Parliamentary Assembly
Assembl�e parlementaire

Budgets of the Council of Europe for the financial year 2005

Doc. 10129
7 April 2004

Report
Committee on Economic Affairs and Development
Rapporteur: Mr J�n Figel, Slovakia, Group of the European People’s Party

I.         Draft Opinion [Link to the adopted text]

1.         Given the Council of Europe’s indispensable and specific role in the future European political and institutional architecture, the Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the additional resources made available in 2004 to the Organisation and, in particular, to the European Court of Human Rights. These new funds, representing a positive outcome of the Committee of Ministers’ budgetary discussions, will assist the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in pursuing his valiant efforts to provide additional funds for the five main priorities identified by the Committee of Ministers at its 104th Session in Budapest in May 1999, to streamline further internal working methods and make better use of existing resources. 

2.         As regards the 2004 ordinary budget, the Assembly welcomes the decision taken by the Russian government to maintain the same level of financial contributions as France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom and hopes that the Russian Federation will not draw back from its status of Big Contributor either in 2005 or in subsequent years.

3.         The Assembly reiterates its request to the Committee of Ministers to cease applying the zero real growth principle to the Council of Europe and encourages member states’ governments to continue to honour their financial obligations by providing the Council of Europe with the human and financial resources necessary to achieve the aim set out in Chapter I of its Statute.

4.         Considering the dramatic situation of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation, which represents a tragedy for all democratic countries, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers increase the human and financial resources necessary to devise and implement additional assistance programmes designed to provide social rehabilitation for all those who are suffering, as well as legal expertise in different fields of work, in particular as regards respect for human rights and the application of democratic standards.

5.         Given the importance and scope of the Court’s activities, the Assembly believes that member states should begin to take stock of the progress made by the Court over the period 2003-2004 and to make special provision for its long-term needs, taking into account the reform to be adopted in May 2004, as well as the possible accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Failing this, the Assembly fears that further increases in the European Court’s funding needs could be detrimental to those of other Council of Europe activities, given the persistent budgetary constraints.

6.         The Assembly also invites the Committee of Ministers to examine carefully the problem concerning the social cover and pension rights of the Court’s judges. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers make provision for a new, separate pension budget for the judges, which could be set up by deducting a given percentage from their monthly emoluments and by member states’ contributions. The Assembly does not consider financially sound any proposal which would allow judges to draw their future pensions from the Organisation’s current pension scheme, as it would inevitably undermine its future financial viability.  

7.         The Assembly welcomes the management policies introduced and implemented by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe throughout his term of office and wholeheartedly supports his proposed priorities for 2005 aimed at pursuing the Council of Europe’s enlargement process, continuing to assist South Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, as well as Moldova and Ukraine, in their democratic and peaceful development and contributing to the democratic rehabilitation of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. Other priority areas include pursuing the Organisation’s fight against terrorism, corruption, organised crime, human trafficking and illegal migration which pose a threat to economic prosperity and establishing a new structure responsible for the implementation of the Council of Europe’s strategy for the orderly management of migration. 

8.         Bearing in mind the political imperative to avert a widening of the gap between the European Union’s member states and those belonging solely to the Council of Europe, the Assembly asks governments of member states to give the Council of Europe the human and financial resources essential for continuing and developing further the quality and range of its assistance and co-operation programmes. 

9.         It trusts that the Committee of Ministers will take all the necessary steps to give the highest political and financial priority to the events connected with the holding of the Third Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government.

10.       The Assembly is acutely concerned by the limited human resources and funding which have so far been made available to the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights. The first and main concern of the Assembly is indeed the composition of the Commissioner’s Office which has more seconded than permanent staff; this could undermine the necessary appearance and actual existence of impartiality and independence which must be beyond question. It therefore urges the Committee of Ministers to create new permanent posts for the Office of the Commissioner, who could then select the best individuals according to the specific requirements of his specialised office. It believes, however, that it is essential for any reinforcement of the means available to the Commissioner to be conditional on the acceptance by the Committee of Ministers of the recommendations contained in his reports.

11.       Considering the imminent enlargement process of the European Union and the forward-looking proposals that have emerged from the work of the European Convention, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers develop the closest possible links with the European Union as well as more diversified forms of co-operation, in particular as regards intergovernmental and assistance programmes. In particular, it considers vital that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers begin to negotiate an institutional partnership with the European Commission with the aim of providing the Council of Europe with a unique and special link, enabling the Organisation to co-operate as a full and equal partner in the management of joint programmes and to obtain more funding for activities of common interest. Such a link is fully justified by the Council of Europe's historical experience and established expertise in addressing the very issues of democracy, human rights and the rule of law involved in the type of programmes on which it co-operates with the European Union.

12.       In view of the Council of Europe’s observer status with the United Nations General Assembly and its fruitful and long-standing co-operation with United Nations bodies and specialised agencies, the Committee of Ministers should consider how a permanent presence for the Organisation in New York could be established in the future.

13.       The Assembly welcomes the furthering and deepening of co-operation with the OSCE, which has led to the completion of a number of joint programmes, including those in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Serbia and Montenegro. The Assembly is also convinced that the Council of Europe’s outreach policy, which has gradually increased the number of the Organisation’s information and field offices, has enhanced joint activities and fostered better co-ordination between these two international organisations.

14.       The Assembly deplores the fact that the Committee of Ministers has not agreed to the measures proposed by the Assembly in Opinions Nos. 224 (2001), 236 (2002) and 243 (2003) to improve the Organisation’s precarious budgetary situation. These measures are: 

i.          co-ordinating the Organisation’s budgetary timetable with the national budgetary timetables of member states. In this regard, the Assembly believes that a study on prevailing budgetary procedures in the member states should be undertaken in the future. Such a change would enable governments to examine the Council of Europe’s budgetary needs in detail before taking any final decision on their forthcoming national budgets;

ii.          given the major shortcomings and cumbersome nature of the current budgetary procedure, introducing a two-year system such as exists in other international organisations, as pointed out in Assembly Opinions Nos. 199 (1996), 203 (1997), 211 (1999), 218 (2000) 224 (2001), 236 (2002) and 243 (2003). This would enable the Organisation to plan and implement multi-annual projects, in particular as regards the consolidation of democratic and political institutions in the Balkans and the Caucasus, the protection of minorities and the fight against human trafficking, corruption and social exclusion;

iii.         creating a special “Council of Europe” line within national budgets and allowing the ministries concerned, such as those responsible for cultural, education, legal and social matters, to contribute to the financing of certain intergovernmental activities, as already requested in Assembly Opinions Nos. 199 (1996), 211 (1999), 218 (2000), 224 (2001), 236 (2002) and 243 (2003). Contributions to the Council of Europe come from allocations in the budgets of foreign affairs ministries labelled “contributions to international organisations”. The fact is that in most Council of Europe member states the lowest rate of budget growth in recent years has been precisely in the foreign affairs ministries, which explains why the Council of Europe’s justified requests for budgetary increases have been frustrated over the last four years;

iv.         reviewing the criteria set out in Resolution (94) 31 whereby the contributions of the five major contributors were reduced to only 12.40% of the ordinary budget, thereby aggravating the position of less wealthy member states. The Assembly continues to be greatly concerned at what it perceives as a certain lack of solidarity among member states. One option would be to amend Resolution (94) 31 by including a clause setting a minimum contribution to be paid by each member state. In this context, the Assembly wishes to underline that any possible change in the criteria set out in Resolution (94) 31 should not be used to reduce the Organisation’s overall budget ;

v.         exploring additional methods of financing other than the traditional approach of seeking increased contributions from member states.

15.       Believing that the current consensus-based, decision-making process of the Committee of Ministers has the effect of frustrating any effort to increase the Organisation’s human and financial resources, the Assembly encourages the Committee of Ministers to modify its modus operandi, in particular when it comes to taking decisions on the Council of Europe’s budget.

16.       Considering that its contributions in respect of the budgetary and administrative affairs of the Organisation have significantly helped the Committee of Ministers to identify new priority areas, the Assembly suggests that, in keeping with Recommendation 1344 (1997), joint decision-making powers be granted to the Assembly in setting the Organisation’s overall budget.

17.       The Assembly reminds the Committee of Ministers of its obligation to earmark adequate financial resources whenever it takes political decisions resulting in additional tasks to be undertaken by the Organisation.

18.       It encourages the Committee of Ministers to continue to make provision for the Field Mission Reserve, which enables the Council of Europe to react swiftly to unforeseen political developments. Moreover, the Assembly notes with satisfaction that the current network of information and field offices present in twenty-two member states has significantly improved the implementation and the monitoring of the Organisation’s assistance programmes and developed further the Organisation’s co-operation with the countries concerned.

19.       The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers carefully consider all the financial implications of new accessions. It therefore asks the Committee of Ministers to pay closer attention to the rising costs associated with treaty monitoring arrangements, in particular where new accessions place additional strain on human and financial resources.

20.       Although voluntary contributions are welcome additional resources for the Organisation, the Assembly is firmly convinced that they cannot replace obligatory contributions in the financing of the Organisation’s structural and long-term needs. In fact, voluntary contributions are always generous at the start of all programmes but tend to diminish in subsequent years. By way of example, the level of voluntary contributions in 2003 from member states (€9 136 409) was lower than that of 2000 (€9 563 850) despite the Organisation’s expanded membership. Even the activities in Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Chechnya, which were funded by voluntary contributions at the outset, are now mainly financed from the Organisation’s limited ordinary budget, thereby placing an additional strain on existing resources.

21.       In the light of the criteria contained in the New Staff Policy, rightly initiated by the Secretary General, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers pay special attention in its future recruitment policy to the principles of equal opportunity and fair geographical distribution, which is based on member states’ mandatory contributions. The Assembly also asks the Committee of Ministers to take special measures, based on Resolution (92) 38, in respect of an early retirement scheme, including the provision of additional resources to this end, in order to speed up the renewal of the Organisation’s human resources and to foster the systematic and efficient redeployment of staff. Finally, it asks the Committee of Ministers to increase the financial resources allocated to staff members’ training courses, which amount to only 0.5% of the Organisation’s payroll. In this context, it is important to underline that, in many member states, the financial resources allocated to training policies are to the tune of 1-2.5 percent of the total wage bill.

22.       In view of the ongoing negotiations on future salary adjustments for all six  co-ordinated organisations - Council of Europe, European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts, European Space Agency, NATO, OECD and Western European Union -, the Assembly restates its view, already set out in Recommendation 1488 (2000), that an objective and mathematical method for salary adjustments must be established in order to enable the Secretaries General of these six international institutions to recruit, retain and motivate highly trained, competent and independent staff. It is therefore crucial that staff remuneration remains competitive with regard to three recruitment markets, namely the private sector, national civil services and international civil servants, also including the European Union.

II.        Explanatory memorandum by Mr Figel, Rapporteur

1.         The Assembly’s annual opinions on Council of Europe budgets have over the years provided parliamentarians with a deeper insight into the Organisation and its political evolution. The primary aim of these reports is to make recommendations on the Council’s activities, with a view to examining the political implications of decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers with regard to the Organisation’s overall budget.

2.         It is to be noted that, at the time of writing, few official documents on budgetary prospects for the year 2005 were available.

3.         First of all, the Rapporteur welcomes the new management policies introduced and implemented by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who is genuinely committed to further improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Organisation’s internal functioning and programmes of activity. In 2003, the impact of intergovernmental action was enhanced by putting increased emphasis on complementarity between different sectors, in particular by further developing in-house co-operation. Moreover, a new project management methodology was introduced to contribute to objective-based planning and defining evaluation criteria.

4.         As regards the implementation of the New Staff Policy, in 2003 the Council of Europe integrated 213 long-serving temporary staff members, who passed the competitive examination, created 96 posts[1] (77 of which are for a three-year period) as part of the enhancement of the activities associated with the European Court of Human Rights, and developed the practice of linking fixed-term contracts to programmes of activity, as required by the Committee of Ministers in the follow-up to the Wise Persons’ report.

5.         In 2004, 48 posts, including 33 with a two-year fixed-term contracts, have been created in the European Court of Human Rights, with the exception of 4 posts in the execution of Judgments of the Court Department of Directorate General II. The two proposed new posts, one at A-grade level and one at B-grade level, for the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), however, have not been created due to the firm opposition of some member states. In November 2003, the Committee of Ministers decided to meet the legitimate request put forward by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for the year 2004 via an internal redeployment of posts.   

6.         Another important remark concerns the enhanced co-operation with the European Union. Under the leadership of Mr Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Organisation has consistently sought to expand and strengthen its working relations with the European institutions, in particular the European Commission. The objective was to raise additional funds for projects of common interest. Neither of these goals, however, has yet been successfully achieved. The main problem lies in the fact that the Council of Europe has not yet established institutional links with the European Commission, which can decide whether or not to finance a given project devised by the Council of Europe. Furthermore, the Council of Europe is obliged to go through the public procedure of external bidding to obtain funds for its project, in the same manner as an external consultant firm. This is frustrating and unnecessarily resource-consuming for a European organisation which pursues objectives shared by the Union and which has assisted many of the ten acceding countries in consolidating and improving the functioning of their democratic and political institutions.

7.         In some cases, the European Commission itself approaches the Council of Europe in connection with a given programme of activities, volunteering to cover between 70% and 90% of the total cost. Even under these circumstances, the resulting boost in resources in furthering the aims of both organisations is welcomed. Nonetheless certain difficulties still arise. On the one hand, the European Commission seeks to guide the implementation of the joint programme according to its own priorities, as it plays a leading role in the financing. On the other the Council of Europe, being unable to finance a larger proportion of the cost for lack of financial resources, is in no position to exert greater influence on the direction of the joint programme.

8.         As a consequence, the Council of Europe can co-operate with the European Commission only if it is prepared to follow closely the instructions of the latter. It is therefore vital that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers begin to negotiate an institutional partnership with the European Commission with the aim of providing the Council of Europe with a unique and special link, enabling the Organisation to co-operate as a full and equal partner in the management of joint programmes and to obtain more funding for activities of common interest. Such a link is fully justified by the Council of Europe's historical experience and established expertise in addressing the very issues of democracy, human rights and the rule of law involved in the type of programmes on which it co-operates with the European Union. Moreover, it is important to underline that, in the last three years, the European Union’s voluntary contributions have increased from € 2 210 028 to € 7 298 404, which bears witness to the keen interest taken by the European Union in the Council of Europe’s programme of activities.

9.         Following the budgetary and administrative proposals made in its Recommendations 918 (1981), 1155 (1991) and 1344 (1997), the Assembly notes with satisfaction that some progress has been made towards a more direct and genuine dialogue between its representatives and the Committee of Ministers on budgetary matters. Yet, the Committee of Ministers has so far been unable to meet the modest budgetary requests put forward by the Assembly, whose tasks and responsibilities have grown significantly over the years. 

10.       The Rapporteur welcomes the additional resources made available in 2004 to the Organisation, and in particular to the European Court of Human Rights. These new funds, representing a positive outcome of the Committee of Ministers’ budgetary discussions, will assist the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in pursuing his continuing, courageous efforts to streamline internal working methods, make better use of existing resources and provide additional funds for the five strategic objectives set out by the Ministers at its 104th Session in Budapest in May 1999:

11.       Following the tragic events of 11 September, the Council of Europe, which attaches great importance to the fight against terrorism and other forms of crime, decided to include these important activities in its 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 priorities. Moreover, the Organisation had to increase the proportion of the budgetary appropriations allocated to the security of its buildings.

12.       For 2004, the Council of Europe also decided to place more emphasis on the following political priorities, within the limits of the budgetary funds available, of which member states’ contributions amount to just over € 180 million:

13.       Walter Schwimmer, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in his speech delivered on 27 January 2004 before the Parliamentary Assembly, put forward a broad outline of his priorities for 2005, which would enable the Organisation to pursue its enlargement process, make its internal functioning more focused and efficient, and improve the effectiveness and the quality of the Council of Europe’s programmes of activity so as to be able to face the new challenges successfully. For 2005, the priority areas are: 

14.       The Rapporteur wishes to underline that the entire Organisation’s programme of activities has been regrouped in ten lines of action, constituting its core mission. These ten new lines of action include: compliance with human rights and rule-of-law standards, human rights in public policy, pluralist democracy and good governance, building a society based on the rule of law, technological development, human dignity and democracy, building stable and cohesive societies, European cultural identity and diversity, human dignity and sustainable development, Europe’s future through education and youth, and the Council of Europe’s outreach policy, which concerns its field and information offices active in several member states.

15.       This new approach will enable the Council of Europe not only to develop more systematic analyses based on the findings of the monitoring mechanisms but also to devise and implement policies designed to solve the problems and reduce the shortcomings identified by these complex procedures. Moreover, the Rapporteur believes that regular assessment of the results of the monitoring processes will raise both the quality and the effectiveness of the Council of Europe’s programmes of activity, thereby increasing their overall impact on the countries concerned.

16.       A further advantage of this new programme of activities, which revolves around these ten broad themes, lies in the fact that it enables the Committee of Ministers to change the level of financing of each line of action according to its own priorities without impinging on the Organisation’s overall functioning. This feature will be all the more valuable in connection with the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government, which is likely to take place in the spring of 2005 in Warsaw, as member states may decide to increase or reduce the financing of a given line of action on the basis of the newly-identified priorities for the Council of Europe. This increased flexibility in working methods therefore epitomises the extent to which the Council of Europe is attached to its own corporate mission, which is to serve its member states to the best of its abilities and to respond quickly and effectively to their ever-changing needs.    

17.       It is undeniable that the European Court of Human Rights represents one of the priority areas for the Council of Europe and its member states. As 2005 will mark the end of the 2003-2005 programme for the enhancement of the resources of the European Court of Human Rights and other departments involved in the execution of its judgments, the Rapporteur believes that member states should begin to take stock of the progress made by the Court over this period of time and to make special provision for the period 2006-2009 so as to continue to finance the Court’s structural needs.

18.       In this context, it is important to underline the problem, raised by a number of judges, concerning their social cover and pension rights. Although this matter could be addressed in many different ways, the Rapporteur intends to propose two possible solutions. For instance, member states could decide to make provision for a new, separate pension budget for the judges, which could be set up by deducting a given percentage from their monthly emoluments and by member states’ contributions. Alternatively, they can ask judges to provide for their own social cover and pension as their respective situations, in terms of social cover and pensions, are very diverse. In fact, several judges, while serving in Strasbourg, continue to accrue their pension rights in their respective countries and to enjoy social cover.

19.       The Rapporteur wishes to underscore that judges cannot be covered by the pension system of Council of Europe staff members as these funds have been specifically set up to finance the future pension liabilities of serving staff. If the Committee of Ministers decided to allow judges to draw their future pensions from the Organisation’s current pensions regime, this would inevitably undermine its financial viability in the coming years as the judges’ contributions to the pension reserve fund would only be for a limited period of time.

20.       As regards the financing of the Court, the Rapporteur has identified two major issues which need to be resolved. First, each member state should be able to cover fully the cost of its membership in the European Court of Human Rights. The second problem is related to the first to the extent that if member states are not paying fully for their membership in the Court and the Organisation continues to be subject to zero real budgetary growth, it is likely that the Court will gradually, though inevitably, consume the lion’s share of the Organisation’s limited resources. This would be harmful to the functioning of and the activities carried out by the Council of Europe, which has over the past six years seen a sharp reduction in amount of available resources. Should this situation be prolonged in the years to come, the Organisation would run the risk of having problems in covering the administrative and operational costs of its 10 lines of action and other priority areas. Hence, it is vital that the Committee of Ministers continue to meet the Court’s additional financial needs without taking resources away from the Organisation’s other important activities.

21.       Special attention should therefore be paid to ways of avoiding a situation where the European Court of Human Rights consumes the lion’s share of the Organisation’s resources – whether new or existing. This can hardly have been envisaged either by the founding fathers of the Council of Europe or by the authors of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, let alone by the various Council of Europe Summits of Heads of State or Government that have steadily added new tasks to the Organisation’s agenda. Moreover, the Rapporteur is convinced that the Court, being the European body entrusted with the protection of human rights throughout the continent, should receive increased obligatory contributions enabling the Court to meet its ever-growing structural needs.

22.       While welcoming the great interest taken by the Committee of Ministers in the financing of the European Court of Human Rights, the Rapporteur fears that further increases in the Court’s funding needs will be detrimental to those of other Council of Europe activities, given the persistent budgetary constraints. In fact, the resources allotted to the European Court of Human Rights have increased by over 10 percent (some € 39 million) over the 2003 appropriations, while Vote II, comprising the whole Organisation’s programme of intergovernmental activities (some € 66 million), has registered a modest rise of only 2.22 percent, which remains lower than the inflation rate (2.3%). Hence, the Rapporteur still wonders how the Committee of Ministers intends to meet the Court’s additional financial needs without damage to other important activities, which have over the last six years seen a sharp decrease in resources.

23.       Against this background, the Rapporteur wishes to underscore the inadequacy of the Council’s present financing mechanisms, which are gradually reducing the annual contributions of the five major contributors. Current scales of contributions reveal a certain lack of solidarity among member states. Certain member states are having great difficulty in keeping up with their annual contributions, a situation which has even prompted the Committee of Ministers to mention the possible application of Article 9 of the Council of Europe’s Statute. This article could be applied to any member state which had failed to fulfil all or part of its financial obligations for a period of two years, unless that failure was justified by exceptional circumstances.

24.       The prolonged budgetary austerity has given rise to a striking disparity between the financial resources allocated to the Council as a whole and its growing commitments, as decided upon by the Committee of Ministers itself or by Council of Europe Summits. By way of example, in the intergovernmental co-operation sector funds have been internally reallocated towards the new multidisciplinary integrated projects in order to give priority activities more resources. For some activities, however, this exercise has not achieved the desired result.

25.       Given the Council of Europe’s specific role in the new political and institutional architecture of Europe, it is crucial that member states continue to give it additional resources to finance activities aimed at combating the growth of terrorism, organised crime, corruption and illicit trafficking, which are generating an unhealthy climate of insecurity in several member states. Moreover, in the struggle against racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and intolerance the Council of Europe’s legal instruments should be further strengthened. The Rapporteur therefore believes that the question of the Council of Europe’s financing mechanism should be included on the agenda of the Third Council of Europe Summit, as it is a political, though technical, matter. The main objective would be to replace the current annual budgetary procedure by proposing a two-year system which would enable the Council of Europe to devise and implement multi-annual projects, in particular as regards the consolidation of democratic and political institutions in the Balkans, South Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, the protection of minorities and the fight against human trafficking and social exclusion.

26.       Although voluntary contributions are welcome additional resources for the Organisation, they cannot replace obligatory contributions in the financing of multi-disciplinary and multi-annual projects. In fact, voluntary contributions are always generous at the start of all programmes but tend to diminish in subsequent years. By way of example, the level of voluntary contributions in 2003 from member states (€ 9 136 409) was lower than that of 2000 (€ 9 563 850) despite the Organisation’s expanded membership. Even the activities in Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Chechnya, which were funded by voluntary contributions at the outset, are now mainly financed from the Organisation’s limited ordinary budget, thereby placing an additional strain on existing resources. This is all the more regrettable as strengthening peace and stability across our continent should be the main objective for all member states interested in making Europe a broad area of democratic security based on shared values. The Council of Europe’s expertise and experience in a wide range of co-operation sectors genuinely represent a unique asset among European political organisations.

27.       In this context, it is important to point out that contributions to the Council come more or less entirely from allocations in the budgets of foreign affairs ministries for ‘contributions to international organisations’ or a similarly worded heading. The reason why the Council of Europe’s justified requests for budgetary increases have been frustrated over the last four years is therefore clear. The fact is that in most Council of Europe member states the lowest rate of budget growth in recent years has been precisely in the foreign affairs ministries. The Rapporteur therefore believes that it is urgent to create a special “Council of Europe” line within national budgets and to allow the ministries concerned, such as those responsible for social, cultural and legal matters, to contribute to the financing of certain intergovernmental activities, as already requested in Assembly Opinions Nos. 199 (1996), 211 (1999), 218 (2000), 224 (2001), 236 (2002) and 243 (2003). In this way, expenditure under Vote IV relating to the operation of the European Court of Human Rights – if clearly identified as such - could be the subject of a separate contribution from the justice ministries of member states. Similarly, expenditure under Vote V, “Expenditure of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe”, could be charged to the budgets of the ministries responsible for devolved government.

28.       Another problem concerns Resolution (94) 31 fixing the scale of member states’ contributions to the Council of Europe ordinary budget. Contributions to the ordinary budget are based on a formula that mainly takes account of the population and GDP of member states, giving a weighting of 5 to GDP and 1 to population. With the accession of Serbia and Montenegro in 2003, the individual contribution of the five major contributors fell to 12.40% of the Organisation’s ordinary budget. This fact not only underlines a lack of solidarity among member states but also aggravates the budgetary position of less wealthy countries. One option would be to amend the present resolution by including a clause setting a minimum contribution to be paid by each member state. In this context, the Rapporteur wishes to underline that any possible change in the criteria set out in Resolution (94) 31 should not be used to reduce the Organisation’s overall budget.

29.       Moreover, the Rapporteur is acutely concerned by the limited human resources and funding which have so far been made available to the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights. Since his election in September 1999, Mr Gil-Robles has given great impetus to a wide range of activities, including official journeys in twenty-six countries, follow-up reports and specific seminars dealing with the protection of human rights in Europe. Despite the fact that Mr Gil-Robles pursues the vitally important goals of fostering awareness and respect for human rights, a goal of central significance to the Council of Europe, his office comprises a mere six permanent staff members (three lawyers and three administrative assistants) along with seven seconded staff, and receives very limited budgetary resources (some € 900 000). The first and main concern of the Rapporteur is indeed the composition of the Commissioner’s Office which has more seconded than permanent staff; this could undermine the necessary appearance and actual existence of impartiality and independence which must be beyond question.

30.       In the light of these concerns, the Rapporteur is convinced that the Commissioner’s Office should be strengthened in 2005 - in terms of both human and financial resources - as a large part of the Commissioner’s activities is financed via voluntary contributions which cannot replace mandatory contributions in the funding of structural needs. The problem concerning human resources could be addressed via the creation of new permanent posts for the Office of the Commissioner, who could then select the best individuals according to the specific requirements of his specialised office. The Rapporteur believes, however, that an essential precondition for reinforcing the means available to the Office of the Commissioner should be acceptance by the Committee of Ministers of the recommendations contained in his reports.

31.       As regards the Assembly’s budgetary proposals for the year 2005 and against the background of its rapidly increasing workload, it is essential for the Council of Europe in general and the Secretariat of the Assembly in particular to have greater resources for retaining and motivating its highly qualified permanent staff and for engaging temporary staff for specific projects and activities. Moreover, fresh resources should be allocated to defending and promoting the Council of Europe’s fundamental values and principles through intergovernmental co-operation and assistance programmes, particularly in the constitutional, legal and democratic institution-building fields. 

32.       The Rapporteur wishes to draw the Committee of Ministers’ attention to three further budgetary aspects. The first concerns the additional costs associated with the launching of multi-disciplinary and multi-annual projects, the Organisation’s enhanced capacity to undertake action on the ground and treaty monitoring arrangements, including the improvement of the Committee of Ministers' machinery for following up judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The recent political crises in several new member states have highlighted the urgency of financing programmes targeting activities relating to democratic security, where the Council of Europe’s achievements and expertise would be an asset. Specific budgetary provision is also required for the ongoing monitoring of existing conventions. Additional ratifications of various conventions in the course of 2004 as a result of the accession of new member states will place serious additional strain on the Organisation’s already over-stretched human and financial resources. 

33.       The second comment relates to the funds made available to the Organisation for staff members’ training courses, which are an essential part of their career development. In 2004, the financial resources allocated to training programmes amounted to € 625 700 (€ 612 000 in 2003), which corresponds to only some 0.5% of the Organisation’s payroll. In national public administrations, the resources allocated to their training policy usually range between 1 and 2.5 percent of the total wage bill. This is the case in France and Italy, for example. The Rapporteur therefore believes that it is crucial, in the coming years, to increase these funds so as to meet the legitimate training needs of staff members, who are called upon to take up new challenges and tasks. This is all the more necessary with the introduction of the New Staff Policy, which requires new training programmes specifically designed to develop a more widespread managerial culture within the Organisation and enhance staff members’ communication skills.

34.       The third and final remark that needs to be made is more general. In recent years many political decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers have made no provision for the additional financial resources needed to implement them – the Committee no doubt assuming that rationalising and improving the use of existing resources would be sufficient to cover the cost of such new activities. Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers should carefully consider all the financial implications arising from the accession of new member states. In fact, assisting member States in coping with emerging social and political problems is an integral part of the Plan of Action adopted at the Strasbourg Summit in 1997. The purpose is to enable all European member states to participate on an equal footing in the European project. 

35.       Increasing the budgetary resources of the Council of Europe should become one of the Assembly’s main challenges vis-�-vis the Committee of Ministers in the years to come, in particular in the light of the Secretary General’s priorities for the Council of Europe from 2001 to 2005. The Organisation intends to plan and implement a number of activities, including inter alia the promotion and proper functioning of democratic institutions, the protection of minorities, the fight against terrorism, corruption, individual insecurity and social exclusion, the reinforcement of control mechanisms in the European human rights field, and the development of co-operation with the European Union, the OSCE and the United Nations. In view of the fruitful and long-standing co-operation with the United Nations and its specialised agencies, the Rapporteur believes that the Committee of Ministers should consider how a permanent presence for the Organisation in New York could be established in the future.

36.       Given the budgetary prospects for the 2005 budget, the Rapporteur doubts not only whether the 2004 budget will enable the Council of Europe to carry out its expanding tasks and implement the decisions and proposals of the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government, but also whether the available resources are consistent with the Organisation’s new geographical scope, achievements and expertise. The Council’s key role of defending human rights and the rule of law gives it a political responsibility for the democratic and peaceful development of Europe. This important political responsibility must be given more substance, in particular through increased human and financial resources.

37.       The 45 Council of Europe member states should seize the unique opportunity offered by the holding of the Organisation’s Third Summit of Heads of State and Government in order to take stock of the progress made in the course of the last eight years – the Second Summit having been held on 10-11 October 1997 – and to take a firm and clear decision on the future of this international organisation, in particular as regards its role in the newly-established European architecture, which will take shape following the European Union’s enlargement and the final adoption of the European Constitution. The Rapporteur is of the opinion that the Council of Europe should continue to consolidate and strengthen democratic and political institutions in its member states, with a particular focus on the Balkans and the three Caucasian countries, to protect human rights and minorities, to expand the rule of law throughout its membership and to provide legal assistance to its member states, mainly in the fields of human trafficking, money laundering and corruption. For these three crucial areas of activity, the Council of Europe should indeed receive increased funds. These funds could either come from savings made by abandoning or reducing activities which are no longer deemed vital to the Organisation or by making more human and financial resources available to the secretariat of the Council of Europe.

38.       As regards co-operation with the European Union, member states should carefully consider new ways of making the Council of Europe and the European Commission work more efficiently and rapidly together, in particular as regards projects of common interest. This goal could be achieved by creating an institutional link giving a special “funding path” to programmes which have been devised and implemented jointly. This sort of collaboration would significantly reduce the risk of duplication of effort and enable the Council of Europe to devote part of the savings made to the financing of other important unfunded projects. 

39.       In today’s world, where it is essential for international organisations to have adequate funding and clear guidelines from their member states in order to achieve their goals, the Committee of Ministers can no longer afford the luxury of taking piecemeal decisions when it comes to budgetary matters. It is against this background that the Rapporteur is firmly convinced that the Committee of Ministers should carefully review the entire work programme of the Council of Europe and decide which activity is noteworthy and deserves to be properly financed. Failing this, the Organisation will continue to be hostage to an annual budgetary procedure which has proved time-consuming and unproductive. Member states should therefore bear in mind that it is in their own interest and in that of their citizens to have a well-functioning and financially sound Council of Europe, capable of facing future challenges successfully.

Reporting committee: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Reference to committee:  Standing mandate.

Draft opinion unanimously adopted by the Committee on 25 March 2004.

Members of the committee: Mr Kirilov (Chairman), Mrs Burbiene, Mrs Pericleous Papadopoulos, Mr Figel (Vice-chairpersons), Mr A�ikg�z, Mr Adam, Mr Agramunt, Mr Anacoreta Correia, Mr Andov, Mr Arnau, Mr Assis Miranda, Mr Ates, Mr van Baalen, Mr Berceanu, Mr Braun, Mr Brunhart, Mr Budin, Mr �avusoglu, Mr Cosarciuc, Mr Crema, Mr Dimic, Mr Djupedal, Mr Floros (Alternate: Mr Sfyriou), Mr Galchenko, Ms Griffiths, Mr Grignon, Mr Gunnarsson, Mr Gusenbauer, Ms Hakl (Alternate: Mr Grissemann), Mr Haupert, Mr H�gmark, Mr Jonas, Mr Karapetyan, Mr Klympush, Mr Korobeynikov (Alternate: Mr Petrov), Mr Kraus, Mr Krivokapic, Mr Lachnit, Mr Le Guen, Mr Leibrecht, Mr Liapis, Mr Makhachev, Mr Masseret, Mr Melcak, Mr Mikkelsen, Ms Milicevic, Mr Mimica, Mrs Muizniece, Mr �hman, Mr O’Keeffe, Mr Opmann, Mrs Patarkalishvili,  Mrs Pintat Rossell, Mr Podgorski, Mr Popa, Mr Puche, Mr Pullicino Orlando, Mr Ramoudt, Mr Ramponi, Mr Rattini, Mr Reimann, Mr Rivolta (Alternate: Mr Mauro), Lord Russell-Johnston, Mr Rybak, Mr Sasi, Mr Schreiner, Mr Severin, Mr Seyidov, Ms Smith (Alternate: Mr Marshall), Mrs Sotiyeva, Mr Stefanov, Mr Tepshi, Mr Timmermans (Alternate: Mr Kox), Mrs Vadai, Mr Versnick, Mr Walter (Alternate: Baroness Hooper), Mr Wielowieyski, Mr Wikinski, Mrs Zapfl-Helbling, Mr Zhevago.

N.B. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics

Head of Secretariat: Mr Torbi�rn

Co-Secretaries to the committee: M. Bertozzi, Ms Ramanauskaite; Ms Kopa�i-Di Michele

[1] These posts have been created in the Court itself with the exception of 2 posts in the Committee of Ministers and 5 posts in the Court Judgments section in Directorate-General II.