|
|
For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure
Doc. 9987
22 October 2003
Procedure for elections held by the Parliamentary Assembly
other than those of its President and Vice-Presidents
Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Report
Rapporteur: Mr Rudi Vis, United Kingdom, Socialist Group
Summary
Following an instruction from the Bureau of the Assembly, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities examined the procedure for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. In so far as this type of election presents similarities to those of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly and of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, they were also taken into account.
The draft resolution contained in the report proposes in particular the introduction of a single-ballot vote (the “alternative vote”) for elections of judges to the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights
I. Draft resolution
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly instructed the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on 6 November 2002, in conformity with Rule 65.2. of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, to examine the procedure for the election of judges of the European Court of Human Rights with a view to proposing changes to the Rules and Regulations.
2. Referring to the report prepared by the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, the Assembly decides:
i. to reject any incomplete lists of candidates for the election of judges forwarded to it;
ii. to interrupt the election procedure if one of the three candidates on a list withdraws before the ballot and to ask the respective government to complete the list of candidates;
iii. to no longer accept partial or complete modification of lists of candidates for the election of judges after their submission to the Assembly;
iv. to confirm its practice of listing candidates for the post of judge in alphabetical order on the voting paper;
v. that this procedure shall also apply to the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
3. Furthermore, the Assembly decides:
i. to introduce for the election of judges and of the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner the so-called alternative vote1, a variant of the single transferable vote, and to modify Rule 40 (b) of the Rules of Procedure as follows: “…in respect of appointments, subject to the provisions of Rules 13 and 14 and the regulations relating to the election of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, the majority of the votes cast2. In the case of a tie, the election shall be repeated until one candidate obtains the majority required.”;
ii. that these changes shall enter into force at the opening of the January 2004 part-session.
II. Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur
A. INTRODUCTION
1. On 6 November 2002 the Bureau of the Assembly, in conformity with Rule 65.2. of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, instructed the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to examine the procedure for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, with a view to proposing changes to the Rules and Regulations.
2. The numerous duties incumbent on the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) do not only include electing judges and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, but also filling the three highest posts in the Secretariat by election, i.e. Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and Secretary General of the PACE. In so far as these types of election3 present similarities to that of judges, they will be taken into account for this memorandum. Moreover, the statutory and procedural provisions for these elections are reproduced in Appendix I. The Bureau of the Assembly has adopted regulations concerning the holding of these elections which are to be found in Appendix II.
3. This report will raise the problems which became manifest in 2002 concerning the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights and come up with proposals.
B. QUESTIONS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTIONS
AND PROPOSALS FOR SOLUTIONS
4. In connection with elections held by the Parliamentary Assembly in 2002 several questions were raised:
i. Does the Assembly always have the right to choose between three candidates for posts of judges to the European Court of Human Rights?
ii. Is it possible and until when for Governments to withdraw a list of candidates for the
European Court of Human Rights?
iii. What consideration should be given to the preference expressed by governments for candidates for the post of judge of the European Court of Human Rights?
iv. Should (a) candidate(s) with the lowest score in the first ballot withdraw from the
election?
v. What happens in case of a tie among candidates during the second ballot of an election?
vi. Should the restricted character of meetings of the ad hoc Sub-Committee on the election of
judges of the European Court of Human Rights be mentioned in the Rules of Procedure?
5. Another matter raised in 2002 was the representation of women among candidates for the post of judge of the European Court of Human Rights. This question is, however, outside the remit of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities and in this context Assembly Recommendation 1429 (1999) and the Committee of Ministers’ reply to this text (see Doc. 8835) may be recalled. Furthermore, in its new report on candidates for the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 9963 of 7.10.2003) the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights proposes that lists which do not include at least one male and at least one female candidate should not be considered.
C. DOES THE ASSEMBLY ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THREE CANDIDATES FOR POSTS OF JUDGES TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS?
6. Following a problem during the election of a judge to the European Court in respect of Spain, in September 2002, the Bureau of the Assembly asked the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for a legal opinion. This opinion (AS/Bur (2002) 77) was submitted to the Bureau on 6 November 2002.
7. It recalled the principle that the Assembly should have a choice between three candidates who all fulfil the criteria.
8. As a consequence, the Assembly will reject any incomplete lists of candidates forwarded to it and, in any case, will not proceed to the election. This should also apply to the procedure for the election of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.
9. If one of the three candidates on a list withdraws before the ballot, the Assembly should interrupt the election procedure and ask the respective Government to complete the list of candidates.
D. WITHDRAWAL OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF JUDGE AT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNED
10. In the past it has happened that a list of candidates which was already under consideration by the competent sub-committee of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights was withdrawn by the Government for the reason that two of the three candidates no longer were ready to stand for the elections.
11. In 1999 a Government entirely modified a list of candidates for the post of judge who had already been interviewed by the sub-committee on the election of judges and which had subsequently already issued a recommendation with a view to their election.
12. It is to be recalled in this connection that the Parliamentary Assembly’s organs have rejected lists of candidates which do not meet the requirements (for example three lists on the occasion of the 1998 elections of judges).
13. In the light of these precedents the Secretary General’s legal opinion of 8 October 2002 (AS/Bur (2002) 77) concludes that a partial or complete modification of the list of candidates is possible as long as the election has not yet taken place.
14. While agreeing with this conclusion in the current state of affairs, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considers that it would be preferable if the lists of candidates were no longer modified after their submission to the Assembly.
E. PREFERENCE FOR CANDIDATES EXPRESSED IN LISTS OF CANDIDATES FORWARDED TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
15. The Parliamentary Assembly has long requested that states submitting lists of candidates for the post of a judge at the European Court of Human Rights should avoid expressing any official preference for a particular candidate (see the proposal in Recommendation 1429 (1999). In its reply to this recommendation (Doc. 8835) the Committee of Ministers considered that it was a matter for individual states to decide in the light of their domestic procedures for nominating candidates, whether they wish to express a preference or not. The Committee of Ministers also noted that neither itself (in its examination of states' lists), nor the Parliamentary Assembly in its selection procedure, were obliged to accept the expressed preference of a state for a particular candidate.
16. It should be noted that the Committee of Ministers has, according to the legal text governing the election procedure for the three senior posts of the Council of Europe's Secretariat, the possibility of listing the names in order of preference4. However, at least since the seventies it no longer does so.
17. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities proposes that the Assembly confirms its practice to list candidates for the post of judge in alphabetical order on the voting paper.
F. THE EVENT OF A TIE IN A SECOND BALLOT AND THE SITUATION OF CANDIDATES WITH THE LOWEST SCORE IN THE FIRST BALLOT
a. General
18. Before the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain in September 2002 a tie ballot in the Assembly was an unprecedented situation.
19. On 26 September 2002, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly announced the results of the second ballot in the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Spain. He said that two candidates had obtained 73 votes and the third candidate 2 votes and added: "This brings us to the situation that none of the candidates has been elected. That is because the rules request a majority. The Bureau will deal with the situation because it is not foreseen in the rules. We will discuss the question in the Bureau tomorrow" (see AS (2002) CR 31).
20. It is to be recalled that in respect to elections of members of the former European Court of Human Rights the Assembly had, on the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (see Doc. AS/Bur (10) 26, p.2), decided on 21 January 1959 that in the event of a tie between candidates of the same nationality in the second ballot, the oldest candidate should be declared elected. (see AS (10) CR 28, p. 913).
21. Concerning elections of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Bureau decided in 1969 (AS/Bur (20) PV 10) that in case of a tie, a third ballot would be held and, if necessary, additional ballots until a majority was obtained. All members of the Parliamentary Assembly were informed of this decision, as well as the Ministers' Deputies.
22. This precedent was recalled in a Bureau note of 1997 (AS/Bur (1997) 37) on the election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, but the 1969 decision was not explicitly confirmed. When the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities examined in September 1999 the voting rights of the President of the Assembly, the question of a tie ballot during elections for the posts of Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, Judge at the European Court of Human Rights and Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights was raised. The working document prepared on that occasion (AS/Pro (1999) 7) expressed itself in favour of applying the afore-mentioned Bureau decision of 1969.
23. Currently there are no Assembly regulations or decisions from Assembly organs with respect to the possible withdrawal of candidates with the lowest score in the first ballot.
24. During the elections of 39 judges for the new permanent European Court of Human Rights in 1998 a second ballot took place in only one instance (judge in respect of Belgium). None of the three candidates withdrew.
25. The practice with respect to elections of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly is as follows: during four elections of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe (15 January 1964, 8 May 1974, 8 May 1979 and 23 June 1999) there were three candidates and a second ballot was necessary. In all these cases the candidate with the lowest number of votes obtained in the first ballot withdrew his/her candidature.
26. In the elections of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 3 and 4 May 1988 five candidates participated in the first ballot and three in the second ballot.
27. No second ballot was until now necessary for the election of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. When the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights was elected for the first time on 21 September 1999, only one ballot took place, although there were three candidates.
b. Proposals
28. At its meetings on 2 April and 25 June 2003, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
- discussed separate solutions for both problems, i.e. the event of a tie and the situation of candidates with the lowest score in the first ballot;
- was informed of the possibility of a single solution to both problems by using the method of the “single transferable vote” (single ballot).
(i) The holding of further ballots
29. In this connection the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities recalls that the legal opinion by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of 8 October 2002 on the election of a judge in respect of Spain (AS/Bur (2002) 77) had deducted from a judicial interpretation that in the case of a tie, a third (and if necessary further) ballot(s) should be held until a candidate obtains the relative majority.
30. Furthermore, Committee members were informed of the situation concerning the election of members of other international Courts and of Secretaries or Directors General of International Organisations (see Appendix III to this report).
31. In case the Committee favoured the option of holding successive ballots until one candidate obtained the necessary majority, it was proposed that Rule 40 (b) of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure which governs elections and appointments in the PACE should be completed by a second sentence worded as follows:
"In the event of a tie vote between the candidates in the second ballot, successive ballots shall be held until one candidate obtains the required majority. "
Furthermore, also in that case, the candidate with the lowest score in the first ballot should be allowed to withdraw from the election.
(ii) Organising elections in a single ballot: the single transferable vote (STV) and the alternative vote (AV)5
32. The Committee considered in depth this option. It allows to settle an election with several candidates in a single ballot and thus considerably simplifies the procedure. The STV is used in several countries for national parliamentary elections and European parliamentary elections to vote for candidates in designated electoral areas with several representation (normally at least three) to be elected. A sub-variant of the STV, the so-called alternative vote (AV) is used for electoral areas with a single representative (e.g. in Australia).
33. The principles of AV as adapted for the purposes of the election of judges of the European Court of Human Rights are:
- voters rank the three candidates on the ballot paper in an order of preference;
- they put “1” next to their favourite, “2” by their second choice, “3” to their third choice;
- to be elected immediately as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, a candidate must receive the majority of the votes cast (“quota”);
- when the votes are first counted, the first preferences on all ballots are examined and the candidate who received enough first preference votes to meet the quota will be declared elected;
- if no single candidate gets the quota, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the votes redistributed to the next-ranked candidate on those ballot papers; the process is repeated until one candidate gets the majority of the votes counted.
c. The Committee’s decision in favour of alternative vote (AV)
34. On 30 September 2003 the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed by a vote that the above-described single ballot system (alternative vote) should be introduced for the elections of judges to the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. It could also be applied once the 1991 Protocol amending the European Social Charter will be in force. Article 3 of that Protocol provides for the election by the Assembly by a majority of the votes cast, of the members of the Committee of Independent Experts.
35. The alternative vote will considerably simplify the Assembly’s work by enabling it to organise elections during a single sitting. It should be noted however, that a tie vote cannot entirely be ruled out.
36. Moreover, the AV will eliminate the problem of the differing participation of Assembly members which has arisen, when hitherto several ballots were held during two or more different parliamentary sittings.
37. Admittedly, the organisation of a single ballot would no longer allow contacts among Assembly members and also political groups before a decisive second ballot6.
38. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considered that the change of method for the Assembly’s elections by applying the AV requires the modification of Rule 40 (b). As these elections would practically all be decided in a single ballot this means that no qualified (“absolute”) majority would be necessary. As stipulated in the Convention on Human Rights for the election of judges and in Resolution (99) 50 of the Committee of Ministers for the election of the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, it would be sufficient, in the revised text of Rule 40.b. to refer to “the majority of votes cast”.
39. The regulations on the election of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly explicitly provide for the possibility of two ballots and may only be changed by agreement between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.
As long as there is no such agreement, the alternative vote cannot be applied to the election of the three highest officers of the Council of Europe.
In these circumstances the Committee proposes to modify Rule 40.b. as follows:
“In respect of appointments, subject to the provisions of Rules 13 and 14, and the regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the majority of the votes cast7. In the case of a tie, the election shall be repeated until one candidate obtains the required majority.”
40. For the purposes of the AV the passage in Rule 39.10.8 reading: “before the opening of the first ballot” would have to be interpreted as meaning the opening of the ballot. This could be specified in a footnote.
G. PROCEDURE IN THE AD HOC SUB COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTION OF JUDGES TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
41. Rule 47.4. of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure specifies “Members of the Assembly may attend meetings of Committees of which they are not members but without the right to speak or vote”.
42. The ad hoc sub-committee on the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights is due to its composition, its sensitive mandate and working methods, requiring a high degree of confidentiality, a sui generis body of the Assembly.
It is in a situation comparable to the Monitoring Committee of the Assembly.
The sub-committee's practice is not to authorise the participation in its meetings of Assembly representatives and substitutes who are not members of it. This is also the case for the Monitoring Committee. A footnote to Rule 47.4. of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure explicitly excludes the application of this provision to the Monitoring Committee. The ad hoc sub committee, however, is not mentioned in that footnote.
43. For the purpose of transparency and clarity the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities proposes that the exemption in the afore-mentioned footnote to Rule 47.4. be explicitly extended to the ad hoc sub-committee.
44. Furthermore, as in the case of the Monitoring Committee (see Resolution 1115 (1997) paragraph 10) two members of the parliamentary delegation of the member state on behalf of which a judge is to be elected should be invited to take part, without the right to vote, in the relevant discussions of the ad hoc sub-committee. These two members would represent the governing majority and the opposition of the respective country, unless both are already represented on the ad hoc sub-committee.
The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed that this should be included in the afore-mentioned footnote.
H. FINAL REMARKS
45. On 30.9.2003 the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities adopted the draft resolution included in this report and decided to present it to the next meeting of the Standing Committee (Maastricht, 25.11.2003).
46. The proposed new provisions should enter into force at the opening of the Assembly’s January 2004 part-session.
APPENDIX I
TYPES OF AND PROCEDURE FOR ELECTIONS OTHERS
THAN THOSE OF THE PRESIDENT
AND THE VICE-PRESIDENTS OF THE ASSEMBLY
AND THEIR LEGAL BASIS
a. The Council of Europe Statute and statutory resolutions
1. Article 36 (b) of the Statute stipulates that the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General are appointed by the PACE on the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers. It will be noted that the term used is “appointed”, not “elected”, although in practice, since the 1950s, the procedure has been for the Assembly to elect these specially-appointed officials.
2. At the suggestion of the PACE, on 3 November 1949 the Committee of Ministers adopted Statutory Resolution (49) 20 authorising the Parliamentary Assembly, pending amendment of Articles 36 and 37 of the Statute, to appoint the Secretary General of the PACE on the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers.9
3. The Statute (Article 36) and Resolution (49) 20 of the Committee of Ministers are silent on the procedure for the election of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. However, the relevant provisions are to be found in the regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Clerk (Secretary General) of the PACE having the rank of Deputy Secretary General, which were adopted by the Committee of Ministers with the agreement of the Parliamentary Assembly in 1956 and amended in 1962.
4. These regulations (paragraph 6) specify that:
- voting shall be by secret ballot;
- an absolute majority of the votes cast shall be required at the first ballot and a relative
majority at the second.
5. Furthermore, paragraph 5 (a) stipulates that unless it has been otherwise agreed after discussion in the Joint Committee, the Committee of Ministers shall draw up a list containing at least two names, which shall be submitted to the Assembly.
b. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
6. Under Article 22 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, judges of the
European Court of Human Rights in respect of each High Contracting Party are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly by a majority of votes from a list of three candidates nominated by the High Contracting Party.
7. Given the limited scope of these procedural provisions, the PACE has on its own initiative completed them. Firstly, it considered that the Assembly's Rules should apply to them mutatis mutandis, provided that they are not incompatible with the provisions of the above-mentioned Conventions and Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers (see AS (10) CR 28). Consequently the Assembly decided already on 21 January 1959 to interpret the formula "elected by a majority of votes cast" as meaning an absolute majority of the votes cast at the first ballot and a relative majority at the second ballot.
c. Other Council of Europe legal instruments
8. Article 9 of Committee of Ministers Resolution (99) 50 provides for the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights to be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly by a majority of votes cast from a list of three candidates drawn up by the Committee of Ministers.
9. The 1991 Protocol amending the European Social Charter, which has not yet entered into force, provides in Article 3 for the Parliamentary Assembly to elect by a majority of votes cast the members of the Committee of Independent experts of the Charter from a list of experts of the highest integrity and of recognised competence in national and international social questions, nominated by the contracting parties. The exact number of members is to be determined by the Committee of Ministers.
10. As at 10 June 2003, the acceptance by the following states was still necessary for the entry into force of the 1991 Protocol: Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Turkey, United Kingdom.
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX III
Information related to the appointment/election procedures of Judges
of International Courts and of Secretaries /Directors General
of some International Organisations
a. International Courts
Article 223 (ex Article 167) of the Treaty on European Union specifies that the Judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities “ shall be chosen from persons whose independence ... or who are jurisconsults of recognised competence; they shall be appointed by common accord of the Governments of the member states for a term of six years”.
According to Article 9 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights the judges shall be elected by secret ballot and by an absolute majority of the States Parties to the Convention, from among the candidates referred to in Article 7 of the present Statute. The candidates who obtain the largest number of votes and also an absolute majority shall be declared elected. Should several ballots be necessary, those candidates who receive the smallest number of votes shall be eliminated successively, in the manner determined by the States Parties.
Article 10 paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (The Hague) stipulates that those candidates who obtain an absolute majority of votes in the General Assembly and in the Security Council (of the United Nations) shall be considered as elected. According to the third paragraph of that provision, in the event of more than one national of the same states obtaining an absolute majority of the votes both of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, the eldest of these only shall be considered as elected.
b. International Organisations
In the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the Director General shall be elected by a majority of the votes cast. Two ballots shall be held among all candidates. The candidates having received the smallest number of votes in the second ballot shall be eliminated. For all additional ballots taking place the general rule is that the candidates having obtained the lowest number of votes shall be eliminated and that in the end successive ballots shall be held until one candidate obtains the required majority.
In the United Nations upon nomination by the Security Council the appointment of the Secretary General by the General Assembly requires a simple majority of members present and voting, unless the Assembly decides that a two-thirds majority is needed.
In the International Labour Organisation, the Rules governing the nomination and appointment of its Director General provide that that a candidate is elected only if he/she receives the votes of more than half of the Members of the Governing Body. For this purpose as many ballots shall be held as necessary to determine which of the candidates has obtained the majority required. After each ballot the candidate who has obtained the lowest number of votes is eliminated. If two or more candidates obtain simultaneously the lowest number of votes they are eliminated together. If in the ballot between the remaining candidates they receive the same number of votes and a further ballot still does not produce a majority for one of them, or if one candidate remains but does not obtain the majority required in a further ballot in which his/her name is submitted to the Governing Body for a final vote, the Governing Body may postpone the election and set a new deadline for the submission of candidates
According to the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation "the Board shall (…) elect a person to the post of Director General by secret ballot from the candidates on the short list. For this purpose, each member of the Board shall write on his ballot paper the name of a single candidate, chosen from the short list. If no candidate obtains the majority required, the candidates who obtain the least number of votes shall be eliminated at each ballot. If the number of candidates is reduced to two and if there is a tie between these two candidates after three further ballots, the procedure shall be resumed on the basis of the short list originally established at the commencement of the balloting.
Committee responsible for the report : Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Reference to committee: Decision of the Bureau of the Assembly of 6.11.2002, Rule 65, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure
Draft resolution adopted by the committee on 30 September 2003
Members of the committee: Mr Holovaty, (Chairperson), MM. Vis, Olteanu, Mrs Posada (Substitute : Barquero Vazquez), (Vice-Chairpersons), MM. Akçam, Aliyev, Mrs Auken, MM. Bernik, Budisin, Calmes, Vanhecke (Substitute: Mr Timmermans [Art.46.7. of the Rules of Procedure]), Collavini, Mrs Doktorowicz, MM. Dule, Flajolet, Frankenhauser, Gedei, Gligorić, Gonzi, Himmer, Höfer, Jung Armand, Jurgens, Kaikkonen, Kroupa, Lydeka, Magnusson, Maissen, Malins (Substitute: Cox), Mrs Mintas-Hodak, MM. Miššík, Monsen, Occhetto, Penchev, Pererira Coelho, Mrs Pericleous-Papadopoulos, Mrs Pétursdóttir, MM. Riccardi, Rustamyan, Salaridze, Sharandin, Stepaniuc, Taliadouros (Substitute: Liapis), Wright, Zernovski
N.B. The names of members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.
Secretary of the committee: Mr Heinrich.
1 The alternative vote system (AV) allows to settle an election with several candidates for a single post to be filled in a single ballot. The principles of AV as adapted for the purposes of the election of judges of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights are:
- voters rank the three candidates on the ballot paper in an order of preference;
- they put “1” next to their favourite, “2” by their second choice, “3” by their third choice;
- to be elected immediately as a judge of the European Court of Human Rights, a candidate must receive the majority of the votes cast (“quota”);
- when the votes are first counted, the first preferences on all ballots are examined and the candidate who received enough first preference votes to meet the quota will be declared elected;
- if no single candidate gets the quota, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and the votes redistributed to the next-ranked candidate on those ballot papers. The process is repeated until one candidate gets the majority of the votes counted.
2 Only those ballot papers bearing the names of persons who have been duly entered as candidates shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number of votes cast (Rule 39.10.).
3 It is to be noted in that respect that the regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe require an absolute majority of the votes cast in the first ballot to be elected. However, the judges to the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights are ,according to the relevant provisions, elected by a majority of he votes cast.
4 In the more remote past the Joint Committee also made use of the possibility to endorse a preference for a candidate (see e.g. the report of the 18th session of the Committee of Ministers, item III).
5 The following information was taken from the brochure “Electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales: issues and questions for consultation” prepared by the Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales (March 2003).
6 In the case of the election of a judge in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina (30.9.2003) the second ballot was postponed to January 2004.
7 Only those ballot papers bearing the names of persons who have been duly entered as candidates shall be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number of votes cast (Rule 39.10).
8 Rule 39.10. reads “In the case of appointments, voting shall take place by secret ballot. Only those ballot papers bearing the names of persons who have been duly entered as candidates before the opening of the first ballot shall be taken into account in calculating the number of votes cast”.
9 The 1949 text refers to the “Chief of the Administrative Services of the Assembly”. From 1956 to January 2000 the title was “Clerk of the Assembly”. Under Rule 63.1. of the Assembly’s new Rules of Procedure which came into force on 24 January 2000, “The Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly shall be run by the Secretary General of the Assembly who is elected by it”.