated for what we have done for our Syrian brothers and sisters. I am just trying to attract attention to the magnitude and severity of the problem.

      Irregular migration is another common challenge. We have taken many measures to fight against irregular migration and human smuggling. Since January 2015 alone, Turkish coastal guard boats have rescued 92 000 migrants in the Aegean. As a result of all those efforts, we managed to decrease the number of irregular migrants crossing the Aegean to 2 000 from 6 800 in 2015. In March 2016, that number went down to 860. For the first half of April, the figure is 327. However, it is obvious that Turkey’s efforts alone will not suffice to save people or to prevent scenes like that of baby Alan, who washed ashore off the Aegean.

      My counterpart, the Chancellor of Germany, Ms Merkel, and I have taken some joint initiatives to support the international efforts. Displaced people need your support, especially within the context of migration. Member States should fulfil their obligations stemming from the Convention and other international instruments. You must remind those member States of their obligations. This is a political and human responsibility.

      As you know, we have a deal with the European Union to fight against irregular migration flaws, and I have had the chance to meet Mr Juncker today. The deal has three main objectives: the prevention of casualties in the Aegean; to break the human smuggling network; and to convert irregular migration into legal migration through resettlement programmes. We enforced the deal as of 4 April, with the one-for-one formula. As of 4 April, we have started readmitting the irregular migrants crossing the Greek islands. On the same day, on the basis of the one-for-one formula, we started sending Syrians to Europe. With the deal, the average number of crossings has decreased from 6 800 a day to 60 a week. That is a huge achievement.

      The issue of irregular migration has once again shown that Turkey and the European Union cannot be thought of separately. It goes without saying that Turkey-European Union relations do not only consist of common problems; the relationship has to be seen as one of strategic integrity based on history and common values. Our negotiation process started in October 2005 and is the driving force of our relations with the European Union. I reiterate that once again on this platform. If we can enforce the deal efficiently, we will achieve significant success in the Aegean in preventing irregular migration and, more importantly, we will be able to save lives, but that is not enough for a permanent solution.

      First, we have to resolve the root causes of the conflict. Although this is the sixth year of the crisis in Syria, the international community is far from taking measures against mass migration flows and finding a remedy for millions of people escaping violence and persecution. To prevent mass migration waves, we must find solutions to enable those people to go back to their countries. Syria has become the centre for Daesh terrorism and radicalism, and there is an oppressive regime there. Therefore, we have always advocated a safe zone in Syria. Our main national security objective is to be neighbours with a Syria that is stable and prosperous, and that has territorial integrity. To fight against Daesh, we have to end the conflict in Syria. A new constitution and fair, free elections should take in place in Syria so that there can be a political transition there. However, as long as the Assad regime is there, that is not possible.

      Turkey has been advocating the political solution in Syria in line with the Geneva declaration. From the very first day, Turkey has always been supportive of the Geneva process. In a consistent manner, we have tried to include Syrian opposition in the political process. On the other hand, regime supporters continue to hit the opposition and civilians. Despite the promises made to the Syrian opposition, the regime puts the Syrians under siege and causes them to starve. We must stop that. It is our responsibility as mankind. The international community should impose pressure on countries that have an impact on the regime, and the regime must be convinced about the need for a political process. The concrete result of the political process is the only way to eradicate Daesh in Syria. However, supporting another terrorist organisation – PYD – against Daesh is not a solution to the problem. It will only legitimise and promulgate terrorism. I remind our European friends that PKK and PYD are benefiting from the same instruments, methods and ideology, and they are two terrorist organisations that ignore human values just like Daesh.

      On the other hand, there is internal strife and a socio-economic crisis in Iraq, and sectarianism is the main problem there. For sustainable peace and stability in Iraq, we must win back the people who are crushed under sectarian policies. We should have a global perspective to all the problems. The European Union-Turkey relationship is not the only option to solve these problems, but it is an obligation. As I stated at the outset of my speech, we must have a common stance and attitude against terrorism, otherwise we cannot end the atmosphere of fear and anxiety.

      For Turkey, the international fight against terrorism has never been an issue of mere rhetoric or academic interest. Turkey has been fighting against many aspects of terrorism, whether it is the PKK, Daesh, the KPC or al-Qaeda. One of the most important lessons we have learnt in our fight against terrorism is that you cannot overcome terrorism without international co-operation. The mechanism of the Council of Europe is a top platform in the fight against terrorism. We have some indispensable principles in our fight. First, terrorism is a threat against international peace and security. Regardless of what its motives may be, and where or by whom it may be carried out, no terrorist activity may be legitimised. Secondly, we must enhance our international co-operation based on the principle of “repatriate or try”. In addition to that, it is absolutely wrong to base terrorism on the principles of religion. Terrorism and Islam should not be seen as the same principle.

      Terrorism and terrorist organisations are becoming international. They now have much bigger capacities and use social media to pass on their rhetoric to young people, encouraging more young people towards violence. Turkey welcomes the work of the Council of Europe in that area and continues to support the activities of the Council of Europe. There are almost no days on which we have no acts of terrorism. Turkey is doing its utmost to solve this problem. Turkey is an active member of the global coalition against Daesh. It is also the co-chair of the working group on foreign terrorist fighters. So far, Turkey has been able to deport 3 200 people who planned to travel to Syria or Iraq, and risk analysis groups have prevented the entry of more than 2 000 people into our country. On 22 November 2015, the additional protocol on the prevention of terrorism was open for signatures. We were one of the first countries to sign up to the protocol and we aim to ratify it very soon. We hope that all member States will sign and ratify the additional protocol to exhibit their common determination to fight against terrorism.

      Terrorism is terrorism. One cannot talk about the religion, culture, nationality or identity of terrorism. We can succeed against terrorism only if we adopt this rigid perspective. We cannot work on the reflexes we used to have during the Cold War. We cannot say “There are my terrorists and your terrorists and other terrorists.” No, we cannot do that. The suicide bomb attacks in Ankara in February and in March were carried out by PKK members who were trained in YPG camps in Syria. We see these bombings as identical to the bombings in Paris and Brussels. These organisations take aim at young people, old people and innocent people: they used a suicide bomber to kill innocent people. We do not see how this terrorism is any different from the terrorism of Daesh. Let me repeat: terrorism is terrorism. Regardless of who carries out acts of terrorism, we must fight against terrorism by working in solidarity, otherwise we cannot succeed.

      We know exactly who the perpetrators of these crimes are and the documents that prove it have been shared with the rest of the world. Any effort to legitimise the PKK is identical to the effort to legitimise Daesh. There are campaigns in Europe to raise funds and supply arms for some of these organisations. Under these circumstances, one cannot talk about solidarity against terrorism. We are worried about terrorist activity in all parts of Europe. Some of these organisations dig trenches, build road blocks and kill civilians. The PKK is engaged in ruthless murder in Turkey. Unfortunately, the PKK is treated as a legitimate actor in certain European cities. Even in this Organisation, which puts to the fore democracy and human rights, we have witnessed attempts to remove the PKK from the list of terrorist organisations. Tolerating such organisations goes against the principles and collective social conscience of Europe. Terrorism does not call for any exceptions, ratings or qualifications. The fact that a terrorist organisation is fighting against another terrorist organisation does not justify the activities of that terrorist organisation. Nothing can justify terrorism. Justifying terrorism violates all the principles of Europe and the European Union. The Council of Europe should perhaps consider creating a platform to fight against all forms of racism and xenophobia.

      Ladies and gentlemen, the crises in Europe have not been solved yet. In the past two years, following the occupation and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, human rights violations have been ongoing. Mustapha Qırımoğlu and Refat Chubarov are the leaders of the Crimean Tatars. They are not allowed to enter Crimea. The Deputy President of the Crimean Tatar Assembly, Akthem Chiygoz, has been arrested illegally. He has been kept behind bars without trial for over a year. More than 20 000 Crimean Tatars have had to leave their country because of the illegal annexation. The issue of Crimea and the Crimean Tatars needs to be kept on the international agenda. It is important that we speak out on behalf of the Crimean Tatars. International organisations and human rights organisations should work to ensure access to Crimea. We appreciate the sensitive approach towards Crimean Tatars adopted by the Council of Europe and we put a lot of emphasis on the work of the Parliamentary Assembly. We welcome Secretary General Jagland’s efforts to send a delegation to Crimea. On the initiative of the Secretary General, a report was prepared. Although the report has certain weaknesses, it has once more reaffirmed the violations of human rights on the peninsula.

      There have been serious attacks on Azerbaijan. We are worried about the cease-fire violations in that region. The attacks and violations have led to the loss of life of both soldiers and civilians. The escalation of violence has once again shown that the status quo in the upper Karabakh region can no longer be maintained. The cease-fire violations have extended to the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. It is important that the international community and the co-chairs of the Minsk Group warn Armenia about its actions. It is important that we find ways to overcome the occupation of Azeri land.

      The conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia need to be solved, taking into consideration the internationally acknowledged borders of Georgia. We continue to focus on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the players in the region. It is very important that we establish peace in this region. As the result of decisions taken in 1999, Georgia made commitments to the Ahiska Turks. Those commitments must be fulfilled. We hope that the Geneva negotiations will continue the success they have had in the past. Georgia made commitments in 1999 to repatriate the Ahiska Turks. We are following developments and hope the repatriation of these people will be a priority in the Council of Europe’s Georgia action plan. I express again the fact that Turkey is more than willing to give its full support to that objective.

      Developments in the eastern Mediterranean have shown once more that we must find a solution to the situation in Cyprus. We need to take into consideration the interests of the two peoples on the island. It is important that we continue to support finding a just, comprehensive and permanent political solution. We give our full support to the constructive efforts of the leaders on the island. We hope that the process in 2016 will help all parties to exhibit their sincere willingness to find a solution. The negotiations and a solution to the Cyprus problem will be an important step in establishing peace and stability in the eastern Mediterranean region. Finding a solution to the Cyprus issue is also in the interests of the Council of Europe.

      The future of Europe will be determined by our response to the tests that Europe faces. These challenges test our basic values. We need to return to the basic values that brought us together under this roof 67 years ago. We have overcome wars based on religion. We have overcome world wars. We have been able to create a consensus, and I am sure that we will work together once more to create a just and democratic solution.

      I believe that the Council of Europe has a very important mission. The Council of Europe generates standards that are common to the European legal arena. What is more, the Council of Europe also uses these standards to establish best practice in member States. We feel that this creates significant potential to increase the efficiency of international organisations. We would like to see an improvement of the efficiency of the Council of Europe. Let me reiterate the fact that Turkey continues to support the reform activities started by the Secretary General and the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as the European Court for Human Rights (ECHR). Our most important objective is to ensure that the Council of Europe once more establishes its central importance in Europe.

      As a result of its increased importance in international relations, Turkey has strengthened its participation in the Council of Europe. Turkey has increased its contribution to the Council of Europe’s budget by €20 million. It now contributes €33 million and has become one of the biggest payers. We have increased the number of members in certain committees and Turkish has become a working language. Our main objective is to strengthen the Council of Europe’s political role. To do that, we will continue to offer our support to the Council of Europe, and we believe that the Council of Europe’s importance in Europe’s democratic processes will also be strengthened.

      We believe that the Secretary General has made a wonderful proposal to organise a new summit meeting. I am glad that the Parliamentary Assembly agrees with that proposal. We also support the proposal to take up issues of democracy and security at that meeting. It is important to strengthen democratic security. Turkey supports all such international initiatives and hosts international initiatives to that end. In this critical period when we face many humanitarian crises, Istanbul has organised a world humanitarian summit, which will be held on 23 and 24 May 2016. We hope to see many participants at that summit.

      Turkey has proven that it believes in the rule of law and human rights. These principles form the basis of peace and welfare around the world. I like to re-emphasise the fact that Turkey is committed to these principles and to these shared values. In the past 15 years, Turkey has implemented many reforms on human rights and democratisation. We now have more comprehensive constitutional rights. We now have better mechanisms to protect these rights. The Constitutional Court now allows individual applications. We have reform packages that strengthen basic rights and freedoms. Political parties now have more ways to organise at local level. Turkey’s citizens also now have more cultural rights as part of that reform process. The 1 November elections are an excellent example: 85% of the population voted and the AKP party, which I represent, came to power with 49% of the vote. I am very proud of these developments. Participation in those elections was much higher than in those in other European countries.

      Right after the elections, we prepared a new government programme that focused on reforms. We have a new mechanism at the level of the deputy prime minister to co-ordinate the reforms, which are now subject to a strict schedule. We have created national legislation to protect personal data. We now ensure that personal data are protected under the strictest standards. We now have a council to ensure the data protection of individuals. We have just passed a law on human rights and equality. We now have a more comprehensive definition of discrimination that includes ethnic origin. As part of the reform process, we will soon start our work on drafting a new law on political parties.

      The main objective of our political reforms is to ensure that Turkey has a new democratic and liberal constitution. In the 1980s, Turkey was subject to a constitution that was the result of a coup. We will now have a modern civil constitution – a constitution of the kind that Turkey very much deserves. As a result of the new constitution, Turkey will strengthen its position in the international area. Likewise, we are accelerating the ratification process of some Council of Europe documents. Today, Mr Çavuşoğlu signed an additional protocol that criminalises racist and xenophobic acts on computer systems.

      These reforms are being carried out in Turkey despite the threat of terrorism, despite the conflicts in the region and despite the fact that Turkey is faced with severe tests as a result of the increasing number of refugees in our country. These reforms are based on the legitimate expectations of our citizens, and we see the Council of Europe as our main partner in our reform activities. We have an action plan that ensures the implementation of these reforms, which overlap with our visa liberalisation dialogue with the European Union. As in the past, our guiding light is the work and mechanism of the Council of Europe, as well as the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights.

      Five years ago, when I was speaking at another Parliamentary Assembly meeting, I emphasised the fact that we needed to establish a joint vision for Europe. Let me re-emphasise the fact that Europe should be free of xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and economic instability. We must ensure that we refocus on being European, and we must refocus on European values. The Council of Europe is the ideal platform to fulfil this important mission, so we must all work together under this roof. We all have responsibilities that we need to carry out. If we fulfil our responsibilities and if we forget about our prejudices and try to achieve better aims, our children and grandchildren will think very highly of us. I think that this is a joint aim for us all.

      I thank you and send my best wishes to the parliaments that you represent, and I wish you success in your work. Thank you.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Prime Minister, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. We do not have much time, so the questions must be limited to no more than 30 seconds. Colleagues should ask questions and not make speeches.

      Ms BAKOYANNIS (Greece, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I welcome you, Prime Minister, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You said that we have to speak the truth between friends, and I will try to do exactly that. The European Union and Turkey have signed an agreement. You spoke a lot about it. Unfortunately, Turkey seems to have slowed down its implementation. On top of that, our old friend Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu threatened Europe yesterday with not enforcing the agreement at all. At the same time, Turkey is blocking the full deployment of NATO forces in the Aegean by making the usual unsustainable claims against Greece, thus turning the NATO operation into a failure. Therefore, will Turkey fully co-operate with Europe to fulfil and implement the agreement? Will you co-operate with NATO and agree to the full deployment of the alliance’s forces in the Aegean as planned?

      Mr DAVUTOĞLU* – Ms Bakoyannis, my former counterpart, this is an excellent opportunity to meet you again. You know the past of our Turkey-Greece relations very well, and you know how important our relations in the Aegean are to our bilateral relations. Turkey and Greece have established a very close relationship. My colleague Mr Tsipras and I have worked hard to overcome the challenges. What we are facing is not a tension or an issue between Greece and Turkey but a common problem.

      Turkey has fulfilled all its commitments in the deal. Perhaps you have not been following closely, but none of my counterparts in the European Union – the 28 European Union leaders – including Mr Tsipras has ever taken the floor to criticise Turkey for shortcomings with respect to any of the clauses or provisions of the deal. In fact, all the provisions we agreed in the Turkey-European Union deal, such as giving work permits to Syrian immigrants, have been put into effect. The number of crossings from Turkey to Greece has gone down to 60, and sometimes zero, people a day. This is a successful deal, and it is a package deal. Pacta sunt servanda is the core value of Europe, and we are fulfilling our commitments with regard to that value, as will the European Union.

      This Saturday, 23 April, Ms Merkel, Mr Timmermans and other European Union colleagues will come to the border between Turkey and Syria and will take up these issues close to the heart of the problem. There are no problems or obstacles. Turkey can talk about such issues, especially since the €3 billion allocated for Syrian refugees in Turkey has not come into effect fully, but we are still there to stop babies washing ashore dead.

      As for NATO, that is not our initiative. Together with Ms Merkel, we said that the differences of opinion between Greece and Turkey on the Aegean are known to us. NATO is not there to disregard our differences. All NATO operations have the support of Turkey and Greece, and they have been going very well. Turkey has not blocked anything, but according to our agreements, certain islands need to be disarmed. It is a very clear part of the deal, as well as of NATO operations, that those commitments be kept.

      Ms Bakoyannis, rest assured that our close relations – relations we established when you were the foreign minister – are still intact. I ask you to support, rather than criticise, the close dialogue we are trying to establish with Greece and to use your force for peace in the Aegean and the Mediterranean.

      Ms ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Prime Minister, you began your speech mentioning human rights and democracy. Still, your government has been taking big steps away from democracy by controlling the media and social media and imprisoning journalists and prosecuting them as terrorists. The treatment of the Kurdish minority has also been brutal and oppressive. How is Turkey’s ambition of becoming a member of the European Union compatible with the democratic stagnation and totalitarian development in your country?

      Mr DAVUTOĞLU* – Ms Rojhan Gustafsson, I do not know how well you know Turkey or whether you have been there, but I believe that if you follow developments, you and all those who criticise our democracy will see that in the past two years we have had four elections, all of which have taken place under the observation and supervision of European organisations. Everyone was free to speak, to say whatever they wanted and to campaign however they wanted. Before the 1 November elections, all the Turkish media were able to voice their criticisms in the way they wanted. Nobody gave guidance or directions. Nobody put pressure on people.

      On the contrary, three of the five top-selling newspapers in Turkey – I shall not name them – are clearly in opposition to the government. Their whole editorial policy contrasts with that of the Government. That is their right. As the prime minister, I have never commented on this or given any kind of directing views. I see that as a natural part of election campaigns. If you are following the Turkish media, you are probably aware of the kind of harsh criticism the president and I face, and there is no way you can claim that the media are controlled by certain powers.

      Kurds, Arabs and people of all ethnic roots and religions – Sunnis and Alevis – are equal under Turkish law. Some years ago, Kurds were detained because they listened to Kurdish music. Today, I have tried to learn Kurdish to be able to address my Kurdish people. There are Kurdish broadcasts by the official Turkish broadcasting agencies. That has been possible under my party’s government. I spend every single weekend in cities in the south-eastern or eastern parts of Turkey, where there is still terror. Turks and Kurds work together, hand in hand, for the rule of law and democracy. There are politicians of Kurdish origin in our parliament and members of my cabinet who are Kurds. Kurds are not isolated; they are not segregated. On the contrary, since our war of liberation they have had equal rights. They have fought on equal footing, and they will continue to co-exist with us.

      No one will be discriminated against or isolated because of their religious or ethnic background. We will never allow there to be any kind of restrictions. Turkey is very different from what you think or have come to believe. It is a real rule-of-law country where all citizens enjoy equal rights. If you go around Turkey, you will see that people can criticise the government. You can criticise everyone. There is a clear consciousness among the Turkish people of the need to co-exist and to live together in peace. I hope you will come and see that with your own eyes; before then, it is best not to propagate certain perceptions.

      Ms OEHRI (Liechtenstein, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – Given the time, I have a very short question for the prime minister. I would like him to share his view of the criticism that women are the subject of increasing oppression in Turkey. A report from Amnesty International says that some women are being imprisoned or returned to their home countries, where they run the risk of torture. That contrasts with a humanitarian stand in that regard in the past. What does he say about that Amnesty International report?

      Mr DAVUTOĞLU* – In my speech, I said that if there was a test on humanity globally, Turkey would be the only country to pass it. Some might not appreciate that, some might not be aware of it, and some might not want to recognise it because they oppose Turkey for one reason or the other. Historically, and in the hearts of the Syrian people today, that is clear.

      I referred to the Amnesty International report. Not one single Syrian has been sent back to Syria against his or her will. Certainly no Syrian women or children have been sent back against their will. Some 152 000 Syrian babies have been born in Turkey. Are we going to deport women and children who have been born in Turkey? There can be no logic to such claims. Three million Syrians are being hosted in Turkey. Are we going to withdraw our hospitality for 100 000 or 200 000 people? No way!

      A Syrian group who were stopped at the Bulgarian border said they wanted to talk to me so I met them. They said: “Don’t misunderstand us, prime minister. We are not protesting against Turkey; we are protesting against Europe and the world. Turkey has opened its heart to us more than Syria did.” One man said: “My wife was pregnant and I took her to hospital. I did not have a penny in my pocket. I did not know what would happen after she gave birth. We had our baby and I asked what I should pay, and was told, ‘You have paid us with your presence. You will pay us nothing more.’” He said he did not have any money to pay for a taxi, but the hospital paid for it.

      By the way, my wife is a gynaecologist. If one pregnant woman or any other woman in need is being deprived of anything in Turkey, just tell me. We will make her the queen of our hearts and give her the best we can offer. I am speaking not only as the Prime Minister of Turkey but as one of 70 million Turks who have been hosting 3 million Syrians when I say that no person in need is ever deprived of any kind of benefits. We will not let anyone touch those Syrians, let alone touch a Syrian woman. If there are any allegations, bring them to us and we will investigate them, but there is absolutely no rational basis and no truth to such claims. We have open door and open heart policies towards the Syrians.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you. We now come to the last two questions on behalf of the groups, after which there will be no more time.

      Ms GODSKESEN (Norway, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Dear Prime Minister, the talk is of the authorities having decided to draw up a new civilian constitution. As co-rapporteur for post-monitoring dialogue with Turkey, we expect a new constitution to guarantee the separation of powers, checks and balances, and respect for fundamental values. Do you intend to co-operate with the Venice Commission to ensure that the constitution of Turkey fully complies with the Council of Europe standard?

      Mr DAVUTOĞLU* – Thank you very much. I discussed that in my speech. On 12 September 1980, there was a coup d’état in Turkey. All political parties were closed down and some politicians, including some who are now sitting among us, were sent to prison. Turkey’s membership of the Council of Europe was suspended. I still keep the record of the sad speech of the representative at the time who called on the Council of Europe to refrain from isolating Turkey. I now stand before you proudly as the prime minister of a European-standard democratic country. In 1980, I was a college student. The first time I voted, I voted no to the adoption of the constitution. The ballot envelopes for no votes were brown, but I was proud to vote no – I was the leader of a student movement against the coup d’état.

      My ideal now is to ensure that we no longer follow the constitution from the coup d’état, and that is what will happen. Our constitutional reform will not enhance my political position. On the contrary, we want to ensure that we never have another coup d’état. That is why we want a civilian constitution that is full of freedoms. There is a spirit and a skeleton to constitutions. The spirit is fundamental human rights and liberties. No constitution that has not had that at its core has lasted, and the 1980 constitution will not last. The constitution we are planning to draft will be based on the will of the people instead of the will of the State, and the European Convention on Human Rights will be its basis. I promise you that we will not have a single article that violates or risks human rights. Our ancient culture is based on human rights and it will be included in the constitution.

      The skeleton of the constitution is the structure of the government. It could be a parliamentary system or a presidential system, but the spirit is more important, because the structure does not define how authoritarian a country is – many presidential systems are democratic, and many parliamentary systems are authoritarian. The current constitution is not based on checks and balances or any other democratic system. The person who has the power must also have the responsibility. In the past, the old constitution was based on the fact that the president was completely deprived of all responsibility but had all the power, and that the prime minister had all the responsibility but no authority. We are going to have better checks and balances in the new constitution. We are open to discussing everything, but the only thing we are not going to debate is the fact that the new constitution will be based on human rights and freedoms. That is the important core. Turkey will have a constitution that is based on human rights, liberties, freedoms and democracy.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey, Spokesperson for Group of the Unified European Left) – Since July 2015, the resumption of armed conflict between the guerrilla PKK and the Turkish forces has cost the lives of 874 people, of whom 202 were children and women, and 300 were security officials. Three hundred thousand people are internally displaced. Recent European Union and United States reports sharply criticise your government for countless violations of the rights and freedoms of civilians during security operations. Do you still believe that Turkey is a safe country for refugees leaving the Syrian war, and is your government considering means other than war of resolving the Kurdish question and the conflict in Syria?

      Mr DAVUTOĞLU* – We have Mr Kürkçü, a Turkish representative of the Turkish Parliament. I wish that he had asked his question in Turkish because Turkish is a working language here. I am sure that his voters would have been more pleased if he had spoken Turkish.

      First and foremost, governments have duties vis-ŕ-vis their citizens and the most important are security and freedom. If you cannot ensure security, people cannot enjoy freedom. If you talk about human dignity, you must ensure that people live in a safe, free and prosperous environment.

      Secondly, in modern societies, including those of Council of Europe member States, we need public order. I am not talking about State authority, which implies a separation between what constitutes a State and what constitutes the people. Mr Kürkçü called the PKK guerrillas, but they are not; they are terrorists. If he had a child who had to walk along the road where the terrorists laid the mines to go to school or if his relatives were taken to hospital, wounded in a missile attack by the terrorists, or if he had been a relative of one of the people who were violently killed in Kızılay, Ankara, he would have called them heinous terrorists, not guerrillas.

      In the last election, I was elected with a majority of 49.5% by my people. I promised them that there would be security everywhere in Turkey and that everyone would have their freedoms. If the DHKP/C, PKK or ISIS lay landmines on the road or have snipers on the roofs or organise suicide attacks on my citizens, it is my responsibility to stop them. Like it or not, that will continue until each citizen in Turkey feels safe and secure.

      In May 2013, when we announced the settlement process, people could have laid down their arms as in the commitment made in Nowruz, but the terrorist organisation organised suicide, missile and bomb attacks, and now you ask me when I will stop the security operations. They will not be stopped until there is freedom and security everywhere in Turkey.

      We can say anything in Turkey. You can use your seat in parliament to speak as you wish. Are any limits imposed on you? Your question would have been better answered if you learnt to speak and listen in Turkish. Turkey is a democratic country governed by the rule of law.

      Ask any refugee from Syria: they all feel at peace in Turkish territory. You do not know how they feel. Not a single Syrian refugee feels threatened or weak in Turkey. They come to Turkey to find peace. No one can make Syria out of Turkey. Turkey will continue its fight with determination and the Turkish Government and State will last for ever.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Prime Minister, for your presence here today. It was a great honour and pleasure to meet you earlier. Let me reiterate that Turkey can count on the full support of the Parliamentary Assembly.

      The ballot for electing a judge in respect of Slovenia to the European Court of Human Rights is still open. Those who have not yet voted may still do so in the next 10 minutes. Voting will be suspended in 10 minutes until this afternoon’s sitting. I call on all of you to vote.

      Voting will reopen at 3.30 p.m. and close at 5 p.m.

5. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3.30 p.m. with the agenda which was approved on Monday morning.

      The sitting is adjourned.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Slovenia

2. Address by Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission

Questions: Mr Fischer, Ms Bilgehan, Ms Brasseur, Mr Evans, Mr Kox, Mr Rouquet, Ms Mikko, Mr Zourabian, Mr Dişli, Ms Schou, Mr Omtzigt, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Obremski, Ms Pashayeva, Mr Corlăţean, Mr Ariev, Mr Destexhe, Ms Tolhurst, Mr Kandelaki, Mr Gulyás.

3. Free debate

Speakers: Mr Rouquet, Ms Lundgren, Earl of Dundee, Mr Voronin, Mr Feist, Mr Rochebloine, Mr Le Borgn’, Mr Ghiletchi, Ms Crozon, Mr Zourabian, Mr Mignon, Mr Babaoğlu, Ms Le Dain, Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir,

Mr Korodi, Ms Durrieu, Mr Farmanyan.

4. Address by Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, Prime Minister of Turkey

Questions: Ms Bakoyannis, Ms Rojhan Gustafsson, Ms Oehri, Ms Godskesen, Mr Kürkçü.

5. Next public business

Appendix I

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

Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH

Brigitte ALLAIN/Anne-Yvonne Le Dain

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON/Eduard Köck

Luise AMTSBERG/Annette Groth

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Ingrid ANTIČEVIĆ MARINOVIĆ

Sirkka-Liisa ANTTILA

Ben-Oni ARDELEAN*

Iwona ARENT

Volodymyr ARIEV

Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina

Mehmet BABAOĞLU

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Gérard BAPT/Jean-Claude Frécon

Doris BARNETT/Mechthild Rawert

José Manuel BARREIRO/Teófilo De Luis

Meritxell BATET/ Soraya Rodríguez Ramos

Deniz BAYKAL

Guto BEBB/Kelly Tolhurst

Marieluise BECK

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Włodzimierz BERNACKI

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Maria Teresa BERTUZZI/ Francesco Maria Amoruso

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs

Jokin BILDARRATZ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Tobias BILLSTRÖM

Oleksandr BILOVOL

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK

Mladen BOSIĆ*

Anne BRASSEUR

Piet De BRUYN/Hendrik Daems

Margareta BUDNER

Valentina BULIGA

Dawn BUTLER

Nunzia CATALFO*

Elena CENTEMERO

José CEPEDA

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Anastasia CHRISTODOULOPOULOU

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Paolo CORSINI

David CRAUSBY/Lord George Foulkes

Yves CRUCHTEN

Zsolt CSENGER-ZALÁN/Attila Tilki

Katalin CSÖBÖR/István Hollik

Geraint DAVIES/Liam Byrne

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Renata DESKOSKA*

Alain DESTEXHE

Manlio DI STEFANO

Şaban DİŞLİ

Sergio DIVINA

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ*

Namik DOKLE

Francesc Xavier DOMENECH/Ángela Ballester

Jeffrey DONALDSON

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß

Daphné DUMERY/Petra De Sutter

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Nicole DURANTON/Jacques Legendre

Josette DURRIEU

Mustafa DZHEMILIEV/Andrii Lopushanskyi

Mikuláš DZURINDA*

Lady Diana ECCLES

Franz Leonhard EẞL

Markar ESEYAN

Nigel EVANS

Samvel FARMANYAN

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Bernard FOURNIER/Frédéric Reiss

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO

Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ

Martin FRONC*

Sahiba GAFAROVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Sir Roger GALE

Adele GAMBARO

Xavier GARCÍA ALBIOL

José Ramón GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ*

Karl GARĐARSSON

Iryna GERASHCHENKO*

Tina GHASEMI*

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Mihai GHIMPU/Alina Zotea

Francesco Maria GIRO

Pavol GOGA*

Carlos Alberto GONÇALVES

Oleksii GONCHARENKO

Rainer GOPP

Alina Ștefania GORGHIU/Maria Grecea

Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT/Marie-Christine Dalloz

François GROSDIDIER/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Gergely GULYÁS

Emine Nur GÜNAY

Valgerđur GUNNARSDÓTTIR

Jonas GUNNARSSON*

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Maria GUZENINA/Susanna Huovinen

Márton GYÖNGYÖSI

Sabir HAJIYEV/Rovshan Rzayev

Andrzej HALICKI/Tomasz Cimoszewicz

Hamid HAMID

Alfred HEER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Gabriela HEINRICH

Michael HENNRICH/ Thomas Feist

Martin HENRIKSEN/Christian Langballe

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

John HOWELL

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER

Andrej HUNKO

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Ekmeleddin Mehmet İHSANOĞLU

Florin IORDACHE*

Denis JACQUAT

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Sandra JAKELIĆ/Josip Bilaver

Gordan JANDROKOVIĆ

Tedo JAPARIDZE

Andrzej JAWORSKI/Daniel Milewski

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Frank J. JENSSEN

Florina-Ruxandra JIPA/Viorel Riceard Badea

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Aleksandar JOVIČIĆ*

Anne KALMARI/Petri Honkonen

Erkan KANDEMIR

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Niklas KARLSSON/Azadeh Rojhan Gustafsson

Nina KASIMATI

Vasiliki KATRIVANOU

Ioanneta KAVVADIA

Filiz KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR

İlhan KESİCİ

Danail KIRILOV*

Bogdan KLICH

Manana KOBAKHIDZE

Haluk KOÇ

Željko KOMŠIĆ/Saša Magazinović

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Attila KORODI

Alev KORUN/Nikolaus Scherak

Rom KOSTŘICA

Elvira KOVÁCS*

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Florian KRONBICHLER*

Eerik-Niiles KROSS/Raivo Aeg

Talip KÜÇÜKCAN

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Yuliya L OVOCHKINA*

Inese LAIZĀNE

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Damien Abad

Luís LEITE RAMOS

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER*

Georgii LOGVYNSKYI

Filippo LOMBARDI

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

George LOUCAIDES/Stella Kyriakides

Philippe MAHOUX

Marit MAIJ

Muslum MAMMADOV/Vusal Huseynov

Thierry MARIANI

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Duarte MARQUES

Alberto MARTINS

Meritxell MATEU

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA/Seán Crowe

Sir Alan MEALE/Phil Wilson

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS/Evangelos Venizelos

Ana Catarina MENDES*

Jasen MESIĆ

Attila MESTERHÁZY/Gábor Harangozó

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Marianne MIKKO

Anouchka van MILTENBURG/ Pieter Omtzigt

Orhan MİROĞLU

Olivia MITCHELL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Thomas MÜLLER/Roland Rino Büchel

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Hermine NAGHDALYAN

Marian NEACȘU/Titus Corlăţean

Andrei NEGUTA

Zsolt NÉMETH

Miroslav NENUTIL

Michele NICOLETTI

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI

Johan NISSINEN/Markus Wiechel

Julia OBERMEIER/Volker Ullrich

Marija OBRADOVIĆ*

Žarko OBRADOVIĆ*

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/ Eva-Lena Jansson

Suat ÖNAL

Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN

Joseph O’REILLY*

Tom PACKALÉN

Judith PALLARÉS

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Florin Costin PÂSLARU*

Jaana PELKONEN

Agnieszka POMASKA

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT/Baroness Doreen Massey

Mark PRITCHARD*

Lia QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA

Kerstin RADOMSKI/Sybille Benning

Mailis REPS/Jaak Madison

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Melisa RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ

Helena ROSETA*

René ROUQUET

Alex SALMOND

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Giuseppe Galati

Milena SANTERINI

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Sergiy Vlasenko

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Paul SCHNABEL

Ingjerd SCHOU

Koos SCHOUWENAAR*

Nico SCHRIJVER

Frank SCHWABE

Predrag SEKULIĆ

Aleksandar SENIĆ*

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV

Paula SHERRIFF

Bernd SIEBERT

Adăo SILVA

Valeri SIMEONOV*

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Egidijus Vareikis

Jan ŠKOBERNE

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Olena SOTNYK

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV/Valeri Jablianov

Karin STRENZ

Ionuț-Marian STROE*

Dominik TARCZYŃSKI

Damien THIÉRY

Antoni TRENCHEV*

Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI

Goran TUPONJA/Snežana Jonica

İbrahim Mustafa TURHAN/Burhanettin Uysal

Nada TURINA-ĐURIĆ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Liana Kanelli

Leyla Şahin USTA

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN

Petrit VASILI

Imre VEJKEY/Rózsa Hoffmann

Stefaan VERCAMER

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist

Vladimir VORONIN

Viktor VOVK

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER*

Jacek WILK

Andrzej WOJTYŁA/Jarosław Obremski

Morten WOLD/Ingebjřrg Godskesen

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLŔ

Serap YAŞAR

Leonid YEMETS

Tobias ZECH

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Marie-Jo ZIMMERMANN

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Anne LOUHELAINEN

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Olli-Poika PARVIAINEN

André REICHARDT

Barbara ROSENKRANZ

Observers

Héctor LARIOS CÓRDOVA

Armando LUNA CANALES

Ulises RAMÍREZ NÚŃEZ

Partners for democracy

Hanane ABOULFATH

Najat AL-ASTAL

Hassan ARIF

Mehdi ATMOUN

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID.

Nezha EL OUAFI

Abdelali HAMIDINE

Omar HEJIRA

Qais KHADER

Abdesselam LEBBAR

Bernard SABELLA

Mohamed YATIM

Appendix II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of the judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Slovenia

Tasmina AHMED-SHEIKH

Werner AMON/Eduard Köck

Luise AMTSBERG/Annette Groth

Anna ASCANI/Tamara Blazina

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

Gérard BAPT/Jean-Claude Frécon

José Manuel BARREIRO/Teófilo De Luis

Meritxell BATET/ Soraya Rodríguez Ramos

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

Sali BERISHA/Oerd Bylykbashi

Włodzimierz BERNACKI

Andris BĒRZINŠ/Boriss Cilevičs

Jokin BILDARRATZ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Maryvonne BLONDIN

Tilde BORK

Anne BRASSEUR

Valentina BULIGA

Dawn BUTLER

Elena CENTEMERO

José CEPEDA

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

David CRAUSBY/Lord George Foulkes

Yves CRUCHTEN

Alain DESTEXHE

Namik DOKLE

Daphné DUMERY/Petra De Sutter

Josette DURRIEU

Lady Diana ECCLES

Franz Leonhard EẞL

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER

Axel E. FISCHER

Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ

Mihai GHIMPU/Alina Zotea

Rainer GOPP

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ

Maria GUZENINA/Susanna Huovinen

Gabriela HEINRICH

Michael HENNRICH/ Thomas Feist

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Andrzej JAWORSKI/Daniel Milewski

Anne KALMARI/Petri Honkonen

Marietta KARAMANLI/Pascale Crozon

Haluk KOÇ

Ksenija KORENJAK KRAMAR

Alev KORUN/Nikolaus Scherak

Tiny KOX

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Pierre-Yves LE BORGN’

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT/Damien Abad

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

François LONCLE/Catherine Quéré

Soňa MARKOVÁ/Pavel Holík

Meritxell MATEU

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA/Seán Crowe

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Thomas MÜLLER/Roland Rino Büchel

Andrei NEGUTA

Miroslav NENUTIL

Michele NICOLETTI

Julia OBERMEIER/Volker Ullrich

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/ Eva-Lena Jansson

Suat ÖNAL

Tom PACKALÉN

Judith PALLARÉS

Cezar Florin PREDA

Mark PRITCHARD

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Melisa RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ

Alex SALMOND

Nadiia SAVCHENKO/Sergiy Vlasenko

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Andrej ŠIRCELJ

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Egidijus Vareikis

Jan ŠKOBERNE

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Damien THIÉRY

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Nikolaj VILLUMSEN/Rasmus Nordqvist

Andrzej WOJTYŁA/Jarosław Obremski

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ