Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee
(2 October 2003 to 26 January 2004)
Covering the period from 2 October 2003 to 12 January 2004

Doc. 10044 Part 1
26 January 2004

Bureau of the Assembly
Rapporteur: Mr Jonas Cekuolis, Lithuania, Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group

Link to Part 2

INTRODUCTION

1.                 The Assembly held the fourth part of its 2003 Ordinary Session from 26 September to 2 October. The Bureau met on 2 October in Strasbourg, on 6 November in Paris, on 25 November in Maastricht, on 10 December and on 12 January 2004 in Paris. The Standing Committee met on 25 November 2003 in Maastricht.

Chapter I

FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSEMBLY

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly

2.                 On 6 November, the Bureau appointed Mr Lloyd (United Kingdom, SOC) as rapporteur.

3.                 On 25 November, the Standing Committee took note of the appointment of Mr Lloyd as rapporteur for the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee.

4.                 On 12 January, the Bureau appointed Mr Cekuolis as rapporteur to replace Mr Lloyd and approved the first part of the Progress report (2 October 2003 – 11 January 2004).

1^st part-Session of the 2004 Ordinary Session (Strasbourg, 26-30 January 2004)

5.                 On 6 November, the Bureau considered the draft agenda.

6.                 On 25 November, the Standing Committee took note of the draft agenda examined by the Bureau for the first part of the Assembly's 2004 session.

7.                 On 10 December, the Bureau:

• adopted the draft agenda and drew up the draft order of business;

• noted that the “3^rd Summit of the Council of Europe” would be included on the draft agenda of the Joint Committee;

• authorised the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men to hold a colloquy on “the role played by women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation” at the end of the Assembly sitting on 27 or 28 January 2004.

8.                 On 12 January, the Bureau :

a.          recommended to the Assembly to hold the following urgent debates:

• “Terrorism: a threat to democracies” (requested by the Political Affairs Committee), and proposed to refer it to the Political Affairs Committee for report;

• “the constitutional crisis in Ukraine” (requested by the Monitoring Committee), and proposed to refer it to the Monitoring Committee for report;  

b.         up-dated the draft order of business, in particular:

Tuesday 27 January 2004:

• withdrew from the draft order of business the report on “the Principality of Monaco’s application for membership of the Council of Europe”;

• included the report on “Public service broadcasting”, initially foreseen for Thursday 29 January 2004,  instead of the above-mentioned report;

Wednesday 28 January 2004:

• invited Mr M. Saakashvili, President-elect of Georgia, to address the Assembly during the afternoon sitting;

Thursday 29 January 2004:

• included the two proposed urgent debates in the morning sitting in the following order: 1. Terrorism: a threat to democracies”, 2. “The constitutional crisis in Ukraine”;

• decided to hold the following debates in the afternoon: 1. ”Improving the prospects of developing countries: a moral imperative for the world”, 2. ”Euthanasia”, 3. ”Access to assistance and protection for asylum seekers at European seaports and coastal areas”;

• invited Mrs Carroll, Minister for International Cooperation of Canada, to speak during the debate on “Improving the prospects of developing countries: a moral imperative for the world”, together with Mr Goerens, Minister for Co-operation, Humanitarian Action and Defence of Luxembourg;

c.         took note of the draft agenda of the Joint Committee to be held on 28 January 2004 at 6pm;

d.         was informed by the President about the results of his contacts concerning the allegations that led to the postponement of the 2^nd round of the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which showed that there was no evidence for these allegations;

e.         taking into account the recent developments in Georgia, authorised the Monitoring Committee to adopt its report on “the functioning of democratic institutions in Georgia” at the latest on 26 January 2004 before 3 pm in derogation to Rule 33.2 concerning the deadlines for distribution of reports;

f.          on the basis of the arrangements agreed for the September 2003 part-session, asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to invite two members of the Belarus Parliament representing respectively the majority and the opposition to the part-session and agreed that the political groups could invite representatives of other political forces; 

g.         took note that Mrs Ebadi, Nobel Prize Winner, could not come to Strasbourg for this part-session and asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to explore the possibility of inviting her for the April 2004 session or for the Standing Committee on 2 March 2004;

h.         took note of a model for a new presentation of amendments aiming at facilitating their discussion in plenary.

Joint meeting with the Committee Chairpersons(Paris, 6 November 2003, 9.30 am)

A.         Role of committees in the external relations of the Assembly

9.                 On 6 November, meeting at 9.30 am with the Committee Chairpersons, the Bureau held an exchange of views with the Committee Chairpersons.

10.              It proposed to the Bureau of the Assembly to:

• ask the Secretariat to clarify which are the Assembly’s partner committees in the European Parliament, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Inter-Parliamentary Union;

• ask the Committees to specify which international institutions they wish to develop working relations with;

• ask the Committees and the Assembly’s political groups to specify to which countries and geographical areas priority should be given in the field of external relations; 

• invite the Secretary General of the Assembly to present an up-dated  document on this matter to the next meeting with the Committee Chairmen.

11.               It took note that the Secretary General of the Assembly would regularly inform the Bureau about the Committees’ activities in this field.

B.         Composition of the Bureau of the Assembly

12.              On 6 November, the Bureau held an exchange of views on this issue, with the participation of Mr Cekuolis, member of the Bureau and rapporteur of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Immunities on the composition of the Bureau.

13.              The same day, in the afternoon, the Bureau:

• approved the proposals concerning the role of the Committees in the external relations of the Assembly;

• asked Mr Cekuolis, rapporteur of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Immunities on the composition of the Bureau, to take into consideration the opinions expressed during the exchange of view on the composition of the Bureau of the Assembly when preparing a report on this matter.

EXAMINATION OF CREDENTIALS

14.              On 25 November, the Standing Committee ratified the credentials of new members of the Assembly submitted by the delegations of Andorra, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain.

CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES

15.              On 25 November, the Standing Committee ratified the changes in the composition of general Assembly committees in respect of the delegations of Andorra, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Malta, Russia, and Spain.

Current affairs debate on the “current situation in Kosovo”

16.              On 2 October, the Bureau, in accordance with Rule 52.5 of the Rules of Procedure, referred this matter to the Political Affairs Committee for report, taking into consideration that the human rights situation in Kosovo was being dealt with in a specific report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Resolution 1348 (2003) on “gender-balanced representation in the Parliamentary Assembly”

17.              On 2 October, the Bureau took note that the President would address letters to the Chairpersons of national delegations, political groups and committees drawing their attention to the Assembly’s decisions and recommendations in this matter.

Resolution 1349 (2003) on the “abolition of the death penalty in Council of Europe observer states”

18.              On 2 October, the Bureau took note that the President would transmit this text to the US and Japanese Parliaments and instructed the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to make a proposal to the Bureau as soon as possible regarding the organisation of a “Parliamentary conference to be held in 2004 on effective criminal justice in a human rights framework”.

Resolution 1351(2003) on the “role of the United Nations in Iraq”

19.               On 2 October, the Bureau took note that the President would transmit without delay this text to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Opinion No 246 (2003) on “relations between the Council of Europe and non-governmental organisations”

20.              On 2 October, the Bureau took note that the President would submit a proposal to the Bureau at the forthcoming meeting on the possibility of creating a specific status based upon appropriate criteria for the NGO’s with the Parliamentary Assembly.

election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina

21.              On 2 October, the Bureau decided to include the 2^nd round of this election on the draft order of business of the 1^st part of 2004 Assembly session and took note of the intention of the President to obtain more information on the allegations which led to the postponement of the 2^nd round of this election.

Liechtenstein

22.              On 6 November, given the absence of the rapporteurs and the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, the Bureau postponed the exchange of views with them until the Bureau meeting in Maastricht (25 November 2003).

23.              It also took note of the adoption, on 23 October 2003, of a Resolution by the Parliament of Liechtenstein and of Declarations by two parliamentary groups of this Parliament.

24.              On 25 November, the Bureau held an exchange of views with Mr Hancock (United Kingdom, LDR) and Mr Jurgens (Netherlands, SOC), rapporteurs, and Mrs Durrieu (France, SOC), Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, on the opinion adopted by the Monitoring Committee.

25.              It rejected the proposal of the Monitoring Committee to initiate a monitoring procedure with regard to Liechtenstein and decided to start a dialogue with the authorities of Liechtenstein, being understood that this decision needs to be confirmed by the Assembly.

26.               It also declassified the opinion of the Monitoring Committee and decided to include it in the Progress report of the Bureau (see Appendix 1).

27.              On 12 January, the Bureau took note of the letter of the President of the Parliament of Liechtenstein expressing the Parliament’s openness to dialogue with the Assembly (see Appendix 2).

Meetings of the Bureau and the Standing Committee in Maastricht (Netherlands)

28.              On 2 October, the Bureau took note of the draft programme and approved the draft agenda.

29.              On 6 November, the Bureau:

• following requests by the Political Affairs Committee and the Russian parliamentary delegation, took note of the decision of the President to withdraw the report on “Consequences of the European Union enlargement for freedom of movement between the Council of Europe member states” from the draft agenda;

• took note that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights would not present an opinion to the report on “Lesbians and gays in sport”;

• following a request by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to write to Mr Pasko to confirm that he can attend the meeting of the Standing Committee, which is open to public.  

Follow-up to the Standing Committee in Maastricht (25 November 2003)

30.              On 10 December, the Bureau referred the proposal to organise a Symposium on strengthening democratic institutions in 2004 to the Political Affairs Committee for consideration.

Meetings of the Bureau and committees in Turkey (Istanbul, 6-7 April 2004)

31.              On 6 November, the Bureau authorised the Monitoring Committee and the Sub-Committee on the Middle East (of the Political Affairs Committee) to hold their meetings in Istanbul in connection with the Bureau meeting on 6-7 April 2004 (on the basis on their annual tickets) and asked other committees, which had received invitations to meet in Turkey in 2004, to postpone their meetings to a later date.

Meetings of the Standing Committee in 2004

32.              On 10 December, at the invitation of the Polish Parliament, the Bureau agreed to hold a Standing Committee meeting in Warsaw on 23 November 2004 in the framework of the Polish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

33.              It also took note of the invitation to hold a meeting in Moscow and decided to consider it at one of its next meetings.

34.              On 12 January, the Bureau decided to hold a meeting of the Standing Committee in Paris on Tuesday 2 March 2004 at 9.30 am (French National Assembly, Lamartine Room).

Conference of Speakers and Presidents of the European Parliamentary Assemblies (Strasbourg, 17-19 May 2004)

35.              On 6 November, the Bureau drew up the draft provisional agenda of the Conference.

3^rd Summit of the Council of Europe

36.              On 2 October, the Bureau took note of the memorandum presented by the Secretary General of the Assembly and proposed to the Committee of Ministers to set up, in accordance with Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure, a small “mixed working party” on the 3^rd Summit, with equal participation from the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers and chaired by the President of the Assembly.

37.              On 12 January, the Bureau held an exchange of views with Ambassador Krzysztof Kocel, Permanent Representative of Poland to the Council of Europe and Chairman of the Ad Hoc Working Party of the Ministers’ Deputies to prepare the 3^rd Summit of Heads of States and Government of the Council of Europe (GT-SOM3).

Latvia

38.              On 10 December, the Bureau took note of the letter of Mr Rogozin, Chairman of the Russian parliamentary delegation, concerning the motion for a resolution on “reopening of monitoring procedure in respect to Latvia” (Doc 9501).

39.              It invited the Monitoring Committee to appoint two co-rapporteurs in conformity with Article 3 of the Terms of Reference of the Monitoring Committee (Resolution 1115 (1997)), with a view to preparing a written opinion in the light of which the Bureau would take a decision on whether to initiate a monitoring procedure.

Azerbaijan

40.              On 12 January, the Bureau took note of the decree of the President of Azerbaijan on “Pardoning of a number of persons sentenced to imprisonment” of 29 December 2003.

Goodwill Ambassadors

41.              On 12 January, the Bureau took note that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe would provide the Bureau with more information on their nominations and duties.

ADOPTED TEXTS

42.              On 25 November, the Standing Committee adopted, on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly, the following texts:

REFERENCES AND TRANSMISSIONS TO COMMITTEES

43.              On 2 October, the Bureau proposed the following reference, subject to ratification by the Parliamentary Assembly :

Current situation in Kosovo: to the Political Affairs Committee for report following the current affairs debate on 30 September 2003.

44.              On 25 November, the Standing Committee ratified the following references, modifications of references and transmissions to committees proposed by the Bureau:

a.         References to committees

45.               The same day, it decided to take no further action on the motion for a Resolution and a Recommendation on the European education system as one of the risk factors to students’ health (Doc. 9959).

46.              It also referred the report on the Procedure for elections held by the Parliamentary Assembly other than those of its President and Vice-Presidents back to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities.

b.         Extension of references

47.               On 10 December, the Bureau approved the following references, subject to ratification by the Parliamentary Assembly:

• Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Melcák and others on the Integration of European waterways – Danube-Oder-Elbe Canal (Doc 10005), to the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, for report at the Standing Committee, and to the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, for opinion

• Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Kucheida and others on the future and the reconversion of mining areas in Europe (Doc 10006), to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, for report at the Standing Committee, and to the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, for opinion;

48.               The same day, it requested the modification of following references:

• Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Flynn and others on harm reduction and the health benefits of smokeless tobacco (Doc 9867), refused the request by the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee to modify the reference;

• Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Smorawinski and others on education for leisure activities (Doc 9950), agreed to propose to modify this reference and to refer the motion to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education for report;

49.               On 12 January, the Bureau, subject to ratification by the Parliamentary Assembly:

a.         approved the following reference:

• Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Iwinski and others on New trends and challenges for Euro-Mediterranean migration policies (Doc 10021), to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, for report

b.         approved the following modification of reference :

• Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Clerfayt and others on Greater transparency of the decisions of the Committee of Ministers (Doc 9297, Ref N° 2683), to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities (instead of the Political Affairs Committee, which had asked to delete this reference from its work programme) and extended its validity until 26 January 2006;

c.         extended the following reference:

• Motion for an order presented by Mr Bindig and others on Repayment of the deposits of foreign exchange made in the offices of the Ljubljanska Banka not on the territory of Slovenia, 1977-1991 (Doc. 8266 Ref. No 2687 Validity: 21 January 2004), until 21 March 2004.

MEETINGS ELSEWHERE THAN IN STRASBOURG OR PARIS AND AUTHORISATION FOR MEMBERS' OFFICIAL VISITS

Meetings elsewhere than in Strasbourg and Paris

50.              On 2 October, the Bureau authorised the following meetings elsewhere than in Strasbourg and Paris:

• Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage (of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education), Skopje & Stobi (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), 8-9 October 2003;

• Sub-Committee on International Economic Relations (of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development), Geneva (Switzerland), 21 November 2003 (to be confirmed);

• Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize (of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs), Klaipeda (Lithuania), 17-18 October 2003;

• Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, London (United Kingdom), 22-23 January 2004;

• Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Mexico, 14-16 January 2004, being understood that the working meeting would only be held in a single place in order to reduce the costs of interpretation and that the staff would be reduced.

51.               It also authorised the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to set up a sub-committee of 3 members to participate in the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education (Athens, 10-12 November 2003).

52.               On 6 November, the Bureau authorised the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs to meet in Budapest on 11-12 December 2003 (EYC).

53.               On 12 January, the Bureau authorised following meetings elsewhere than in Strasbourg and Paris:

• Political Affairs Committee, Ljubljana (Slovenia), 8-9 March 2004;

• Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population: Mexico, 29-31 March 2004 (it being understood that interpretation will be ensured in English, French and Spanish only).

Visits of rapporteurs

54.               On 25 November, the Bureau authorised :

• Mrs de Zulueta (Italy, SOC), rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee on “the strengthening of United Nations” to visit the United Nations on 8 and 9 December 2003;

• Mr Baciu (Romania, SOC), rapporteur for opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on “the persecution of the press in the Republic of Belarus”, to join Mr Pourgourides (Greece, EPP) on a fact-finding visit to Minsk on 1-2 December 2003.

Official journeys by members of the Assembly

55.               On 2 October, the Bureau appointed representatives of the Assembly for the following official activities:

• Standing Committee of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, in connection with the Conference on Religious Freedom and the Forum on the Mediterranean (9-11 October 2003, Rome): Mr Azzolini (Italy, EPP/CD);

• Conference: From Commitment to Action – Implementation of CEDAW in Central and Eastern Europe (25-26 October 2003, Dubrovnik): Mrs Err (Luxembourg, SOC);

• Seminar organised by the North-South Centre on “Women’s rights in the Euro-Mediterranean region: laws, religions and traditions (13-14 October 2003, Strasbourg): Mrs Damanaki (Greece, UEL).

56.               On 6 November, the Bureau appointed representatives of the Assembly for the following official activities:

• Council of Democratic Elections of the Venice Commission: on the proposal of the Political Affairs Committee, appointed Mrs Severinsen;  

• World Summit on the Information Society (Geneva, 10-12 December 2003): asked the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to propose a representative;

• 22^nd Session of the Baltic Assembly and the 9^th Baltic Council (27-29 November 2003, Vilnius): appointed Mr Cekuolis;

• Integrated Project “Making democratic institutions work” - Assembly’s participation in the Group of Eminent Persons: took note that the President would appoint Mr Wielowieyski and Mr Gross (and, if one of them would not be available, Mr Elo) to represent the Assembly in this Group, and that the President would take part in the first meeting of the Group on 21-22 November 2003 in Florence.

57.               On 25 November, the Bureau appointed Mr Azzolini (Italy, EPP) to take part in the “Euro Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum” held on the occasion of the “Barcelona VI Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference” (2-3 December 2003, Naples) and asked him to report back to the Bureau on this process.

58.               On 10 December, the Bureau appointed Mrs Vermot-Mangold (Switzerland, SOC) to represent the Assembly at the Second World Social Forum (WSF) to be held on 16 – 21 January 2004 in Mumbai, India (without costs for the Assembly).

59.               Moreover, it asked the Committees to provide, when proposing appointments of representatives, sufficient background information on the event in question.

Institutional representation of the Parliamentary Assembly

60.                On 2 October, the Bureau took note that the President asked the following members to represent him at official activities:

• Ministerial Conference of the Council of Europe Pompidou Group (Dublin, 16-17 October 2003): Mrs Belohorska (Slovakia, EDG);

• 49^th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference (Bangladesh, 4-12 October 2003): Mr Cox (United Kingdom, SOC) (without costs for the Assembly);

• International Exhibition on Alcide de Gasperi (14 October 2003, Rome): Mr Azzolini (Italy, EPP/CD).

61.               As far as the visits of rapporteurs are concerned, the Bureau authorised Mr Pourgourides (Cyprus, EPP/CD), rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee on the “persecution of the press in the Republic of Belarus”, to visit Belarus.

62.               The same day, it did not authorise Mrs de Zulueta, rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee on the “reinforcement of the United Nations”, to visit New York in connection with the IPU meeting of parliamentarians taking part in the UN General Assembly (27-28 October 2003), but proposed that Mrs de Zulueta could join the Sub-Committee on relations with non-member countries for its meeting to be held in New York in 2004 on the occasion of the next year UN General Assembly.

Chapter II

Relations with the Committee of Ministers and other bodies of the

Council of Europe

Replies from the Committee of Ministers to parliamentary questions

63.               On 2 October, the Bureau took note of the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs expressing the Committee’s dissatisfaction with the reply to a question on implementing the Kyoto protocol and of the President’s intention to address a letter to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers on this matter.

Joint Committee

64.                On 2 October, as far as the procedure for the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe is concerned, the Bureau postponed until its next meeting the decision on whether to include this item on the draft agenda of the April 2004 part-session or on that of the June 2004 part-session.

65.               It decided to include on the agenda of the next meeting the question of the “Council of Europe‘s relations with the United Nations “.

European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CPT)

66.               On 2 October, the Bureau drew-up the list of candidates with regard to Poland to be submitted to the Committee of Ministers in the following order: Mr Laptas, Mrs Adamiak-Derendarz and Mr Holda.

67.               It took note that the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights would resume consideration of the list of candidates with regard to Albania at a future meeting in the presence of a member of the Albanian delegation.

68.               It also took note of 13^th General Report on the activities of the CPT and transmitted it to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

69.               On 10 December, the Bureau invited the Parliaments of Iceland, the Czech Republic and Greece to put forward candidates.

70.               On 12 January, the Bureau:

• took note of the letter of the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights;

• drew up the lists of candidates as follows:

  • with respect to Azerbaijan: 1. Mr Huseynov, 2. Mr Guliev, 3. Mr Issmailov;

  • with respect to Belgium: 1. Mr Neve, 2. Mr Smaers, 3. Mr van der Kelen;

  • with respect to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”:1. Mr Ortakov, 2. Mr Matovski, 3. Mr Kambovski;

  • with respect to Slovakia: 1. Ms Radicova, 2.Mr Valko, Mr Benedik;

• requested a new list of candidates from the Parliament of Albania.

The Venice Commission

71.               On 2 October, the Bureau took note of the President’s letter to the Chairman of the Venice Commission asking for an opinion on the incorporation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into the EU Constitutional Treaty (follow-up to Resolution 1339 (2003)).

72.               On 12 January, the Bureau took note of the opinion of the Venice Commission on the “implication of a legally binding EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on human rights protection in Europe” and transmitted it for information and possible follow-up to the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Chapter III

EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND POLITICAL MATTERS

Seminar with the Belarus Parliament (Minsk, 15 september 2003)

73.               On 2 October, the Bureau took note of the memorandum presented by Mrs Wohlwend and transmitted it to the Political Affairs Committee, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Culture, Science and Education for a possible follow-up.

Belarus

74.               On 25 November, the Bureau postponed the consideration of the request by the Belarus Parliament to restore special guest status until its next meeting.

75.               On 10 December, the Bureau:

• took note of the letter from the Speakers of both Chambers of the Belarus Parliament officially requesting the restoration of the special guest status to the Parliament;

• asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to prepare a memorandum compiling relevant information which would enable the Bureau to consider whether the reasons which led to the withdrawal of the special guest status in January 1997 were still valid;

• agreed to come back to this matter at its meeting to be held at the end of the January 2004 part-session.

Parliamentary “troika” on Belarus

76.               On 6 November, the Bureau agreed that the parliamentary “troika” between the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament resumes its co-operation with a view to contributing to the conduct of free and fair parliamentary elections next autumn in Belarus and appointed Mr Cekuolis (alternate: Mr Goris) as its representative in this “troika”.

Cancun session of the Parliamentary Conference on the WORLD TOUrism Organisation (Cancun, 9-12 September 2003)

77.               On 2 October, the Bureau, following the participation of Mr Kirilov (Bulgaria, SOC), took note of the Declaration adopted at this Conference.

Monaco’s application for membership of the Council of Europe

78.               On 12 January, the Bureau :

• took note of the letters of Mr Leclercq, Minister of State of Monaco, of 7 and 8 January 2004 and of the letter of Mr Valéri, President of the National Council of Monaco, concerning the commitments, which Monaco is required to honour following its accession;

• asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to discuss with the authorities of Monaco their position with respect to the commitments concerning Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Cyber Crime Convention and co-operation with the OECD;

• decided to include the debate on this report on the agenda and the draft order of business of the April 2004 part-session.

Kazakstan

79.               On 12 January, the Bureau took note that both Chambers of the Parliament of Kazakstan had approved the draft agreement based on the Bureau’s model and that a delegation was ready to come to Strasbourg to sign this Agreement, possibly during the April 2004 part-session.

Chapter IV

OBSERVATION OF ELECTIONS

Presidential elections in Azerbaijan (15 October 2003)

80.               On 6 November, the Bureau :

• took note of the oral report of Mr Gross, considered the report of the Ad hoc Committee, which observed the election, and did not declassify it;

• decided to invite Mr Goulet and Mr Martinez Casan to its meeting in Maastricht;

• decided to send a post-electoral mission to Azerbaijan before the next Bureau meeting on 25 November 2003 in Maastricht, composed of Mr Martinez Casan and Mr Gross, rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee on Azerbaijan, and Mr Goulet, rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee on the election, and authorised the President to appoint alternates if necessary;

• asked the post-electoral mission to discuss with the authorities the measures which they have taken and intend to take in response to the reported incidents during and after the election and to report to the Bureau in Maastricht.

81.               On 25 November, the Bureau :

• heard Mr Goulet (France, LDR), rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee which observed this election;

• took note of the oral statements by Mr Gross (Switzerland, SOC) and Mr Cavusoglu (Turkey, EDG) on their post-electoral mission in Baku, which took place on 17-19 November 2003;

• approved and declassified the report of the Ad hoc Committee as amended by the rapporteur.

82.               On 25 November, the Standing Committee took note of the report of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on the observation of presidential elections and heard a statement on the post-electoral mission to this country.

Parliamentary elections in Georgia (2 November 2003)

83.               On 6 November, the Bureau took note of the press release issued after the elections and authorised a small delegation of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau to observe the second round of these elections on 16 November 2003 (composed of a maximum of 3 members, who observed the first round of the elections and, preferably, took part in the pre-electoral mission).

84.               On 25 November, the Bureau

• took note of the statement by Mr Kvakkestad (Norway, EDG) on the elections and the post-electoral visit to Tbilisi on 22-24 November 2003 carried out by Mr Eörsi, Mr Kirilov and himself;

• approved and declassified the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the observation of the elections;

• decided to set up an Ad hoc Committee to observe the Presidential election to take place on 4 January 2004 composed of 20 members (d’Hondt system) and appointed Mr Eörsi (Hungary, LDR) as Chairman and rapporteur of this Ad hoc Committee;

• decided to send a pre-electoral mission to Tbilisi in December 2003 composed of 5 members (one for each political group, which are at the same time members of the Ad hoc Committee) and appointed Mr Eörsi as Chairman of the delegation.

85.               On 25 November, the Standing Committee took note of the report of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on the observation of parliamentary elections and heard a statement on the post-electoral mission to this country.

Presidential election in Serbia (17 November 2003)

86.               On 2 October, the Bureau took note of the invitation to observe this election and decided, in conformity with the position of the Assembly to observe elections at federal level only, not to observe it.

Legislative elections in the Russian Federation (7 December 2003)

87.               On 2 October, the Bureau approved the list of members of the Ad hoc Committee to observe these elections.

88.               It also approved the list of members of the pre-electoral mission, composed of Mr Gross (SOC), Mr Letzgus (EPP/CD), Lord Russell-Johnston (LDR), Mr Kvakkestad (EDG), Mr Christodoulides (UEL) and took note that this mission would take place on 28 October – 1^st November 2003.

89.               On 6 November, the Bureau took note of the statement issued by the delegation which carried-out a pre-electoral mission to Moscow on 28 October-1^st November 2003.

90.               On 25 November, the Bureau took note of the memorandum on the pre-electoral mission which took place on 28 October-1^st November 2003.

91.               It appointed Mr Atkinson (United Kingdom, EDG) as Chairman and rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee to observe these elections.

92.               On 10 December, the Bureau took note of the Joint Press Statement and of the oral report by Mr Atkinson (United Kingdom, EDG), Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee which observed the elections.

93.               On 12 January, the Bureau approved and declassified the report of the Ad Hoc Committee.

Parliamentary elections in Serbia (28 December 2003)

94.               On 25 November, the Bureau decided to set up an Ad hoc Committee of 5 members (one for each political group) to observe these elections.

95.               On 10 December, the Bureau took note of the list of members of the Ad hoc Committee to observe these elections and called on the EDG and UEL groups to appoint their representatives as soon as possible.

96.               It appointed Mr Mercan (Turkey, EPP/CD) as Chairman and rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee.

97.               On 12 January, the Bureau took note of the press release issued after the elections.

Presidential election in Georgia (4 January 2004)

98.               On 10 December, the Bureau :

• took note of the list of members of the pre-electoral mission, which will take place on 16-19 December 2003;

• took note of the list of members of the Ad hoc Committee to observe these elections and called on the EDG and UEL groups to appoint their representatives as soon as possible;

• accepted the proposal by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to associate Secretariat members and experts in the observer delegation, it being understood that such an enlarged Parliamentary Assembly Observation Mission would be under the Assembly’s leadership.

99.               On 12 January, the Bureau took note of the press release issued after the elections.

Presidential elections in Russia (14 March 2004)

100.           On 12 January, the Bureau decided to set up an Ad hoc Committee of 10 members to observe these elections (d’Hondt system, it being understood that all political groups are represented).

Parliamentary elections in Georgia (28 March 2004)

101.           On 12 January, the Bureau decided to set up an Ad hoc Committee of 30 members (d’Hondt system) to observe these elections and to send a pre-electoral mission not later than one moth before the elections composed of one representative from each political group (who are at the same time members of the Ad Hoc Committee).

Chapter V

BUDGET AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

102.           On 12 January, the Bureau :

• took note of the document on the budget of the Council of Europe and the Assembly for 2004;

• approved the apportionment of the allocation to the political groups for 2004.

Chapter VI

OTHER MATTERS

International Parliamentary Conference on the Implementation of the Programme of Action  on Population and Development

103.           On 6 November, the Bureau agreed to host the next meeting of the International Parliamentary Conference on the Implementation of the Programme of Action on Population and Development (adopted in Cairo in 1994), tentatively in October 2004, it being understood that the Assembly’s material involvement would consist in providing a meeting room and interpretation into English, French and Russian.

104.           It also asked the Sub-Committee on Population (of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population) and the Sub-Committee on Health (of the Social, Health and Family Affairs  Committee) to follow the preparations of this Conference.

European Population Conference (spring 2005)

105.           On 6 November, the Bureau asked the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population to follow, in the framework of its normal mandate and with no supplementary costs to the Assembly, the preparations of this Conference to be organised by the European Population Committee (CAHP) and to keep the Bureau informed.

Procedure for the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe

106.           On 6 November, the Bureau decided to propose to the Assembly to include the election of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on the draft agenda and the draft order of business of the June 2004 part-session.

Petition concerning the Dutch-speakers’ rights to health-care in Brussels and the surrounding Dutch-speaking municipalities

107.           On 25 November, the Bureau took note of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which concluded that the matter raised in the petition was not without substance and that there was a legitimate Assembly interest in it.

108.           Following the recommendations by this Committee, the Bureau proposed to refer this matter to the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee for report and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion.

Conference of the Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) and Conference of European Regional Legislative Assemblies (CALRE)

109.           On 25 November, the Bureau took note of the proposals by Mr Azzolini concerning possible fields of co-operation with these bodies.

Humanitarian situation in Uganda

110.           On 25 November, the Bureau took note of a letter of Mr Azzolini on the tragic humanitarian situation caused by the civil war, invited Mr Azzolini to table a written declaration on this matter and took note that the President would send a letter to the Pan-African Union.

International Day for the elimination of violence against women

(25 November 2003)

111.           On 25 November, the Bureau adopted a declaration on this occasion.

Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum

112.           On 10 December, the Bureau took note of the oral report by Mr Azzolini (Italy, EPP/CD) on his participation in the meeting held on 2-3 December 2003 in Naples and asked him to follow further this process.

113.           It asked the Secretary General of the Assembly to contact the European Parliament in the matter of Assembly’s participation in the meeting of the Euro-Mediterranean Assembly to be held in Malta in February 2004.

APPENDIX 1

COMMITTEE ON THE HONOURING OF OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS BY MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE (MONITORING COMMITTEE)

LIECHTENSTEIN

Co-rapporteurs : Mr Michael HANCOCK, United Kingdom, LDR

Mr Erik JURGENS, Netherlands, SOC

Draft opinion for the Bureau of the Assembly

I.        INTRODUCTION

1.  In May 2002 and in September 2002[1] the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) of the Parliamentary Assembly had two requests referred to it from citizens of Liechtenstein, asking it to consider whether the proposed constitutional amendments, which were still being discussed at the time, were in accordance with Council of Europe standards and Liechtenstein’s other international obligations.  The Monitoring Committee twice placed this item on its agenda and, in the absence of any formal request to begin a monitoring procedure under Resolution 1115 (1997), and in the light of a letter from the Chair of Liechtenstein’s parliamentary delegation, Mrs R. Wohlwend, Monitoring Committee member, it decided in October 2002 to suggest to the Bureau of the Assembly that the matter be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

2.  At its meeting on 6 November 2002 the Bureau decided instead to request an opinion from the Venice Commission.  The Venice Commission adopted an opinion, on the basis of input from three of its members, during its 53^rd plenary session on 13-14 December 2002 and made it public, as is its usual practice. 

3.  At its meeting on 13 January 2003 the Bureau decided to publish the Venice Commission’s opinion as an Assembly document[2] (Doc 9661), to suggest that the Assembly hold an urgent debate during its January session and to refer the matter to the Political Affairs Committee for a report. On 15 January, Lord Kilclooney was appointed rapporteur by the Political affairs committee and prepared a memorandum.

4.  However, on 27 January 2003, the request for an urgent debate was dismissed by the Assembly since it did not obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. There was therefore no debate and the Kilclooney memorandum remained a non-paper.

5.  The referendum on the Liechtenstein Constitution took place on 14/16 March 2003. The country’s 16 000 voters had to choose between two proposals for a constitutional revision, both initiated by popular initiative.  One was presented by the Princely House and the other by a “Citizens’ initiative for constitutional peace”. The turnout was high (87,7%). The proposal presented by the Princely House obtained the absolute majority (9412 votes in favour and 5221 votes against, that is 64,3 % of the votes) whereas the proposal of the Initiative for constitutional peace was rejected by 12065 votes against and 2394 in favour.

6.  On 31 March 2003, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to refer the opinion of the Venice Commission on the amendments to the Constitution of Liechtenstein proposed by the Princely House of Liechtenstein to the Monitoring Committee and made an application to this Committee to initiate a monitoring procedure.

7.  According to Resolution 1115 (1997) on the setting up of an Assembly Monitoring Committee and the terms of reference contained therein, an application to initiate a monitoring procedure, which may originate, inter alia, from the Bureau of the Assembly, is to be considered by the Monitoring Committee which, after the appointment of two co-rapporteurs and after carrying out the necessary investigations, will prepare a written opinion for the Bureau. The Bureau will then take a decision on whether to initiate a monitoring procedure and if that is the case will refer the matter, subject to ratification by the Assembly, to the Monitoring committee for report.

8.  Subsequently, in April and May 2003, the Monitoring Committee appointed Michael Hancock (United Kingdom, LDR) and Erik Jurgens, (Netherlands, SOC) as co-rapporteurs for Liechtenstein and authorised them to carry out a fact-finding visit to the country.

9.  The rapporteurs deplore the decision of the Assembly in January 2003 not to have an urgent debate on the matter during its part-session of January 2003. This would have allowed the Political Affairs Committee to discuss a draft report by Lord Kilclooney, together with the statement[3] made by the Liechtenstein Government on 21 January 2003, and would have given the Assembly the possibility to give a clear signal to the people of Liechtenstein in time for the vote on 14/16 March 2003 on the text of the people’s initiative proposed by the Prince.

10.  The argument that this would have been an interference into the internal decision making process of a member state would seem to be invidious. Very many of the decisions of the Assembly are specifically aimed at influencing political decisions being taken in member states. There was no objective reason to make an exception in the case of Liechtenstein. As a consequence, the opinion of the Venice Commission received no timely backing from the Assembly. The people of Liechtenstein were thus left in uncertainty as to the important question whether the Assembly considered the proposal by the Prince as acceptable with regard to Council of Europe standards. There is good reason to believe that such an Assembly position could have led to a different outcome of the vote. Now that the vote has been taken, and the Constitution of Liechtenstein will be changed by the outcome of it, it will be more difficult to implement the proposals that the Assembly will wish to make in this matter.

II.       FINDINGS OF THE RAPPORTEURS

11.  The fact-finding visit took place from 2 to 4 July 2003[4]. It was organised in close cooperation with the Liechtenstein parliamentary delegation and was preceded by an official invitation addressed to the rapporteurs by the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein. The rapporteurs would like to express their gratitude to the Liechtenstein authorities and their other interlocutors for the courtesy, openness, and co-operation they were met with.

12.  It became clear to the rapporteurs during the meetings they had during their visit that they should comment on three separate, but related issues;

a) Was the existing constitution of Liechtenstein, dating from 1921 and since then amended several times, compatible with Council of Europe standards?

b) Were the amendments proposed by the Prince compatible with Council of Europe standards?

c) Were the way the Prince made use of the possibility of proposing a people’s initiative, and the way he influenced the outcome of the vote, compatible with Council of Europe standards?

13.  The rapporteurs wish to tackle the third question first, as it gives the most insight in the situation existing in Liechtenstein regarding the position of the head of state.

i.          The Princely House’s popular initiative and the electoral campaign

14.  The territory now known as the Principality of Liechtenstein, for a long time after the princes of Liechtenstein acquired it in 1699[5], was a small and unimportant outpost in the possessions of the family, which – under Austro-Hungarian Empire and until the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi-Germany in 1938 and the so-called Benes-decrees of 1946 – lay predominantly in Bohemia and Vienna. After the Anschluss of Austria by Hitler, the then reigning Prince – father of the present Prince - however moved to Vaduz and became an active head of state, defending it’s neutrality and sovereignty and instigating important changes. In 1938 the country had no more than 11000 inhabitants and a lack-lustre economy, it now has more than 33 000 inhabitants and a booming economic situation, which is generally attributed to the role played by the father of the present Prince.

15.  The Princely house also has a high personal stake in the economy of the country. This explains, at least partly, the strong influence the Prince can exert, even outside the prerogatives that the Constitution of 1921 gives him. It must also be noted that the feeling of national identity in Liechtenstein is strongly linked to the presence of the Princely family. Given the size of the country, its only distinctive feature compared with its immediate neighbours, Austria and Switzerland, is the existence of a hereditary monarchy.

16.  Since 1992 there have been negotiations between the Princely House, successive governments of different political persuasion and Parliament with a view to amending the 1921 Constitution. Numerous expert opinions were sought and two constitutional reform committees were set up by Parliament. The rapporteurs were given detailed information as to the history of the constitutional debate, which appears to have divided the country for years.

17.  In 2001 the Progressive Peoples’ party (Fortschrittliche Bürgerpartei) won the elections and the present government is now led by Mr Otmar Hasler. This government conferred again with the head of state as to possible amendments, but it seemed that sufficient consensus could not be reached between the Prince, the government party and the main opposition party, the Patriotic Union (Vaterländische Union)[6]. This became clear when the Constitutional reform Committee which had been set up by the Landtag was unable to decide unanimously on the text of the constitutional amendments to be submitted to Parliament. As a consequence the constitutional changes were unlikely to be adopted by parliament, since they would have required either a unanimous vote or a three/ quarters majority in favour at two successive readings. In August 2002 the head of state chose not to wait any longer for decisions to be taken by parliament and decided to launch a popular initiative himself, together with the Hereditary Prince. They easily collected the 1500 signatures that were necessary to start a referendum.

18.  In a constitutional monarchy of the type now known in the rest of Europe (such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark or Spain) such a political initiative, taken by the monarch, is unheard of. The monarch can only take such decisions as are counter-signed by ministers who are responsible to parliament. The Prince is, however, of the opinion that he is not only head of state but also citizen of Liechtenstein. Thus he has the right, he claims, that all citizens have in his country, i.e. to put a proposal to change the constitution directly before the people by way of a People’s Initiative (PI). The decision on such a PI is taken by referendum and is binding.

19.  In itself the existence of such a possibility, practically unique among member states of the Council of Europe, is evidence of the strong adhesion of the people of Liechtenstein to principles of democracy. What strikes the rapporteurs as incongruous is the use of this form of direct democracy by a head of state himself, who is hardly to be seen as an ordinary citizen[7] – and even doing so without any minister being responsible for such an act. Use of PI’s or referendums by the government itself to gain the acquiescence of the people, over the head of parliament, is generally regarded as a not acceptable populist plebiscite. As such the initiative of the Prince cannot be regarded as a normal political activity within a constitutional monarchy, even if he did so with the understandable aim to break a political stalemate and to end a constitutional debate which had been going on without result for over 10 years.

20.  In a parliamentary democracy, which Liechtenstein claims to be, it is not the task of a constitutional monarch to do this, but that of parliament. To correct parliament the citizens, not the head of state, can make use of democratic instruments like popular initiative and referendum. It is surprising that the government was not able to deter the Prince from taking this initiative. It is even more surprising that it gave the impression to the citizens that it supported it.

21.  The special role of the Prince in this matter was aggravated by the fact that the head of state put strong pressure on the voters to agree with his proposals, thus transforming the vote on the issue of constitutional amendments into a vote for or against the monarchy. He did this by openly saying that the voters had a choice between accepting the proposals, with the consequence that he would stay in Vaduz, and rejecting them, in which case he would move to Vienna.

22.  This position was buttressed by a leaflet sent to all voters by the Prince and his son (see Appendix 2), featuring on the one side a picture of four generations of the Princely family and on the other side a copy of  the ballot-paper with the “yes” to the princely initiative clearly printed in. The accompanying text, signed by both the Price and his son, stated: “In order to enable the princely family to continue living in the country also in the future and defend the interests of the Principality, we ask you to go on trusting us and to support our initiative for the vote on 14/16 March with a “yes”.

23.  Both the Prince and his son also stated publicly that the Princely House could under no circumstances accept the constitutional amendments proposed by the authors of the other popular initiative, the “Citizens’ Initiative for constitutional peace” and that, should this initiative gain the necessary majority in the popular vote, the Prince would refuse to sanction it.

24.  In the newspapers an advertisement was printed showing a photograph of the castle on the hill above Vaduz, meaning a “yes” vote, and a photo next to it on which the hill was depicted without the castle, the consequence of a “no” vote. Formally, of course, this campaign was not instituted by the Prince but by a “Citizens Movement for a Dual Liechtenstein” (the word “dual” is meant to express that sovereignty in Liechtenstein is invested both in the people and in the Prince, separately, see below). The rapporteurs think that these examples suffice to illustrate the highly emotional climate of the campaign.

25.  Thus the Prince has played a preponderant role in the matter– in his capacity as a private citizen – by putting forward the proposals, thus going over the head of parliament and the responsible government. Also he has used his influence – which in a small community is much larger than in other constitutional monarchies – to put the pressure on the voters to vote “yes”. The threat of otherwise leaving Vaduz would seem to be excessive, as the Prince knows that many people regard the present affluence to be the consequence of the Prince’s stabilising role in the community. Thus the Prince plays – be it with the best intentions for his country – a role in political decision making in his country that behoves not a constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy.

26.  The situation described above, in which the Prince actively asserts himself in a political role, and is allowed to do so by an acquiescent government and parliamentary majority, is in itself –whatever the acceptance of such a situation has been in the past – not acceptable from the point of view of a democratic state under the rule of law. The rapporteurs understand that the stabilising role of the princely house in a community as small as Liechtenstein must not be underestimated. Hence the big influence that the announcement had that the Princely family might leave the country.

27.  But there is a big difference between an actively stabilising role, and one in which the Prince actively takes part on the political scene. This clearly oversteps by a large margin the sensitive dividing line between the role of the constitutional monarch and that of the government, in a parliamentary democracy, that is responsible to parliament and people.

28.  Proponents of this strong role of the Prince base themselves on the theory that the Liechtenstein Constitution allows for two separate sovereignties, that of the reigning Prince and that of the people. The Constitution of 1921, these proponents argue, envisages a system of checks and balances within this system of dual sovereignty. Whatever may be the merits of this argument on the basis of the 1921 Constitution, in a parliamentary democracy under the rule of law it cannot be acceptable, so the rapporteurs find, that the Prince should wield political power on the basis of this system without being responsible to parliament or to the people. If the role of the Prince described in the above paragraphs is based on this theory – and the Prince himself claims this personal sovereignty – then this theory is surely incompatible with basic values the Council of Europe stands for.

ii.       Compatibility of the 1921 constitution with Council of Europe standards

29.  This brings us to the first question noted in § 12, whether the 1921 Constitution was and is[8] compatible with Liechtenstein’s obligations as member of the Council of Europe. The government claims that there can be no doubt about this matter, as Liechtenstein was accepted as member of the Council of Europe in 1978 on the basis of this constitution, even though at that time it precluded women from exercising the right to vote. The rapporteurs cannot agree with this proposition. Since 1978, indeed since 1949, our system of values has evolved. Situations existing at the moment of accession could be acceptable then (1949, Turkey - 1978, Liechtenstein), but not acceptable now. Voting rights for women and the present role of the military in Turkey are cases in point. Moreover, it could be argued that in 1978, when Liechtenstein became a member of the Council of Europe, the 1921 constitution gave no particular cause for concern because it was assumed that, as in many other constitutional monarchies, the monarch’s prerogatives existed only on paper and that the constitutional practice was in conformity with the standards of the Councils of Europe. The discussion on the new constitution, the way the election campaign was conducted and the text of the new constitution adopted by referendum on 16 March clearly show that this was not the case[9].

30.  It is therefore perfectly valid to analyse both the 1921 and the new constitution so as to examine the role of the Prince. If the theory of dual sovereignty is indeed entrenched in art. 2 of the 1921 Constitution, then this would be an example of non-conformity of the 1921 Constitution with Liechtenstein’s obligations towards the Council of Europe, because of the use of political prerogatives without being accountable to parliament or to the people.

31.  Clearly the 1921 constitution offered some more problems, such as:

- art. 3 and 13 bis: the succession to the throne and the regency is not governed by the constitution but by the so-called “Law on the Princely House” (Hausgesetz), which is not a law but an internal agreement within the princely family (consisting of some hundred members scattered across many countries) but published in the official gazette in which the real laws are promulgated (Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt).

- art. 9: Every law shall require the sanction of the Prince: rapporteurs were assured that this is not just a formal prerogative, but that the Prince can refuse to give his sanction for political reasons, although this will seldom happen, because the Prince can use his influence preventively.

- art. 11: The Prince appoints all State officials. Again, was this a formal right, to be exercised exclusively on the basis of decisions of the responsible minister there would be no problem. But the present Prince does not hesitate to take personal decisions. In the case of Wille v. Liechtenstein, decided by the ECHR on 28 October 1999, it became clear that he had declared that he would not again appoint Dr. Wille, a sitting judge, if such a proposal from parliament would reach him.

- art. 64:  As regards the right to initiate legislation: art. 64 gives this right to the Prince, together with the Government, to Parliament and to citizens. Citizens can do so by petition, signed by 1000 citizens, 1500 if it concerns the Constitution. Clearly the present Prince regards himself as an ordinary citizen to whom this right of petition for a popular initiative is given, so that he can collect the 1500 signatures (i.e. just above 5% of the electorate) and start the procedure to change the Constitution. This position becomes even more curious with the constitutional amendment of art. 111, now art. 112 of the new Constitution adopted on16 March 2003, which provides that constitutional changes, including binding interpretation of the Constitution, require the Prince’s assent to enter into force. So the Prince comes in twice: as an ordinary citizen who can initiate a popular initiative to change the Constitution and as the head for State whose signature is required for the new Constitution to enter into force.

32.  As it is not the mandate of the rapporteurs to examine the existing text of the 1921 constitution, unless there is a relation to amendments contained in the people’s initiative, they go no further than cite these examples. They, of course, do already give the general picture of a non-elected head of state playing an active political role without accountability.

iii.                 Compatibility of the Prince’s constitutional amendments with Council of Europe standards

33.  The Venice Commission was asked to comment on the text of the amendments put forward in the popular initiative instigated by the Prince[10]. The three rapporteurs appointed by the Venice Commission were all three jurists from constitutional monarchies (Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands), just as the two authors of this report come from monarchies (the United Kingdom and the Netherlands). Thus the expertise on the functioning of constitutional monarchies with a system of parliamentary democracy is and was fully present.

34.  The rapporteurs were shocked to learn that the Prince had declared on 8 February 2003, in an interview with the Liechtensteiner Vaterland, one of the country’s two daily newspapers, that the opinion of the Venice Commission was a “political pamphlet”, that it was superficial and full of mistakes and that the jurists who drafted it had failed to really look into the situation in Liechtenstein. The rapporteurs would have preferred that the Prince had taken the report of the Venice Commission seriously, and had tried to rebut the arguments put forward in it. During their discussions in Vaduz the rapporteurs received the impression that those who had this opinion meant that the Venice Commission had not taken due notice of the theory of dual sovereignty  (of the Prince and of the people) which they claim exists. As this claim in itself controverts the idea of a constitutional and parliamentary democracy as the Venice Commission sees it, this can hardly be an argument against its findings, as summarised below.

35.  The rapporteurs were also surprised by a public pronunciation by Hereditary Prince Alois, the son of the Prince. He had suggested that the motive of those in the Assembly who wanted an enquiry into the situation round the People’s Initiative instigated by the Princely House were motivated by their antagonism against any form of direct democracy, of which popular initiatives and referendum are examples. During their discussion with the Prince and his son the rapporteurs made it clear that this allegation is totally unfounded and that they took exception to it. On the contrary, Liechtenstein must be commended for its very extensive form of direct democracy.

36.  The Venice Commission commented on the following proposals for amendment of the Liechtenstein Constitution (the Opinion of 18 December 2002 and the text of the Constitution of 1921 with the suggested amendments appear in Doc. 9661 and Addendum):

- art. 80: dismissal of the government by the Prince

- art.65.1: the sanctioning of laws by the Prince

- art.7: the immunity of the Prince

- art.112: abolishment of the possibility for the state court to interpret the Constitution

- art.63.1: parliamentary control does not extend to functions assigned to the Prince

- art. 96 et seq.: appointment of judges

- art.10: emergency decrees

- art.3: the Law on the Princely House

- art.13ter: popular Initiative for a motion of no confidence in the Prince

- art.113: popular initiative to abolish the monarchy

37.  In its conclusions the Venice Commission states unequivocally that the amendments “would prevent the further development of constitutional practice in Liechtenstein towards a fully fledged constitutional monarchy as in other European countries”. Not only that but “it would even constitute a serious step backward”.

38.   During their visit, the rapporteurs have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the authorities in favour of these constitutional amendments, which can be summarized as follows: the new constitution does not significantly alter the prerogatives that the Prince already enjoyed under the 1921 constitution, which was accepted by the Council of Europe. On the contrary, on some points, it significantly reduces his powers (such as the suppression of the absolute veto right with regard to the appointment of judges, the suppression of his right to appoint all civil servants, the clearer definition of his powers as regard the emergency rule and a clear time-limit to sanction laws adopted by parliament).

39.  Furthermore the Prince’s powers would be counterbalanced by the further and unprecedented direct democracy in Liechtenstein: the people now have the possibility of launching a popular initiative for a motion of no-confidence in the Prince and they can even start one to abolish the monarchy, if they so wish. It was also pointed out that, even if it is unique in Europe, the Liechtenstein people clearly adhered to the principle of dual sovereignty and that they wanted the Prince to continue exercising these powers, as was shown by the overwhelming majority with which the Prince’s constitutional amendments were adopted in the March referendum. Finally, the rapporteurs were asked to take due account of the extremely small size of the country, where everybody knows each other and where an impartial arbitrator such as the Prince is very much needed to achieve or impose the necessary political consensus on issues important for the country. 

40.  Notwithstanding the above, the rapporteurs have found no evidence during their visit to Liechtenstein that could seriously contradict the opinion of the Venice Commission. What they have found is a hereditary head of state exercising political powers without accountability. Some of the amendments clearly even strengthen his present position under the 1921 Constitution.

41.  The rapporteurs do not wish to repeat the analysis made by the Venice Commission on all the ten points. They would like to stress those elements in which the Prince can take political positions, which cannot, or only under difficult conditions, be corrected by parliament or the people:

a) Art.80: the right of the Prince to dismiss the government if it loses his confidence. By what right, the rapporteurs ask, can someone in a non-elected office dismiss ministers who have not lost the confidence of the elected representatives of the people?

b) Similarly, art.65 §1, by what right can he block decisions made by parliament by refusing to sanction a law?

c) art. 7: since 1848 the Netherlands constitution says: “The King is inviolable; the ministers are responsible”: in the new text of art. 7 the Prince is declared inviolable without the concomitant rule that the ministers are responsible for everything the monarch does in a public capacity. Everything.

d) art.96: appointment of judges: here the Prince takes part as president with a casting vote in a commission to put forward candidatures for judicial appointment by Parliament. Half the commission is also appointed by him personally, and even then he can block recommendations he does not like. Considering what happened in the Wille case, the Prince is quite able to push through very personal opinions. Although in a small community like Liechtenstein it is understandable that extra measures are taken to see to it that independent candidates are selected, the rapporteurs cannot see why this should be done by giving the head of state such prerogatives.

42.  Although the rapporteurs risk also being reproached that they have not taken the trouble to really take note of what is going on in Liechtenstein, they are – after listening carefully to all the arguments put forward during their visit to Vaduz - of the opinion that the conclusions which the Venice Commission reached are generally an equitable synopsis of the amendments as were put forward during the vote on the popular initiative in March. Comparison with other constitutional monarchies makes it quite clear that the position of the Prince is unique, especially because the basic doctrine of ministerial responsibility for all the actions of the head of state does not fully apply in Liechtenstein.

III.        Conclusions

43.  The Prince was quoted on the eve of the vote as saying: “If the Council of Europe does not accept the content of the Prince’s initiative, then Liechtenstein will have to decide between the Princely House and Council of Europe” (Liechtensteiner Vaterland, 14 March 2003). On 9 August 2003, after the visit of the rapporteurs, he stated, again in the Liechtensteiner Vaterland, that membership in the Council of Europe was costing Liechtenstein only time and money[11] and that, should the Council of Europe require a change in the new constitution adopted by referendum in March, this would represent a golden opportunity to leave the organisation.

44.  As this report suggests, the Council of Europe cannot accept the result of the popular vote in Liechtenstein that took place on 16 March 2003 because it strengthened the political position of the non-elected head of state of that country.

45.  The rapporteurs understand the special position of the Princely House in Liechtenstein, especially since 1938, when the Prince took up active residence in Vaduz. They also understand that in a very small community, which wishes to assert itself as a sovereign state, the role of the hereditary monarch is stronger than, say, in the United Kingdom or in the Netherlands. At the same time they would stress that such a basic democratic achievement as that of responsible government and accountability to parliament for all government actions, that such a basic rule cannot lightly be put aside.

46.  Since 1978, Liechtenstein is part of the great European family. This implies adherence to the common European values and standards enshrined in the organisation’s statute and in the numerous conventions adopted within the framework of the Council of Europe. Many other countries could claim, as Liechtenstein does, that their system is unique and cannot be compared with those existing in other member States. This however does not dispense Liechtenstein or any other country from abiding by fundamental European principles.

47.  The Rapporteurs therefore recommend to the Bureau that a monitoring procedure be opened as regards Liechtenstein according to the procedure prescribed in Resolution 1115 (1997). This procedure should aim at re-examining, in co-operation with the national authorities, the decisions taken during the vote on the People’s Initiative in March 2003 in the light of this report, of the Venice Commission’s opinion, and of constitutional practice in existing constitutional monarchies in Europe, with a view to ensuring that the constitutional practice in Liechtenstein is in conformity with the general principle that no government action can be taken without accountability to parliament or to the people.

Appendix 1

Programme of the visit to Liechtenstein by the co-rapporteurs (2-4 July 2003)

Co-rapporteurs:              Mr M. Hancock, United Kingdom, LDR

                                    Mr E. Jurgens, Netherlands, SOC

Secretariat:                    Mrs Caroline Ravaud, Head of the Monitoring Committee Secretariat

Wednesday, 2 July 2003

Evening                          Arrival

                                     Check-in at Hotel Schlosswald, Triesen

                                     Private dinner

Thursday, 3 July 2003

8.30 – 9.30                     Discussion with the Demokratie-Sekretariat

9.45 – 10.45                   Discussion with the Liechtenstein-Institut

11.00 – 12.00                 Discussion with the constitutional group “Dual Liechtenstein”

12.15 – 13.45                 Lunch (offered by the Secretariat at the Landtag

                                     Hotel Schatzmann, Triesen)

14.00 – 15.00                 Discussion with the President of the Constitutional Court, Mr Harry Gstöhl

15.15 – 18.45                Discussion with representatives of the three political parties

                                    (one hour each)

-Free List

-Progressive Citizens’ Party

-Patriotic Union

19.00 – 20.00                Discussion with the Government, represented by Prime Minister
 Otmar Hasler and Foreign Minister Ernst Walch

23.30                     Dinner at the invitation of the Liechtenstein Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Gasthof Löwen, Vaduz

Friday, 4 July 2003

9.00 – 10.30                  Discussion with H.S.H. Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein and with the Crown Prince (Castle of Vaduz)

11.00 – 12.00                Discussion with the former Constitutional Commission of the Parliament

12.15 – 13.45                Lunch (offered by the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein)

                                    Restaurant Torkel, Vaduz

Departure

Appendix 2

Leaflet sent to voters by the Prince

see the picture

APPENDIX 2

STATE PARLIAMENT OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

THE PRESIDENT

Vaduz, 23 December 2003

President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Mr Peter Schieder

F-67075 Strasbourg

Mr President,

Thank you for your letter of 8 December 2003 (received on 19.12.2003) informing us of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly on 25 November 2003 to initiate dialogue with the Liechtenstein authorities on the new Constitution.

I was most gratified to learn of this decision, and would assure you of our unreserved openness to dialogue and the firm intention of our State Parliament to ensure systematic respect for the dual Constitutional order and meticulous compliance with the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

I hope that at its 26-30 January Session the Parliamentary Assembly will accept the proposal put forward by the Bureau of the Parliamentary Assembly.

Our Parliament is currently in recess, but I will submit your letter to it as soon as it reopens.

May I take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Christmas and health and prosperity for the New Year.

With my sincerest thanks, I remain

Yours etc.

Klaus Wanger

[1] This matter was also the subject of a parliamentary question from Mr. A. Gross during the exchange of views with the Chair of the Committee of Ministers during the June 2002 part-session.

[2] The text of the 1921 Liechtenstein Constitution, together with the proposed amendments, can be found in the addendum to Assembly document Doc 9661.

[3] This statement is reproduced in Doc. 9667, dated 22 January 2003.

[4] The programme of the visit appears in Appendix 1.

[5] Originally, the lordships of Schellenberg and Vaduz were purchased, respectively in 1699 and 1712, by Prince Johann Adam von Liechtenstein, enabling his princely family of Austrian origin to become a (Reichsfürst) and sit as the 343^rd member on the Council of the Holy Roman Empire, with the right to vote.

[6]  The third party represented in Parliament is the Free list (Freie Liste).

[7] The fact that the Prince’s popular initiative was also signed by Hereditary Prince Alois does not change this conclusion because, although he may more justifiably claim to be an ordinary citizen than the acting Head of State, his special position as the heir to the “throne” should also have excluded him from launching a PI to introduce changes in the Constitution that would benefit his future position.

[8] The constitutional changes were adopted during the referendum of 14/16March 2003 and entered into force on 14 August 2003, after having been sanctioned by the Prince.

[9] It should also be noted that Liechtenstein ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1982, i.e after its accession in 1978, accepting the right of individual petition and the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court.  Protocol No 1, Article 3 of which sets out the right to free elections by secret ballot, under conditions which ensure the free expression of the opinion of people in the choice of the legislature, was not ratified until 1995.

[10] The Venice Commission did not comment on the proposal submitted by the “Citizens’s Initiative for constitutional peace”, because it considered that it did not raise any problems as to its compatibility with Council of Europe standards (see § 3 of the Opinion).

[11] In 2003, the contribution of Liechtenstein to the Council of Europe general budget totals 94 834 €, i.e. 0,0529 %.