AA17CR26

AS (2017) CR 26

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twenty-sixth sitting

Thursday 29 June 2017 at 3.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

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

3.        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.

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

      The PRESIDENT* – The sitting is open.

1. The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

The PRESIDENT* – Our first business this afternoon is the debate on the report “The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, Document 14340, presented by the rapporteur, Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Mr Le Borgn’, you have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – This is the ninth report in 20 or so years on this important issue, and I am the fourth rapporteur, after Erik Jurgens, Christos Pourgourides and Klaas de Vries, all of whom I salute and whose efforts I found extremely valuable.

The implementation of judgments of the Court takes us to the very heart of the role of, and the added value provided by, member States and the Council of Europe as a whole. The implementation of judgments by all member States of our Organisation depends on the authoritativeness of the system of protection, based on the European Convention on Human Rights. In that framework, even though oversight of the implementation of judgments is part of the competence of the Committee of Ministers, our Assembly has a very important role to play, particularly when we are giving instructions and advice to our national parliaments.

Two years ago, we made some recommendations, and when I went back to Paris I prepared a draft constitutional law, based on our resolution, obliging the French Government to provide the national assembly with an annual report on the implementation of the Court’s decisions in France. I was surprised that the draft law provoked a lot of emotion. It was a first attempt and there will, of course, be other national parliaments that, because of our presence in this Chamber, understand that it is our duty to monitor our governments and to demand satisfaction from them, if necessary.

      In our recommendation of 2015, we proposed to the Committee of Ministers several measures to increase the transparency of the process for monitoring the implementation of judgments, but I am disappointed to say that we received no response. Our Assembly has the right to be heard. I worked for two years with the valuable support of the secretariat of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I read a number of papers, met dozens of human rights activists, organised a conference in Paris and went on missions in Poland and Hungary. My aim was to find examples of good and bad practice, and to explore the following questions. What challenges are faced by member States and the Committee of Ministers? What initiatives are under way? How can the role of civil society and national parliaments be strengthened?

      On 31 December 2016, 9 941 cases were pending before the Committee of Ministers; that is slightly less than the figure for the previous year. The 10 countries with largest number of cases pending were, in descending order, Italy, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova and Poland. Seven of those countries – I will again list them in descending order – are still in the top 10: Ukraine, Turkey, Hungary, the Russian Federation, Romania, Italy and Poland. Of the 79 750 applications pending before the Court on 31 December 2016, almost half are from three member States: Ukraine, which accounts for 22.8%; Turkey, which accounts for 15.8%; and Hungary, which accounts for 11.2%. These figures reflect the difficulties and the realities that I hoped to understand. States sometimes fail to implement Court judgments because they do not want to act, but sometimes it is because they cannot act.

      I welcome the record number of cases closed by the Committee of Ministers in 2016. A smaller number of cases are subject to ongoing oversight, and national governments have clearly become more efficient at implementing Court judgments. At the same time, we should be concerned about the increase in the number of leading cases that have been pending for more than five years. That is the nexus of our problems. At the end of 2016, more than half the main issues under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers related to five major problems: the actions of the security forces, poor detention conditions and the lack of medical care in penitentiary establishments, the legality or otherwise of detention, bad treatment and excessive length of judicial proceedings.

      Certain pockets of resistance are of a social nature – for example, hostility towards minorities such as the Roma – while others are political, or related to national security or frozen conflicts. The obstacles include complex structural problems, such as the financial issues in Zhovner v. Ukraine. Another obstacle may be the lack of a common understanding of the execution measures required, as in the case of Catan and Others v. Russian Federation. Implementation may be blocked when political parties or national institutions disagree on the reforms – as in the cases of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hirst v. United Kingdom – or when they simply refuse to adopt the required measures. I am also thinking of the cases of Alexey Pichugin, who was imprisoned by the Russian authorities more than 15 years ago, and of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan.

      Certain member States are reluctant to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. Hungary was one such after the decision on Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary. In Switzerland, the Democratic Union of the Centre launched an initiative called “Swiss law instead of foreign judges”, after the judgment on Tarakhel v. Switzerland concerning the expulsion of an immigrant family. The Russian Duma passed a law that allowed Russian courts to put the judgments of international courts aside as they saw fit. My own country, France, has failed to implement the judgments on the cases of Mennesson and Labassé concerning the rights of children born abroad. Each State has its own difficulties, and it is my responsibility to raise them freely here.

      The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is mandatory according to Article 46 of the Convention. The draft resolution calls on member States and others to submit their action plans to the Council of Ministers in a timely manner, to give priority to cases that have been pending for more than 10 years, to make the public aware of the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and to strengthen the role of civil society and national institutions that protect human rights while judgments are being implemented. My draft recommendation calls on the Committee of Ministers to make more frequent use of interim resolutions with a view to identifying difficulties in implementing judgments, and to improve the ongoing monitoring of implementation.

      I spent two years preparing the report, into which I poured all my passion for Europe, the law and human rights. It is particularly necessary at this time, when the European ideal is in crisis and resurgent nationalism is a threat. In January 1995, President François Mitterrand stood before the European Parliament and said that nationalism was war. I was there on the public benches, and I was very impressed by his words. This appeal for action and collective responsibility from all the men and women of Europe struck me to my heart, and it is as relevant now as it has ever been. Let us fight for that ideal, for liberty and for the establishment of peace through law. The Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and this Assembly make that fight a reality. Let us believe in the power of a united Europe and work together for democracy and our shared destiny.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Le Borgn’, you have two minutes remaining. In the debate, I call Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir.

      Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I thank the rapporteur for bringing this crucial topic before the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights is of great importance for countries in which a majority of the citizens are obliged to fight for human rights. For this reason, as emphasised in the report, we must protect the Court’s reputation and ensure that its judgments are executed effectively and within a short time.

      The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly been criticised by extremist politicians and xenophobic politicians constantly refer in their populist speeches to the Court’s judgments against governments. What makes the Court convincing is its ability to hand down independent judgments, despite politicians’ polemical speeches and despite conflicts of interest between countries. Unfortunately, however, I have to admit that the ECHR has not taken the necessary steps to prevent violations in the face of recent human rights violations in Turkey. Despite the applications we have been introducing in order to urgently address the situation of our detained deputies, the Court still has not dealt with those applications and asked the Turkish Government for explanations. At the same time, the AKP government began to revoke the parliamentary memberships of the detained deputies one by one. The silence of the Court has encouraged the government, and finally a deputy from the main opposition party was arrested in the past few weeks as well.

      The Court has also rejected an application from one of the victims of the decree laws in recent days, which has created a great outcry among Turkey’s democratic public opinion. The Court asked the applicant to apply to the State of Emergency Inquiry Commission – which has not yet started to work in Turkey – as a domestic remedy that must be exhausted. Apparently, the Court ignored criticism coming from many institutions, notably the Venice Commission, on the SEIC.

      Another major problem is that court proceedings in general continue for long periods of time. This problem has negative impacts on the effectiveness of the human rights protection mechanism. Moreover, proceedings before the ECHR also continue for unacceptably long periods. This may sound like a cliché, but I must stress that justice delayed is justice denied.

      Finally, I state again that I strongly support the report and all the initiatives that will contribute to the independence, authority and effectiveness of the Court. It is of primary importance to take measures to ensure that the judges of member States comply with the decisions of the ECHR, and that the decisions of the Committee of Ministers and the Department for the Execution of Judgments are more transparent.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – This report deals with an issue at the heart of the Council of Europe’s activities. We keep saying that the Strasbourg court system is a crown jewel of our Organisation, and no doubt this is true. However, it is crucial to ensure not only that the Court delivers just and timely judgments, but that those judgments are duly and diligently implemented by member States. In fact, after successful reforms of the Court’s modus operandi and reducing the backlog of pending cases, the execution stage now seems to represent the main bottleneck in the entire system.

      In principle, supervision of the execution of judgments is within the competence of the Committee of Ministers. However, the role of national parliaments in the process is essential, and in some respects even indispensable. Therefore, our Assembly cannot abstain from active involvement in this area.

      This is already the ninth report on the issue. It reflects important trends, achievements and challenges. Our rapporteur, Mr Le Borgn’, suggests a number of measures aimed at further improvements. In particular, the problem of the so-called “pockets of resistance” is seen as one of the aspects to be dealt with not only by executive power but also by law makers. As a rule, these judgments are related to sensitive political issues, and not only bureaucratic diligence, but also political will, wisdom and courage are needed to find proper ways to execute them. This is particularly true with regard to general measures. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues prefer to look for excuses rather than for their own political will based on genuine adherence to the values of the Council of Europe.

      I particularly welcome the rapporteur’s proposal aimed at increasing the involvement of national human rights institutions and civil society, as well as establishing special structures in national parliaments to monitor the implementation of human rights obligations.

      On behalf of the Socialist Group, I fully support the draft resolution and call upon the Assembly to vote for it. It was a pleasure and honour to work together with Mr Le Borgn’ in this Assembly for several years. Thank you, Pierre-Yves, for your great contribution to the promotion of our common values, and good luck at the next stage of your life.

      Ms YAŞAR (Turkey, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group)* – The judgments of the ECHR are very important in protecting the system of values created by the Council of Europe. The implementation of its judgments has been tackled in this report, which addresses many important issues, and I thank the rapporteur for his work.

      There are, indeed, several striking aspects of the report. For instance, it makes it clear that member States must work harder to raise public awareness of the judgments of the ECHR, and that their implementation will probably be made easier when the Court also learns about the individual countries and their citizens. Parliamentarians have an important role to play in that. We must keep this in mind and give all necessary support to the implementation of judgments. We therefore support the call from the rapporteur in this respect: this issue should be on our agenda all the time.

      When lawyers do their work, they have to use the judgments of the ECHR. Reports such as this one, which emphasise the importance of the Court’s judgments, will also help instil the rule of law across Europe. Therefore, parliamentarians should keep the implementation of Court judgments on their agenda at all times.

      The Court has contributed greatly to human rights, but some of its judgments have had political consequences. Before I became a parliamentarian, I worked as a lawyer. Leyla Şahin, a medical student, was the applicant in one case that I worked on. Because she wore a headscarf, she was not allowed to study at the university, so she was deprived of her right to education. We filed an application with the ECHR and it decided against the applicant; it decided there was no problem in terms of the violation of the right to education, or to participation of women in politics. If that judgment had not been reversed, we would not be able to be here as parliamentarians. I wanted to draw the Assembly’s attention to this, to demonstrate that the judgments of the Court sometimes have political consequences and implications.

      I say again that reports that focus on the importance of the judgments of the ECHR will contribute to the principle of the rule of law and, as a parliamentarian, I reiterate that we must raise the issue of the implementation of judgments of the ECHR in our countries.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – I thank the rapporteur and commend him for a very good job of work. Enforcement of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is crucial for the credibility of our institution. There are a variety of different facets to this institution, and the European Court of Human Rights is the jewel in our crown because it hands down judgments and protects the rights of citizens across the 47 countries of the greater Europe. That is what makes for peaceful co-existence, but we must ensure that the system and this Assembly remain credible, for we, after all, elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights. We should actively continue to lobby for our right to elect judges to the Court. We are parliamentarians from the member States of the Organisation and, as Mr Le Borgn’ suggested, we should have debates in our national Parliaments on the effective implementation of judgments.

In Spain, for example, we had the Parot judgment. It was very hard and painful for us to have to apply that; nevertheless, it was applied immediately. Recently, the ECHR handed down another judgment that affected the President of the Basque Parliament, Mr Atutxa. This was an extremely relevant political judgment and came many years after Mr Atutxa was stripped of his right to sit in the Basque Parliament. Nevertheless, it is important, if we are to preserve our credibility, that there is dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts in the member States. In this respect, I remind colleagues of the existence of Protocol 16. It is one of the basic core protocols governing dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and the member States of this Organisation.

      What is more, we should, as proposed in the report, call on the Committee of Ministers to speed up its actions in this regard and ask it to face up to its responsibilities. There are still thousands of cases that the Committee of Ministers needs to look into, which is why it needs to expedite matters.

      It is important that we call a spade a spade. Some countries adhere to judgments and others do not. Paragraph 6 of the report outlines the progress that has been made but we must remember that for 10 years, 10 countries have failed to implement judgments: Italy, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, the Republic of Moldova and Poland. I was struck by the fact that 22.8% of cases of non-application come from one country, namely Ukraine.

      I thank Mr Le Borgn’ for all he has done over the years in the Assembly. I was fortunate enough to sit with him on the committee electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights. The sensitivity and skill with which he carried out his work was a huge credit to the committee. I assure him that we will remember his work very fondly. I wish him every success in the future and very much hope that we will continue our relationship in the future.

      Mr GOLUB (Ukraine, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – I thank Mr Le Borgn’ for his excellent report and the excellent work that has gone into it. We shall miss him and his professional approach in this Assembly and in the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

      In today’s world of conflict and armed aggression, human rights issues are more urgent and topical than ever. The violation of international law and the ignoring of the European Court’s decisions have become not just the norm for some countries but an instrument of government policy. Since the hybrid aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in 2014, my country has brought several cases against the Russian Federation to the ECHR. At the beginning of June, Ukraine decided not to bring any new cases against the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights but to concentrate on providing extra material for the five existing cases concerning the events taking place in the Donbass and Crimea. That is because the Russian Federation is now abusing the system and manipulating a large number of cases before the Court.

      Moreover, I stress that today the Russian Federation is using its own constitutional court to avoid implementing ECHR judgments. In December 2015, President Putin signed a law authorising the constitutional court of the Russian Federation to determine whether there should be implementation of the judgments handed down by international bodies which exist to protect human rights, in particular that of the ECHR in a case brought against the Russian Federation. Before that, the constitutional court of the Russian Federation had determined that the Russian Federation need not implement judgments of the ECHR if they violate the basic rules provided by the constitution of the Russian Federation.

      Given that fact, I call colleagues’ attention to the following. The Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe on 28 February 1996; the federal law entitled “On the Ratification of the Convention” for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and its protocols were signed by the President of the Russian Federation on 30 March 1998, and the constitution of the Russian Federation took all the international treaties ratified by the country and provided for their primacy over national law. In spite of all that, the Russian Federation is failing to implement judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. That is a violation of its obligations.

      Since the beginning of the armed aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and Syria, the Russian Federation has used its constitutional court as a tool for hybrid war. By not implementing judgments by the ECHR, the Russian Federation has established a precedent that other signatories to the Convention might follow. It is aimed at destabilising and destroying our shared legal framework. Taking all this into account, it is very important that something is done.

      The PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur wishes to respond at the end of the debate, so we will continue with our list of speakers. I call Mr Yemets from Ukraine.

      Mr YEMETS (Ukraine) – I thank the rapporteur for this very important report. I would like to speak about the situation in my country. Ukraine has for many years been the leader in the number of complaints to the European Court of Human Rights. As at the beginning of this year, 80 000 complaints have been submitted to the ECHR and the total number of complaints from Ukraine is about 18 150 – about 22.5%. The most common reasons for complaints are the violation of the rights to a fair trial, to an effective remedy and to property.

      While Ukraine ensures that the ECHR’s decisions to pay just satisfaction are executed at an acceptable level, the ECHR notes that systematic changes aimed at eliminating the causes of future human rights violations are suffering significant delays. The number of cases in which the ECHR ruled against Ukraine – 73 in 2016 – significantly exceeded the number of cases in which the ECHR found Ukraine to have complied, which was four in 2017.

      In order to fix the situation, Ukraine has taken a number of important steps, including mandatory re-certification of all judges at all levels, with in-depth examination of their knowledge of ECHR practice within the judicial reform framework; some 20% or 25% of the questions for Supreme Court candidates were decided by the ECHR. Ukraine has introduced a requirement for judges and judge candidates to study the practice of the ECHR, and subsequently to familiarise themselves with new cases. Ukraine has also implemented ECHR practice at legislative level through obligatory examination of all Bills submitted to parliament and, if necessary, will target development of relevant legislative initiatives aimed at enforcing ECHR judgments. We hope that these measures will help to increase significantly the number of decisions made by the ECHR and reduce the number of citizens’ complaints.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – We are, in essence, a human rights Organisation. Our instruments are the Convention and the Court, and the obligation of every member State is clear. It is set out in Article 46.1, which says: ‘The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties’. That was not written down to be agreed in principle; it is an obligation on every State, even if we may occasionally have concerns about those judgments. Yes, the Court has certain responsibilities, but we have responsibilities also.

On the resolution, I join others in saluting the work of our rapporteur. I have known him for some time, and I know his sterling work, his commitment, his enthusiasm and his logic. Pierre-Yves, we shall miss you very much in the Assembly.

      The sad fact is that as we look to the report – which, incidentally, is a mine of information for reference – we come up with the same problem. It is rather like a bad film: ‘This is where I came in.’ The same problems recur in each of the reports. There is a slight improvement, but not very much, on the number of applications pending. I hope that our colleagues in our parliaments will press for progress. As we see, there are serial offenders – the usual suspects. That must be cause for concern. Judgments must be honoured. They must not be blocked, as in the Russian Federation, by countries turning to a constitutional court to say whether or not the judgments will be agreed. That is clearly a major challenge to the Court’s authority.

      My own country’s record has been exemplary. Even where I have certain misgivings or concerns about issues on which we have been in contention with the Court, the judgments must be obeyed. Judges are not infallible; we certainly see that the opinions of the Court itself have been modified over the years. I refer to two cases in my own country in which there have been concerns. The first is that of Abu Qatada, a notorious extremist preacher whom we had great difficulty deporting to Jordan. We had to agree and work with the Court, but given the number of terrorist incidents – Bataclan, London, Brussels and so on – I wonder whether the Court’s emphasis would be the same nowadays, and whether it has effectively struck the right balance between protecting the public interest against terrorists and protecting the human rights of terrorists. However, the judgments of the Court must be obeyed.

      Secondly, the Hirst case of 2005 essentially concerned the rights of prisoners to vote. I believe that we, as a government and as a country, should respond positively to that. There has been a wide margin of appreciation. In my country, a majority has clearly been against implementation, but the good news is, I believe, that that majority has altered since the last general election. I hope that now, given the margin of appreciation, that a way will be found to implement the right, even if only in relation to those prisoners who have perhaps six months or less to serve, on the basis of rehabilitation of offenders. I hope that my government will now put the matter again to parliament and that we shall continue our exemplary tradition of honouring the judgment of the Court. That is our obligation.

      The PRESIDENT – I do not see Ms Gorghiu, so I call Ms Beselia.

      Ms BESELIA (Georgia) – I thank the rapporteur for preparing this significant report to a high standard. For a long time, the committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has been preparing a special report on the execution of judgments of the Strasbourg court. Mr Le Borgn’ is concerned that about 10 000 judgments have not been executed. The judgments relate to the right to life, the prohibition of torture, and rights related to freedom and security. The reasons vary and include a lack of political will, legislative gaps and other issues. Our task is to unite our efforts and efficiently manage the awareness campaign on this topic in order to achieve success in executing the judgments of the Strasbourg Court.

The following recommendations are critical. Council of Europe member States need good control mechanisms on the legislative level. For example, my country, Georgia, has a good standard of monitoring mechanism. The Government of Georgia submits to Parliament a report about the state of execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, cases finished with a final resolution of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and cases in the process of execution.

The Parliament of Georgia plans to introduce good practice and strengthen parliamentary control. Georgia has 65 closed cases and 35 pending cases. Many reforms have been adopted: for example, improvement of procedural guarantees in both civil and criminal cases, improvement of the penitentiary health system, improvement of medical care for mental problems in prisons, freedom of expression, introduction of prompt judicial control of the lawfulness of detention and so on.

      Civil society’s important role in the supervisory process needs to be strengthened at national level. Relevant national institutions and interested individuals need to be granted resources and encouraged to efficiently execute that supervisory mechanism. I suggest that we continue discussions so that we can share our experiences, hear about existing problems and plan solutions. I thank the rapporteur once again for his excellent report.

      Ms ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland) – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent work on this report. I express my sincere support for its conclusions and recommendations.

      The European Convention on Human Rights is one of the greatest gifts that our European forebears gave our continent in our common quest for peace, prosperity and the equal human rights of all the citizens of Europe. Although I agree that it is essential that we impress on those nations that are least efficient in implementing the Court’s judgments the importance of expediting their implementation, it is also essential that those of us who claim to be guardians of the Convention, its founding members and all of us who believe in its mandate, purpose and legitimacy in Europe today, stand together to protect its values and do not let others talk it down or work towards diminishing its legitimacy.

      Although I welcome the statement to the Assembly by the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, who is the incumbent President of the Committee of Ministers, regarding his country’s strong commitment to protecting the Court’s values, its important foundations and the rule of law, I am deeply concerned about the repeated statements of his successor, the Prime Minister of Denmark, our kind neighbour, that Denmark intends to set some sort of practical rules to influence the way the Court interprets the Convention. It might create a dangerous precedent were our institution’s executive to try inappropriately to influence our independent and impartial Court. Although the executive of our great institution may try to influence the efficiency with which the Court institutes its judgments, it would be completely inappropriate, if not unlawful, for him to try to influence the Court’s substantive interpretation of the Convention.

      I ask you to stand with those who want to protect the mandate of the European Court of Human Rights to have the final word and be the highest authority when it comes to interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights, and to stand against any move that would give the Court a set of rules that diminished its capacity to interpret the Convention, as is its mandate according to the Statute. I hope that we can all stand together to protect the core values of the Court and of our European institution, which stands for the rule of law, democracy and human rights, and stand against inappropriate executive influence over the Court’s independence and impartiality.

      Ms CERİTOĞLU KURT (Turkey)* – There are certain criticisms of Turkey in the report, but it also contains shortcomings and deficiencies. We should not ignore the fact that Turkey has introduced judicial reforms in recent years, or that progress has been made in certain cases. The number of cases before the Court has reduced significantly; in 2012, there were 400 applications with the Court, but in 2016 that number had dropped to 117. There was an increase in applications following the attempted coup in July 2016, but that was an exceptional situation and, to some extent, a result of the manipulative work of Fethullah Gülen’s terrorist organisation. Because of the judgments in Mercan v. Turkey and Koksal v. Turkey, 18 000 cases will be sent back to Turkey to be dealt with via domestic remedies. I thank the Court for that. There will probably be a significant reduction in the number of pending cases before the Court.

      Turkey has also collaborated with the Court to introduce judicial reforms. Turkey has made considerable progress; it is doing its best to fulfil its obligations stemming from the Convention and is determined to implement the Court’s judgments. However, the Court’s judgment on Cyprus’s fourth application against Turkey is false and inconsistent, and lacks legal grounds. As long as the Cyprus issue remains unresolved, there will be no way to implement that decision.

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I join my colleagues in thanking Mr Le Borgn’ for his exceptional contribution to the Assembly – particularly his work on the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights – and I wish him the best of luck in his future work. My colleague, Ms Beselia, is right that Georgia has a good track record of executing judgments of the Court, but my government’s reluctance to accept and respect one decision of the Court overshadows that good track record.

      Last year, the European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously against Georgia in the case of Vano Merabishvili, the former Prime Minister of Georgia and author of the world-famous Georgian police reform. That decision was identical to those in Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, Lutsenko v. Ukraine, Jafarov v. Azerbaijan and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan. In the almost 60-year history of the Court, it has established a breach of Article 18 of the Convention in only seven cases. Mr Merabishvili is only the third politician in relation to whom such a breach has been established, and his is the first decision of its kind in the history of Georgia.

      Article 18 essentially prohibits governments from using restrictive measures for reasons other than those considered legitimate by the Convention – political motivation, for instance. In other words, in addition to declaring the continued detention of Mr Merabishvili, who has been in jail since 2013, in breach of Article 5(3), the Court unanimously established that the restrictive measures applied to him – his arrest – were not applied for the reasons stated by the Government of Georgia but were politically motivated. Thus, although the Court never uses the words “political prisoner”, this decision virtually declares Mr Merabishvili to be a political prisoner, just like Mr Lutsenko and others.

      Although the Court concluded that the initial arrest could have been within the limits of the Convention, it said that “there may be a violation of Article 18 in connection with another Article, even if there is no violation of that Article taken alone.” Therefore, not only did the Georgian Government breach the Convention by keeping Mr Merabishvili in detention after his initial months of pre-trial detention, breaching Article 5(3), but, more importantly, both his arrest and his continued detention were in violation of the Convention because the government’s action was clearly beyond the scope of legitimate actions allowed under the Convention and was politically motivated.

      Being an opposition politician certainly does not grant anyone immunity from justice, but following the first ever peaceful electoral transition of power in the history of my country, it was particularly important for the new government to ensure that due process was observed in relation to its political opponents. The European Court of Human Rights unanimously decided that due process had been breached in relation to Mr Merabishvili, but the government appealed the decision to the Grand Chamber of the Court. Those proceedings have been completed, and the Grand Chamber will soon publish its final verdict. I want to express in the Chamber my hope that, once that decision is published, the Georgian Government – my government – will respect it. Mr Merabishvili and other political figures have been in jail for five years, and enough is enough. Georgia needs to close this chapter and look to the future.

      Ms CHUGOSHVILI (Georgia) – There have already been two speakers from Georgia, so I will be brief and try not to focus this debate on an individual case. I join my colleagues in thanking the rapporteur for his amazing work. Georgia has enormous respect and appreciation for the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Not only do we respect and obey its judgments, but we have taken a lot of inspiration from it in moving ahead with some important reforms. The Court has encouraged us to undertake massive and fundamental reforms in our penitentiary system, which has been dramatically transformed and is now closely in line with European standards. The same is true in relation to freedom of expression and many other areas on which the Court has inspired and encouraged us to make fundamental and important reforms in Georgia.

      I wanted to speak about other issues, but I must respond to the point made by my opposition colleague, Mr Kandelaki. Briefly, Mr Merabishvili, whose case has been raised, is actually in prison because of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia. The Court obliged our country to investigate this horrible case involving the murder of a young man and to bring all those responsible before a court of law. That is why Mr Merabishvili is now in jail. As for the other case, which is before the Grand Chamber, we are of course waiting for the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. I reiterate that we will fully recognise and obey the decisions of the Court, and I assure the Parliamentary Assembly that Georgia will follow any instructions that the Court issues.

      Mr MULARCZYK (Poland) – I thank Mr Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ for preparing an important and informative report on “The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”. We also thank him for coming to Poland for fruitful meetings with the elected government, the supreme court and the parliament.

      Let me take this opportunity to stress that Poland recognises the role of the European Court of Human Rights in ensuring respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. That is why the Polish authorities have acted to increase the rate of implementation of cases relating to the Convention and the Court’s judgments at domestic level. As a result, the number of Polish cases pending before the Committee of Ministers has decreased fourfold since the launch of the Court’s reform process.

      The report shows that the excessive length of court and administrative proceedings is the main problem with Poland’s implementation of the Court’s judgments. It should be noted that the Polish Parliament amended the administrative procedure and rules for complaining about the excessive length of proceedings last year. I am convinced that this will help to solve the problem of excessively long proceedings.

      The report notes the progress that the Polish authorities have made in implementing the Court’s judgments since the adoption of the previous report in 2015. What should be assessed positively is the fact that Poland has finished the majority of the cases mentioned in the previous report, and it has dropped from seventh to 10th place in the ranking of the states with the greatest number of the tribunal judgments requiring execution. I am sure that we will continue to make progress on this matter in the future.

      The PRESIDENT* – That brings us to the end of the list of speakers. I call the rapporteur, Mr Le Borgn’. You have two minutes left.

      Mr LE BORGN’ (France)* – I thank colleagues for their speeches on the report and the proposals in the draft resolution and draft recommendation. I cannot reply to everyone because I do not have enough time, but I may be able to do so on another occasion.

      I emphasise the need for this Assembly, which is made up of national parliamentarians, to get involved in this area. We must move this debate forward, especially in countries where this issue is not discussed, to ensure that both governments and parliaments play their part in implementing the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We have been talking about and fighting for this – mine is the ninth report on the implementation of the Court’s judgments since 2000 – on behalf of the people of Europe, as well as for the men and women affected by these processes. We must have a review mechanism and apply the necessary remedies, which is why I am asking you to get involved. We must wage this fight in our national parliaments to ensure the necessary supervision of our own countries’ implementation of these judgments. It is our duty and responsibility to do so.

      I want to mention the point raised by Jordi Xuclà about the need for dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and national courts. I join him in encouraging our countries to ratify and sign Protocol No. 16 to bolster the rule of law. It is up to us to do that. I will quickly pick up some of the other comments. Lord Anderson said we need to assess this matter. We do, indeed, need to identify and consider exactly what duties the European Court of Human Rights imposes on us. One speaker raised the need for transparency, and that should apply to everything, as I have said in the report. Civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations and national institutions involved in the protection of human rights must also keep their eyes on this issue, because that will help to validate our work and to improve implementation of the Court’s judgments.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does one of the vice-chairs of the committee wish to reply? I call Mr Logvynskyi.

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – On behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, I confirm its full support for the report by Mr Le Borgn’, which was adopted unanimously at our meeting in Belgrade last month, after an extensive, high-quality discussion that was absolutely the highlight of the meeting. It was a good example of the excellent work that our committee can do when it can base itself on such an excellent report as that of Mr Le Borgn’.

      This is the last time that Mr Le Borgn’ will speak before the Assembly. We will miss him badly. He is one of the pillars of our committee and has always played an active and constructive role, guided by his wide legal knowledge and strong commitment to the principles upheld by this Organisation. It is my honour and pleasure to thank him wholeheartedly on behalf of the committee. Thank you, Mr Le Borgn’,

      The PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

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

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment 3. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – This amendment responds to an alarming trend where the judgment in a case that raises structural problems has been executed and general measures were presumed to be sufficient, but identical, similar and follow-up cases remained unexecuted. That is why I suggest that we mention this in our recommendations to the government.

      The PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that Mr Cilevičs wishes to present an oral sub-amendment as follows:

      “to delete the words (pilot cases)”.In

      In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.

      However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated? That is not the case. I call Mr Cilevičs to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The sub-amendment will simply make the text shorter and clearer, because the concept of pilot cases is not identical to cases that raise structural problems. To avoid misunderstandings, I suggest that we delete the two words in brackets.

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

      The mover of the main amendment is obviously in favour.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – We approve.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The committee approves this amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – I shall now put the amendment, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 14340, as amended. A simple majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      We come now to the draft recommendation. I call Mr Bak to support Amendment 1.

      Mr BAK (Turkey) – I recommend that we delete paragraph 2.1. Recommending that the Committee of Ministers make use of the procedures in question will not prove useful in practice. These procedures will not serve to accelerate the implementation of judgments. On the contrary, they will prolong the process unnecessarily and increase the workload of the Court.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – Unfortunately, committee rejected the amendment by a large majority.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      I call Mr Bak to support Amendment 2.

      Mr BAK (Turkey) – The procedures in question should be used as a last resort and only in exceptional circumstances. Use of these procedures will only increase the workload of the Court. It will also weaken the role of the Committee of Ministers in implementing the Court judgments, by unnecessarily prolonging the process.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The amendment was rejected by a very large majority of the committee.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 is rejected.

      I call Mr Cilevičs to support Amendment 4.

      Mr CILEVIČS (Latvia) – The idea behind this amendment is the same as the idea behind my previous amendment to the draft resolution. According to the current rules, the Committee of Ministers does not supervise the cases attached to the cases causing structural problems, so there is no monitoring of the execution of these cases, which might be similar or even identical to pilot cases. I suggest that we draw the attention of the Committee of Ministers to this situation and recommend that we change it.

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

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr LOGVYNSKYI (Ukraine) – The committee approves the amendment.

      The PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14340, as amended. A two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      I call Mr Önal on a point of order.

      Mr ÖNAL (Turkey)* – I accidentally voted against Amendment 1, but I had signed it and wanted to vote for it. I want to correct that.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

2. Political influence over independent media and journalists

      The PRESIDENT* – Our next business this afternoon is the debate on the report “Political influence over independent media and journalists”, Document 14339, presented by the rapporteur, Mr Stefan Schennach, on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.

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

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – This report on political pressure on journalists and the media comes at a time when the freedom and plurality of the media are under threat in a way that we have not seen in recent years. Journalists are physically threatened, and an incredible number of them are in detention. They are sometimes kidnapped in one country and taken to another, and their families are threatened. The media are also exposed to incredible pressures. They are threatened with closure, harassed, persecuted, and made economically unviable.

      The freedom to pursue a career as a journalist is a fundamental right that should be upheld by the State, but many States do not recognise that freedom. It is horrifying that we find many cases in modern democracies. The author Ingeborg Bachmann wrote that truth can be presumed, but in so many States today we see a deep deterioration, as shown by the downgrading of Poland, Hungary, the Russian Federation and Turkey to respective rankings of 54^th, 71^st, 148^th and 155^th for press freedom. Congratulations to Norway, which is newly top of the league. If political leaders and those holding political office begin to express distrust in the media and talk about fake news – we know what Mr Trump, who leads the United States of America, has said – they are undermining the fourth estate. They are generating distrust and seeking to undermine public trust in the media when they label the media as purveyors of fake news, which is very dangerous.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      Christophe Deloire, secretary general of Reporters without Borders, has said: “many of the world’s leaders are developing a form of paranoia about legitimate journalism”. He has also said that the index “shows that there has been a deep and disturbing decline in respect for media freedom”, and that there is a “climate of fear and tension combined with increasing control over newsrooms by governments and private-sector interests.”

      (The speaker continued in German.)

      Those are the two very dangerous developments that we perceive. Their purpose is to muzzle the media, to make the work of investigative journalists impossible and to create a climate of fear. Perhaps it is a good thing that people are uncontrolled, but social media can in a fraction of a second send out mass information that does not require the same standard of checking. Checking and re-checking is part of the core business of the media.

      I have emphasised a couple of things in the report and hope the Assembly understands how I have approached the subject. We have both public and private broadcasting sectors. We also have a non-profit sector in citizen media, such as migrant or district radio in towns and cities. The sectors are different, but the Council of Europe must say that one of the most precious assets we have is public sector media – radio and television. Nobody should misunderstand that. I was shocked when a member of our Assembly said that public broadcasters are the possessions of respective governments. No! We must ensure that public sector radio and television have guarantees of independence. We must ensure that governments do not move in to control them, and that they are not dependent on others.

      The BBC is the mother of all public sector media and should stand as an example to us. We need independent authorities for these bodies, preferably made up of totally independent people, or even a two-thirds majority of independent people, including legal experts familiar with the media landscape. I believe that licence fee funding is appropriate, although I know that that is not necessarily natural in some Council of Europe member States. With licence fee funding, we can ensure that public sector media are independent of government.

      I was at the public broadcasters conference in Prague on behalf of the Council of Europe. I felt their fear of and disquiet at being taken hostage by governments. We have seen what has happened in some of our member States where incredible pressure has been ratcheted up on public service media. We must do our best to protect their particular values. The public sector is not private. Public broadcasters have to stand as exemplars of how journalism should be organised: no racism, sexism or discrimination, and the media have to check and re-check their facts. That is how to achieve that status.

      That is the basis of my report. The Assembly has been presented with a report on social and online journalism, so I have not gone into that in my report, but in future we will have to build further on both reports.

      The PRESIDENT* – Mr Schennach, you have three and a half minutes remaining to reply to the debate once we have heard all the speakers. We will start with the speakers on behalf of political groups. I call Ms Hovhannisyan.

      Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – I hank the rapporteur for his work. The topics raised in the report have a crucial role in protecting freedom of expression and media diversity. I agree with the rapporteur that we must improve the legal provisions for transparency on formal and beneficial ownership.

      It is not a secret that media transparency is the basic tool that enables the public to have their own analysis of the information, ideas and opinions expressed by the media. That has been repeatedly emphasised, including by Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe recommendations from 1994 to 2015. That is testimony to the fact that media transparency has always been the focus of the Council of Europe.

      Today, I should like to share some concerns and thoughts about online media. For print media and broadcasting companies, the mechanisms for disclosing beneficial owners and for media transparency are relatively certain – for example, the European Convention on Transfrontier Television applies to radio and television companies. The situation is totally different for online media. The report correctly mentions research by the Access Info organisation. Of the 20 countries it analysed, including Council of Europe member States, only four had legislative regulations on online media transparency, which shows that, although a regulatory framework exists, the proposed mechanism is ineffective and does not provide real-time transparency of online media. That means that, no matter how progressive our ideas and concepts, we have no mechanism to transfer them into reality.

      Generally, when it comes to the disclosure of real media owners, there are three ways to make the information accessible to the public. First, we could have special regulations that require the media to disclose information about their owners to the public authority, such as a media regulatory body. Secondly, we could have direct disclosure of information – special regulations that require media companies to disclose information about their owners directly to the public. Third, we could have general legal regulations requiring direct or indirect media transparency, such as rules requiring the disclosure of information about company shareholders to the registry.

It should be noted that the use of any of these options is complicated when it comes to online media. In both Armenia and other member States, there are many cases of information being delivered through a website and its being unclear who is responsible for the site. We need to use this platform to find balanced mechanisms, so that any reader will be able to figure out who is behind the media – who is its source – otherwise, there may be no media diversity and the rights that have been in place for more than a decade, due to the efforts of member States of the Council of Europe, will become abstract ones.

Ms BİLGEHAN (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I highlight the professional identity of the rapporteur, Mr Stefan Schennach, who is a former journalist and currently a parliamentarian. You can see his professional traits in the report – it could only have been written by someone who knows both sides of the issue well.

We constantly emphasise that freedom of expression and freedom of the press is the fourth power of democracy. Many international organisations, including the Council of Europe, make decisions in order to protect journalists, but the situation of the media is not promising at all. Moreover, journalism is becoming a very dangerous profession in many countries. The development of new media models, especially the increasing influence of social media, is producing a re-emergence of freedom of expression problems in developed democracies.

The Council of Europe’s “Journalists under pressure” survey, conducted among the press of 47 member States, illustrates how serious the situation is. Some 69% of journalists indicate that they have been exposed to psychological pressure, 31% say they have been exposed to physical pressure and 53% say they have been attacked online. Half of these journalists indicate that they are working under political, legal and economic threats. As a result of all these pressures, they resort to self-censorship and tone down the content of many articles and interviews, and some of them say they even refrain from publishing some of their information. What is more interesting is that 36% of journalists are determined to continue to work in their profession in spite of the pressures.

      I am the daughter of a journalist who was imprisoned for two years for protecting the principles of the profession. Today, my daughter is willing to work as a journalist, and I can see that, for her, reporting, and the pleasure of informing society, overcome any difficulties or challenges. In spite of all kinds of assault, honest and independent journalists have a very important role and position in society. Is it possible to be an independent journalist today? Stefan Schennach lists the conditions for that, and says that member States must revisit certain restrictive laws on freedom of the press. He also emphasises that measures regarding the safety of journalists must be taken. I will give an example from my country. Wikipedia, as you know, is the biggest online encyclopaedia, and access to it is banned in Turkey. We know that not all information on Wikipedia is accurate, but banning access to the site is also banning the right to information. The autonomy of media organisations and the transparency of media owners are some of the other conditions listed in the report.

As a former journalist, Mr Schennach also underlines that press members must abide by the ethical rules of the profession; they should not overstep the red lines and they need to be aware of their responsibilities. The Socialist Group supports our colleague’s report and we thank him once again for his work.

Ms GOGUADZE (Georgia, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I thank the rapporteur for his excellent report and for once again bringing this issue to our attention. I strongly believe that freedom of speech and independence of the media and journalists are not just rights enjoyed by journalists or media outlets, but are to the benefit of each one of us, ensuring the protection of our own rights and security.

It is crucial that the independence of the media and of journalists remains an important issue on the PACE agenda so that we continue to address the challenges that exist in member countries. It is equally important to make sure that the good practice and progress in ensuring the independence and pluralism of the media are acknowledged and disseminated.

I draw your attention to the developments and tendencies in media issues in my own country of Georgia. Over the last few years, many significant changes promoted media plurality and diversity. We abolished the licensing system for broadcasting and enabled individual entities to start broadcasting within 10 days. As a result of these developments, the number of media outlets has increased, with 49 currently operating. The number of media outlets allocating airspace to news and political programmes has increased from three to 17, and 24 media channels operate on a regional level.

Improvements in Georgia have been positively reflected in the rankings and reports of international organisations such as Freedom House, Reporters without Borders and the World Bank. The PACE report on last year’s election in Georgia states that the country has a wide range of media outlets and a lively media environment, and that its media legislation provides a sound framework for freedom of the media.

The process can never be complete or perfect. I fully agree with the rapporteur that it is the obligation of all member States to continue to uphold media pluralism and independence, and to support the process of safeguarding journalists’ security and freedom. Georgia fully recognises the importance of these principles and we remain committed to contributing to this important process.

Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – I congratulate Mr Schennach on his timely and excellent report, which contains interesting views, findings and recommendations. The committee has dealt with similar issues in a number of previous reports concerning problems with the media and journalism.

In three weeks’ time, Azerbaijan will celebrate a favourite holiday: 22 July is Press Employees Day in my country. The fact that this holiday is different from others in Azerbaijan and that it is generally perceived with sensitivity is not related merely to the masses’ love of the media. On 22 July 1875, the great and respected Azerbaijani intellectual Hasan bay Zardabi founded the newspaper Akinci. He gave exceptional service to the nation, and his newspaper has contributed a great deal to the progress of our national outlook. After being persecuted, insulted and subjected to the pressure of censorship and restrictive political forces, Hasan bay Zardabi decided 140 years ago to carve his story on a stone at the entrance to his home village of Zardab, in Karabakh. That keepsake was designed to communicate to future generations the suffering of those who had tried to wake the nation from ignorance, hoping that those writings would educate people, show them the way and help to ensure that pressure on the media was consigned to history.

      I do not rule out the idea that like-minded journalists in other European countries also sincerely opposed the continuation of political influence and pressure on the media. But the fourth estate no longer benefits from the indifference of others, and attempts are made to influence it. In almost every country – even those in which the media is considered to enjoy the greatest freedom – people try to use journalists for their own purposes.

      If the goal of the media is to assist the State and politics, and to contribute to progress by writing only the truth; and if, in turn, the State and politics see the media as a vehicle for carrying out their activities more correctly and believe in it as a reliable tool, there will be no negative pressure or influence. If that is the case, both parties will have a mutual need for each other, thus ensuring permanent mutual respect.

      I fully agree with the rapporteur that we should call on member States to engage more strongly, through the Committee of Ministers, in constructive dialogue on the serious threats to media freedom that are reported on our online platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.

      Ms JOHNSSON FORNARVE (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I completely agree that, as the report states, the right to freedom of expression and information and the freedom and diversity of the media are fundamental elements of a true democracy. No system can claim to be democratic if it does not secure the pluralism and independence of the media.

      As such, it is deeply worrying that journalists and other media actors in Europe are increasingly being threatened, harassed, imprisoned, tortured and even killed just for trying to do their job, particularly when their work focuses on the misuse of power, corruption, human rights violations, criminal activities, terrorism or fundamentalism. According to a report from Reporters Without Borders published at the end of 2016, a total of 348 journalists had been detained worldwide. More than 100 journalists and media contributors had been detained in Turkish jails, and hundreds of Turkish journalists had been taken to court, charged with insulting the president or terrorism. Some had been jailed without any having any charges brought against them. That makes Turkey the largest prison for journalists in the world. Journalists should not be imprisoned simply for trying to do their job. Even in countries such as the Russian Federation, Hungary and Poland, controls on the media and the number of attacks on independent journalists and bloggers have increased. That is not acceptable if we are to stand up for the Council of Europe’s values concerning the right to freedom of expression.

      Against that background, Council of Europe member States must strengthen their efforts and implement effectively, and as soon as possible, the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists and other media actors. As the report underlines, full transparency on ownership, financing and organisation is required to guarantee media independence. Public service media has a particularly important role to play, so it is crucial to establish objective monitoring of such media, with guarantees that different political sources will be heard. Public service media must be completely independent, especially toward governments. I also underline the importance of safeguarding pluralism by paying attention to non-commercial media outlets, such as free radio, which express local perspectives on societal challenges and cultural diversity.

      Last but not least, we must increase our efforts to tackle all forms of hatred and violence online, especially against journalists. Media associations must more actively identify and condemn abuses committed by unprofessional individuals who seek to manipulate public opinion by spreading false information online.

      The PRESIDENT* – The rapporteur will reply later, so I call Mr Munyama.

      Mr MUNYAMA (Poland) – I thank Mr Schennach for the excellent job that he has done in presenting this report. We all agree that money and the media are the most powerful instruments of influence in the 21^st century. It is worth looking at them closely, because they are important vessels within the system. It is crucial that we deal with the problem of political pressure on independent media and journalism. To solve that problem, we need to look at the model adopted by most of the media worldwide, which is based on maximising profits by the use of advertisements. In addition, we must consider the changes that are occurring in the consumption and control of the media. The technology and philosophy of web 2.0 have enabled us to voice our views publicly on social media, but it has created an arena in which everyone has a voice and the participants in the discussion do not recognise authority.

      I agree with the rapporteur about the need for education concerning reliable journalism and journalistic ethics. However, I do not think that it is enough simply to create a platform. In this age of fake news, education about the media should be introduced at primary, secondary and higher levels to teach users how to distinguish real and authoritative news from fake news.

      Independent media in Europe are under threat. Poland serves as an example of how public media can become a tool of government propaganda, and how the ruling elites can influence apparently independent media through purchasing advertising by companies affiliated to the State treasury. It would probably be wise, first and foremost, to create a regulation stipulating that advertising revenues may not exceed 50% of a media company’s budget. It would be wise to introduce a penalty mechanism that would make each media company responsible for the reliability of its journalists’ sources.

      In cases when a journalist intentionally cultivates hatred and manipulates facts, he loses a broadcast licence or financial penalties are imposed. The same should apply to YouTubers, bloggers and Internet celebrities, because when you have an audience, you have to take responsibility for the messages you send. Freedom of speech starts and ends with respect for the dignity of others. We cannot tolerate slander, lies and half-truths in the media and the internet. We cannot tolerate hate speech.

      These mechanisms will limit the impact on independent media of buying advertisements while also creating reliable sources of information and improving the standards of journalism. The new agora in global policy requires careful education of the media and their users. Citizens of Council of Europe and observer countries learn tolerance, mutual respect, and, above all, the distinction of true authorities from those that are false.

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

      Mr KANDELAKI (Georgia) – I thank Mr Schennach for his excellent report on an important subject. Laws and regulations aimed at ensuring that journalists and media organisations are free to do their job are very important, but so, too, is the physical safety of journalists. On 29 May this year, an acclaimed Azerbaijani journalist, Afghan Mukhtarli, was abducted from downtown Tbilisi and found himself in detention in another country. He stated he was abducted by three individuals speaking the Georgian language and dressed in the uniform of the Georgian criminal police. A few days ago, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on this matter.

      Evidence has been found suggesting that footage on CCTV cameras in the vicinity of the abduction was altered, allegedly by representatives of the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs. My party, European Georgia, has produced evidence of a sequence of events showing that Mr Mukhtarli was indeed abducted by the Georgian Government, to do a favour to an influential Georgian businessman who is close to the Georgian Government. We, the parliamentary minority, have requested that the minister of internal affairs come to parliament, as well as the head of the State security service, to respond to questions from parliamentarians on this matter, and we have called for the establishment of a parliamentary inquiry commission, which would be a reasonable and standard response in many Council of Europe countries to such an outrageous incident. However, ministers have avoided their duty to show up in parliament. That points to a more general problem; the prime minister has never once come to parliament since his election. Pressure must be put on the Georgian Government to tell the people the truth and to punish everyone involved in the abduction of this prominent journalist, even if they are ministers or higher than that.

      I want to say a few words about the general media environment in my country, which was presented in a very rosy hue by my colleague, Ms Goguadze. A few months ago, the ECHR for the first time in its history invoked rule 39 on a case related to freedom of expression. Previously it has used this rule – which suspends the execution of the judgment of a local court – only very rarely, when there is a threat to life and so forth. Through this exceptional decision of a few months ago, the ECHR expressed mistrust in the Georgian legal system, and specifically the Georgian Supreme Court, which unanimously granted the ownership of Rustavi 2, the only large media outlet outside the control of the Georgian Government, to a proxy of the Georgian Government. When assessing the media environment in Georgia, we should not forget this landmark decision by the ECHR, which in itself is a kind of diagnosis.

      Mr REISS (France)* – The French Constitutional Council has rightly stated that the effective exercise of the freedom of media communication is one of the essential guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Indeed, it is only through media pluralism that citizens can form their own opinions within the huge diversity of the expression of thought.

      In an election period, the independence especially of the audio-visual media is of fundamental importance. For this reason, I agree with all the rapporteur’s proposals seeking to limit media concentration. In some Council of Europe countries, almost all audio-visual media, which is sometimes the only source of information for citizens, are in the hands of a single oligarch or political family. This monopolisation of thought is made even worse, as Mr Schennach said, by the financial problems some media are subject to. That is especially true of the written press. Sometimes the absence of pluralism in the classical media explains the development of new forms of journalism, especially on the Internet, which are in a sense the successors to the samizdat of the Soviet period.

      We should, of course, condemn political authorities who seek to reduce pluralism or exercise pressure, but we must also ask questions about the neutrality of journalists, because the public ethics and private morality expected of those involved in political life should also be imposed on those in the media. The relations some of them engage in with politicians manifest a complacency in respect of individual candidates and sometimes even a desire to influence the results of elections – to be the makers of kings. These are disquieting abuses.

      As Hannah Arendt said: “Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute.” The pluralism of the media and independence of journalists is meaningless if the citizen does not have faith in the honesty of the information they receive. Communicating at any price, or the desire to land a scoop and to generate buzz, causes some professionals to forget that a genuine journalist should verify their information, make sure of their sources and respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. Without that, it is not only media independence that is in danger, but our values, because the citizen ends up believing in nothing at all, and especially not in democracy. That is fertile ground for populism, of course, which presents itself as the only bearer of truth against the journalists, whom some refer to as the guard dogs of the system.

      Confidence must be re-established through journalism that is independent of political authorities, and especially, too, by us, the elected representatives; by defending our ideas and affirming our values, we will give meaning to our actions and the messages we transmit via the media.

      The PRESIDENT* – I do not see Ms Ana Stevanović. I therefore call Mr Simms.

      Mr SIMMS (Canada, Observer) – Thank you for allowing me to speak; on behalf of an observer nation, we are deeply grateful.

      I repeat the compliments others have paid to the rapporteur, not just for what he has put in this report but for how he has defended it. What he said about public broadcasting strikes a chord with many Canadians in the journalism community and the general public. We have a standard in Canada set by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that was originally handed to us by the BBC, the chief facet of which is journalistic independence. Our laws are created such that it gives us the freedom to do just that. Our charter of rights and freedoms in the Canadian constitution refers to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication.

      I should like to describe something I witnessed a few days ago. It illustrates how, if we allow a public broadcaster to become a State broadcaster, the consequences are dire and could in many cases be irreversible. A few days ago the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova was talking about anti-propaganda legislation. I do not know him personally and I do not know about the legislation he was talking about. However, he said that the goal of the legislation is to allow no outside information bulletins to come into the country but only those produced within the country. The intent may be pure but the consequences could be dire. Governments have no business legislating editorial content; that belongs to the editors. Otherwise, freedom of expression for the press, which is in our constitution, cannot be achieved. There are news stories that are absent of fact, to put it mildly, but they should be exposed for what they are by all of us who consume them.

      Sometimes when people look at the media and do not like the argument, they go after the source by disqualifying the author, for reasons that have nothing to do with the argument, or for something else entirely – yes, I am getting to fake news – yet there is not one retort about the argument. That is a sign not only of an unjustified defence; it is cowardice. They cannot defend, so they attack by a different means to ridicule the argument without even talking about it.

I am so happy with the report, because we have to stand up for what it says. It says that national authorities must not only guarantee journalists’ security and media freedom, preventing and condemning unconditionally blatant violations, but must also recognise and oppose the threat that more insidious methods pose to the independence and genuine pluralism of the media. Bravo to you, sir, for saying this; obviously you have experience in this industry. Public broadcasting is an essential part of our communication. We must protect it by protecting the author and not get involved in legislating in respect of editorial content.

      Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – As a former journalist, I can certainly say that the subject of this report, presented by Mr Schennach, is very important and sensitive.

      Today, the biggest challenge that a number of member States of the Council of Europe have to face is to free the press from political influence as well as from pressure brought to bear on journalists and the media. Mr Schennach is right to mention that the member States of the Council of Europe should guarantee not only the freedom of the press and the safety of journalists but combat all obstacles that may be put in the path of supplying independent and impartial information to the general public.

      Mr Schennach is also a co-rapporteur for Azerbaijan, a member State of the Council of Europe. I would like him to mention in the conclusion of the report his opinion on the changes that have been made to the Azerbaijani criminal code which provide for criminal sanctions for anyone insulting the president. The Azerbaijani press is forced to work under this regime with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads every day. For information, the Azerbaijani State prosecutor wants to make this law even harsher and to impose even more severe sanctions on anyone insulting Aliyev or members of his family.

      There is also the infamous article in Turkey’s criminal code under which journalists are being subjected to a witch hunt. An investigation was opened against the management of the TV channel CNN Türk for simply saying a few sentences about President Erdoğan. Recently, during a special discussion in the Council of Europe on the freedom of the press, the vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights underlined the fact that among the member States of the Council of Europe, the worst-rated countries for freedom of expression are Turkey and Azerbaijan. That is something that the Council of Europe cannot fail to be concerned by if we consider what the Turkish and Azerbaijani authorities are doing. However, my feeling is that the Council of Europe seems very little concerned by what is happening in Turkey and Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan, journalists are being persecuted and subjected to threats, and even killed for simply doing their job.

      The 2017 World Press Freedom Index, created by the organisation Reporters Without Borders, has Azerbaijan in 162nd place out of 180 countries. Moreover, in view of the obstacles and intimidation that has been stepped up against journalists and the media, Reporters Without Borders has called for the creation of a special representative for the safety of journalists who would report to the Secretary General of the United Nations.

      In Turkey, where freedom of the press is in a parlous state, it has been decided to turn the murderers of journalists into heroes. According to the Turkish daily “Radikale”, the family of Ogün Samasthe, who murdered the editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Agos”, Hrant Dink, applied to the trademark registration institution and was authorised to register the trademark Samasthe. There you go. I suggest that the Assembly’s committee on the media create a special working party to look into the very alarming situation in the field of media and violence against journalists in Turkey and Azerbaijan.

      I conclude by quoting Mehman Aliyev, the director of the Azerbaijani media agency Turane: “The important principle of journalism to serve the truth has been subverted in Azerbaijan”.

      Mr BAK (Turkey)* – Freedom of expression is a sine qua non of a democratic society; therefore, it is timely that we are discussing this issue. I thank the distinguished rapporteur for his report.

      In modern democratic systems, the media has certain responsibilities and duties. It needs to be a social ombudsman as well as sharing information and news. A lot of people claim that the news also has a democratic duty as an additional power in addition to judicial and executive powers. It is vital that the media can fulfil their role in an independent and impartial manner. The media should be exempt from political pressure; they must become totally independent. However, they should also be able to fulfil their democratic duties by meeting the public interest and making sure that they comply with the rules of independence and impartiality.

      The media have become an industry, pressurised by commercial concerns. Some media outlets compromise on their impartiality. Even news broadcasts are subject to severe competition, with the media becoming increasingly market-focused. Each actor now aims to have a larger piece of the commercial pie, which creates moral dilemmas for media outlets. In those circumstances, journalists’ main concern is to attract readers’ attention and increase their readership, and newspapers’ aim is to increase their profit levels.

      Commercial concerns are becoming more and more predominant in the media, creating a threat to journalistic independence. In my opinion, the independent media are subject to as much commercial pressure as political pressure. I do not agree with the recent criticism by the representative of Armenia. There may be individuals claiming to be journalists who make slanderous statements against a president or print all sorts of negative coverage about a country with no foundation whatever, alleging that it is journalism. Journalists should provide independent coverage of the facts. Someone making slanderous statements cannot be a journalist. Journalists cannot simply be representatives of another party, financed by another party or puppets for another party. It is important that journalists comply with the principles of media coverage and the ethical rules in which they have been trained. Journalists should simply enlighten the public.

      THE PRESIDENT* – That concludes the list of speakers, but we still have time left. Does anyone else who has not put their name on the list wish to speak? I call Mr Ghiletchi.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I thank the rapporteur, Mr Schennach, for presenting this report. As the report rightfully states, the rights to freedom of expression and information and freedom and diversity of media are fundamental elements of true democracy. There is no excuse for tolerating or accepting threats to journalists, and States should do everything to create a safe environment for journalistic activity. However, I do not always agree with Mr Schennach. There are several points that I would like to make.

      The draft resolution mentions that national authorities must guarantee and be proactive in ensuring that the public receive unbiased and critical information. In theory, achieving an unbiased point of view might be possible, but there is no way to achieve such impartiality in practice. This is where things become tricky. The report fails to acknowledge that independence has its limits and that absolute and unbiased truth is not achievable or available. A recent article in The Economist mentioned that in Germany, for example, most media outlets lean left, and the right-wing media scene is particularly underdeveloped. That is the reality in many countries.

The report contains a very interesting passage: ‘A new and still little explored phenomenon, which could produce disruptive effects on independent journalism and public discourse, is the use of social media by politicians to paint independent media as biased, shady, unreliable, and politically motivated against (ruling) parties or politicians.’ Unjustifiable attacks on the press happen and must be strongly condemned, but again, the report fails to mention that sometimes such aggressive media do exist, and they have a strong political and ideological agenda.

Mr Simms from Canada mentioned our prime minister. Mr Simms, you should know that the Republic of Moldova is at war with the Russian Federation. It is a war of information and propaganda, and soon it will have been going on for a year. In the United States, there is still a lot of talk about how the Russian Federation influenced its elections. That is the kind of propaganda that our prime minister mentioned in this Chamber. We need to be aware of these things. I myself, when I ran for President of the Republic of Moldova, faced significant bias, especially from the liberal press, due to my conservative background and policies. As a supporter of free speech, I believe that the press has and should have the freedom to express various viewpoints, but so do I: as a politician, I must have the right to express my disagreement.

I end with a quote from a recent Economist article: ‘Never try to silence views with which you disagree. Answer objectionable speech with more speech. Win the argument without resorting to force.’ While fully supporting media independence, we should be very careful when presenting media as totally unbiased, because the reality is different. Our policy recommendations should take that aspect into account. Nevertheless, I appreciate what Mr Schennach has done with his experience, pointing out that it is very important to strive toward the goal of independent and unbiased media while not ignoring the reality in our own country. I support the report and call on colleagues to vote in favour of it.

Ms TOPCU (Turkey)* – The media have two unique functions. One is to be an ombudsman, or public spokesperson. As an ombudsman, the media must underline abuses of power by the State. They must also be organised in a manner that allows them to function as an ombudsman. If the media are not economically independent of the State, they cannot possibly function as an ombudsman. The social function of the media is usually defined not by what they can do but by what they cannot do. What the media cannot do is of great importance; we must pay attention not to what they say but to what they do not or cannot say, because what they cannot say signals conflicts of interest or undemocratic practices. Conflicts of interest may be caused by, for instance, a loan to the party in power. What is not said may involve media self-censorship based on censorship from other parties.

The political elite have the power, at least potentially, to exert a lot of pressure on the media and control them absolutely, especially television stations. All developing and developed societies have examples of such pressure. Developed countries and world superpowers still have pressure on the media. Especially recently, we have seen numerous cases of this kind. Governments always try to put pressure on or censor television programmes. The media sometimes simply cancel certain TV programmes.

Another function of the media is to inform the public, a key role in developing the culture of democracy in a country. When the media inform the public, they should not try to create public opinion or guide the public in line with their own views, and should not see themselves as public authorities in doing so. If the media simply try to establish a certain perspective among the public, they simply replace public authorities or the judiciary. If that is the case, we would be talking about media-ocracy rather than democracy, the will of the people. We have seen many malpractices of this kind.

To refer to what a colleague from Armenia said, we know that the Strasbourg Court has condemned that country based on what it has done to Azeri citizens. Such a country should focus first on what it does before blaming another country.

      The PRESIDENT* – I call Mr Schennach, rapporteur, to reply.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Perhaps you would be so gracious as to give me an extra minute or two, Mr President, as so many points were raised, particularly by the most recent speakers, whose concerns I share.

      You fundamentally misunderstand this report if you believe that a government has to decide whether there are distorted media and substantially valid media. That is not the case. We need an independent media authority and a self-regulating media body. It is not for governments to say, “This is right; this is wrong.” If 51% of people think something is good and 49% think something is bad, what is the will of the people? Surely, the 49% deserve just as much coverage in the media as the 51%. They must have equal access. We come to the principles of the report: what does “neutral”, or “impartial”, mean? We are talking about the fourth pillar of our State. It has to hold politics and society to account. It cannot be neutral. The media have to criticise. That is their only task. They are not there to act as an echo chamber for government policy.

      The Council of Europe has made it clear that no member State should have a criminal defamation law that puts large numbers of journalists in prison. Criticism is not a criminal offence. Any leader has to be able to survive criticism. I am a rapporteur of the Council of Europe in communication with the Committee of Ministers, and all the non-consensual issues in our Assembly have that factor as a backdrop. Indeed, that could be the subject of another report.

      Mr Munyama, you are quite right that public sector broadcasters should not be more than 50% privately owned. I mentioned that Hungary and Poland have dropped down the press freedom index. One dire piece of news is that both those countries are trying to put together a State broadcaster.

      I did not go into detail about the online world because Ms Gambaro has covered that, but we need education and digital competence. We have to ensure that children in schools are digitally literate, so that they know what ought to happen, what is credible and what is not, and how to search properly online. That is the sort of literacy for the digital world that we must give our children.

      I congratulate Canada. Mr Simms, I know your country very well, and you reminded me of a point you did not mention. There is something else that public broadcasters have to embrace. We have a convention on minority languages. Media have to be made available in those community languages, so that people can use media in their own language. I also thank members for pointing out that investigative journalism helps us to combat corruption and many other ills. I refer to Mr Bilgehan’s report, which covers that point to a large extent.

      Dear Mr Ghiletchi, being critical does not necessarily equate to being on the left. I know the German media landscape well. You have the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. All the mainstream organs of the media are critical, and they certainly are not left wing. You mentioned the Republic of Moldova; any broadcaster that has its finance abroad is going to be involved in something of an economic striptease if it claims to be based in the Republic of Moldova.

      Ms Zohrabyan, I did not cite any individual cases. There will be a report on Azerbaijan in October, but I have had talks with the Georgian delegation. Mr Kandelaki has encouraged me, and I trust that there will be an investigation in the case of Afgan Mukhtarli. I said at the outset that journalists are kidnapped, and that was a reference to that case. Mr Huseynov, 22 July is the day of press freedom in Azerbaijan, so please ensure that Afgan Mukhtarli and Mehman Huseynov are no longer in detention on that day.

      The media deserve to be defended by us, and we need media pluralism. If the media do not have breathable air, we do not have breathable air either. They have commitments, and those are not the commitments of a prime minister or a government. If the media are not threatened by offences of defamation and the possibility of being held in custody, we have an opportunity to move out of the stalemate we have found ourselves in recently. We must use our full powers to defend press freedom, which is one of the core values of the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does the Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Mr Ariev, wish to speak? You have two minutes.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I thank Mr Schennach for his very good report, which our committee adopted unanimously. The report is a further wake-up call for all decision makers who are committed to protecting effective media freedom. All media freedom and journalist security indicators are turning red, and we cannot just sit here and do nothing. I make not only the usual plea for your support for the very good draft resolution and draft recommendation, but a strong appeal to act. We need independent media to uphold our democratic system, and we are not doing what we should be to guarantee such independence.

      There are a lot of examples of such practices. Even new political parties sometimes try to control of the media. In Ukraine last week, a party was shown up for making recommendations to journalists of a TV channel belonging the party leader’s family. In another case, a politically engaged Ukrainian activist punched in the face a journalist who was annoying him with his questions. We are all concerned about the horrible situation of media freedom in Turkey, where journalists are being persecuted. We should continue to urge Turkey to stop the persecution of journalists. Stefan Schennach mentioned the case of an Azerbaijani blogger and journalist who was kidnapped on Georgian territory and taken to Azerbaijan. That should be investigated using international means, and we should call on the Azerbaijani Government to do its utmost to free this journalist.

      We need to protect journalists not only from physical attack and threats to their personal freedom, but from psychological violence, intimidation and insidious attempts to force them into self-censorship. The draft resolution includes concrete measures that our national authorities should consider using to meet the threats that have been described in many different surveys. A key measure would be to ensure a funding system for non-discriminatory media, particularly the provision of adequate funds for public service media through a mechanism that respects its editorial and managerial independence. The issue clearly lies in our hands, and the same is true of the review of legislative practices to avoid a chilling effect and enhance the transparency of media ownership.

      I highlight one proposal in the draft recommendation. The number of alerts on the Council of Europe’s “Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists” webpage – our Assembly strongly supported its publication – is increasing day by day. We must urge the Committee of Ministers to call for the stronger engagement of all our member States. I invite all of you, but particularly parliamentarians from the majority coalitions in their respective countries, to be proactive in promoting actions to remedy the serious threats to media freedom reported on the platform.

      As the general rapporteur on media freedom and safety of journalists, I urge you not to let our States allow anyone to attack journalists or to undermine faith in press freedom. We must do our utmost to defend journalists from any kind of persecution, intimidation or attack. Please support Mr Schennach’s report. I hope it will be agreed unanimously, as was the case in our committee.

      The PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has presented a draft resolution to which one amendment and two oral amendments have been tabled, and a draft recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled. The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      We will now proceed to consider the draft resolution, and we come to Oral Amendment 1. I have received an oral amendment on behalf of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media – let me stress that it affects only the French wording and is designed to ensure consistency between the French and English versions of the text – which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7.3, to replace the words “la propriété des médias (aux fins d’établir la distinction entre propriétaire légal et bénéficiaire effectif)” with the following words: “la propriété officielle et effective des medias”.

      I consider the oral amendment to be admissible under our rules, but it cannot be considered if ten or more members object by standing up. That is not the case.

I call Mr Ariev to support the oral amendment.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – I assure the Assembly that the oral amendment is a purely technical amendment to the wording of the French version of the document. Please support it.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour because it tabled the oral amendment. I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      I consider the oral amendment to be admissible under our rules, because it seeks conciliation, but it will not be considered if ten or more members object by standing up. That is not the case.

I call Mr Ariev to support the oral amendment.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – The oral amendment aims to remove the confusion between the notion of media transparency and the notion of the transparency of media ownership. It is a simple change to stress the need to tackle the issue of the transparency of online media ownership. Please support it.

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

      The committee is obviously in favour, so I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 2 therefore falls.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution in Document 14339, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      We will now proceed to consider the draft recommendation. I understand that Mr Rustamyan does not wish to move Amendment 1.

      Mr RUSTAMYAN (Armenia)* – That is correct.

      The PRESIDENT* – Does anyone else wish to move Amendment 1? That is not the case, so Amendment 1 is not moved. There are no other amendments to the draft recommendation.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 14339. Let me remind you that a two-thirds majority is required.

      The vote is open.

      I congratulate the rapporteur and the committee. I call Mr Schennach.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – I am sorry to take the floor again, but I forgot something in my emotional speech before. I want to thank Vesna Marjanovic, our former colleague from Serbia, who started this report. I also thank Roberto Fasino, who is an important partner in all this work.

3. Next public sitting

      The PRESIDENT* – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., with the agenda that was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 6.20 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Presentation by Mr Le Borgn’ of report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Document 14340.

Speakers: Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir (Turkey), Mr Cilevičs (Latvia), Ms Yaşar (Turkey), Mr Xuclà (Spain), Mr Golub (Ukraine), Mr Golub (Ukraine), Mr Yemets (Ukraine), Lord Anderson (United Kingdom), Ms Beselia (Georgia), Ms Ævarsdóttir (Iceland), Ms Ceritoğlu Kurt (Turkey), Mr Kandelaki (Georgia), Ms Chugoshvili (Georgia) and Mr Mularczyk (Poland)

Replies: Mr Le Borgn’ (France) and Mr Logvynskyi (Ukraine)

Amendments 3 as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14340, as amended, adopted

Amendment 4 adopted

Draft recommendation, as amended, in Document 14340 adopted

2. Political influence over independent media and journalists

Presentation by Mr Schennach of report of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, Document 14339

Speakers: Ms Hovhannisyan (Armenia), Ms Bilgehan (Turkey), Ms Goguadze (Georgia), Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Ms Johnsson Fornarve (Sweden), Mr Munyama (Poland), Mr Kandelaki (Georgia), Mr Reiss (France), Mr Simms (Canada), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Bak (Turkey), Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova) and Ms Topcu (Turkey)

Replies: Mr Schennach (Austria) and Mr Ariev (Ukraine)

Oral Amendments 1 and 2 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 14339, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 14339, adopted

3. Next public sitting

Appendix / Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure.The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ADAM, Claude [M.] (BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme])

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr])

BAK, Osman Aşkın [Mr] (TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr])

BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BESELIA, Eka [Ms] (PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms])

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr])

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GARCÍA ALBIOL, Xavier [Mr]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GODSKESEN, Ingebjørg [Ms] (WOLD, Morten [Mr])

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GRIN, Jean-Pierre [M.] (FIALA, Doris [Mme])

GUNNARSDÓTTIR, Bjarkey [Ms] (JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms] (VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HERKEL, Andres [Mr] (NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr])

HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

LE BORGN’, Pierre-Yves [M.]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr] (BUDNER, Margareta [Ms])

OHLSSON, Carina [Ms]

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

OYARZÁBAL, Iñaki [Mr] (GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr])

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ZIMMERMANN, Marie-Jo [Mme])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme] (JORDANA, Carles [M.])

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHRIJVER, Nico [Mr] (STIENEN, Petra [Ms])

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WIECHEL, Markus [Mr] (NISSINEN, Johan [Mr])

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

ZOTEA, Alina [Ms] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

BONET, Sílvia Eloïsa [Ms]

JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms]

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

Observers / Observateurs

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

SIMMS, Scott [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

BOUANOU, Abdellah [M.]

EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]

LABLAK, Aicha [Mme]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Erdal ÖZCENK