Parliamentary Assembly
Assembl�e parlementaire

Content of written declarations and motions for recommendations and resolutions

Doc. 10183
14 May 2004

Report
Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Rapporteur: Mr Zekeriya Ak�am, Turkey, Group of the European People’s Party

For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Summary

The report recalls the current rules concerning written declarations (Rule 53) and presents proposals for the rule changes necessary to establish a criteria for the content of such declarations. As motions (Rule 23) may pose similar problems as written declarations, with regard to their content, this aspect is also examined in the report.

I.          Draft resolution [Link to the adopted text]

1.         The Parliamentary Assembly considers that written declarations by its members (Rule 53 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure) should not contain propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the principles of the Council of Europe.

2.         However, this should not restrict the tabling of written declarations criticizing or condemning the ideas or activities of such persons or associations.

3.         The Assembly also stresses the need to explicitly declare as inadmissible any written declarations with a racist, xenophobic or intolerant content or with words or expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity.

4.         The criteria for the content of written declarations should also be made applicable to motions tabled by members (Rule 23 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure).

5.         The Assembly consequently decides:

i.          to replace the second sentence of Rule 53.1. with the following:

“They shall be published unless the President has ruled that they are inadmissible in accordance with criteria outlined in paragraph 2 below. Written declarations shall neither be referred to a committee nor debated in the Assembly.”

ii.          to insert a new paragraph 2 in Rule 53, worded as follows:

“Written declarations shall not contain propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the Council of Europe’s principles. They shall also not contain racist, xenophobic or intolerant language or words and expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity.”

iii.         to add the following sentence to Rule 23.2.:

“Motions shall not contain propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the Council of Europe’s principles. They shall also not contain racist, xenophobic or intolerant language or words and expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity.”

iv.         that these new provisions shall enter into force upon their adoption.

II.         Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur

A.                  INTRODUCTION

1.         On 8 September 2003, the Standing Committee ratified the reference to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities of the motion for a resolution on the content of written declarations (Doc. 9773).

2.         This report recalls the current rules concerning written declarations (Rule 53) and then proposes the rule changes necessary to establish criteria for the content of such declarations along the lines of Doc. 9773. As motions (Rule 23) may pose similar problems with regard to their content as written declarations this aspect is also examined in the report.

B.         CURRENT RULES WITH RESPECT TO WRITTEN DECLARATIONS

3.         Rule 53 paragraph 1 of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Rules of Procedure reads:

            “53.1.    Written declarations not exceeding 200 words on subjects within the competence of the Council of Europe may be tabled provided they have been signed by at least twenty representatives or substitutes of four national delegations and two political groups. They shall neither be referred to a committee nor debated in the Assembly.”

            There are no other explicit conditions for the admissibility or the content of written declarations. According to Rule 22.2. j. of the Rules of Procedure they are official documents of the Assembly.

4.         Written declarations were introduced in 1970 to give members the possibility to state publicly their views on matters of European interest where there is no immediate likelihood of time being found nor need for a debate in the Assembly. Before that time the only way of raising a question not included in the agenda was to table a motion for a recommendation or resolution. Motions are generally referred to a committee and a debate in the Assembly or the Standing Committee takes place after the Committee has made its report on the matter.

5.         But sometimes, members of the Assembly wish to make known rapidly their opinions on an urgent matter or one that does not readily lend itself to report by a committee.

6.         Since 1970, about 350 written declarations were tabled and about 65 in the last 5 years. This practice shows that it was appropriate to have such a category of Assembly documents. Furthermore, written declarations may be an appropriate means to limit the tabling of motions. If a matter raised in a draft motion obviously does not justify its reference to an Assembly committee, it would be preferable to have recourse to a written declaration.

7.                   Before their revision, which entered into force in January 2000, the Rules of Procedure explicitly mentioned that written declarations were only published after the President had decided that they were in order, or - in other words – in conformity with the Rules. However, differently from motions there was, even before 2000, never an explicit provision in the Rules for the consultation of Assembly Committees on the admissibility of written declarations. In practice, before they are published, the President (and the secretariat) examine if they are in conformity with the Rules.

8.                   On some occasions, written declarations have given rise to problems[1].   In October 1993, the Bureau examined the fact that press organs considered written declarations to be official Parliamentary Assembly statements. The matter was referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities and following its proposals, motions and written declarations bear since that time a mention that they reflect only the view of the signatories.

C.         PROPOSALS FOR AMENDING RULE 53 ON WRITTEN DECLARATIONS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

9.         The motion for a resolution on the content of written declarations (Doc. 9773) notes that their content is entirely left to the discretion of the signatories. It also observes that recent written declarations have consisted of propaganda for commercial purposes and moreover for controversial products and persons who are equally controversial. Therefore, the motion for a resolution proposes to add a new paragraph 2 to Rule 53 worded as follows:

“53.2. (new) They (written declarations) may not contain propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations.”

10.        The first part of the proposal contained in the above-mentioned Doc. 9773 (“written declarations may not contain propaganda for commercial purposes”) deserves support, although the terms “commercial purposes” will not always be easy to be interpreted.

            However, your rapporteur considers that the scope of the second part of this proposal, namely that written declarations should not contain propaganda on behalf of persons or associations, could be too general.

11.        In the past, several written declarations

            Moreover, such declarations may well pay tribute to persons who unquestionably have rendered great service to the European or other noble causes. The same may apply to associations, which admittedly have worked for a long time for generally recognised purposes. What should be eliminated from written declarations is any positive propaganda (promotion or “glorification” of their ideas and action) for persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the principles of the Council of Europe. Admittedly the terms “incompatible with the principles of the Council of Europe” are not very precise and subject to interpretation. However these terms are used by Council of Europe bodies to dissociate themselves from developments and associations (for example NGOs) [see Assembly Opinion N� 246 (2003) par. 4. v.], which defend purposes opposed to the Organisation's aims. To find out if ideas and activities are incompatible with the principles of the Council of Europe could therefore need some research by the secretariat in certain cases and could have as a consequence that a written declaration is published somewhat later.

12.               It is to be underlined, and this meets with some reservations expressed by members at the meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on 27 October 2003, that the tabling of a written declaration criticizing or condemning the ideas and activities of persons or associations would, as in the past, not be restricted. Therefore, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities should support the proposal in Doc. 9773 while clarifying it. At the same time other forms of unacceptable contents of written declarations could be banned explicitly.

13.               In January 1981, the Bureau decided that the principle underlying Rule 20.6. of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, which authorises the President of the Assembly to delete from the report of debates words or expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity, also applied to the admissibility of motions. In 1994, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed to extend this principle to written declarations.

14.               In September 2003, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1345 (2003) on racist, xenophobic and intolerant discourse in politics. It would be consistent with this text if the Assembly also explicitly banned racist, xenophobic and intolerant words or expressions from written declarations and possibly other documents tabled by members of the Assembly.

15.               Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the proposed new Rule 53.2. should therefore be worded as follows:

“Written declarations shall not contain propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the Council of Europe’s principles. They shall also not contain racist, xenophobic or intolerant language or words and expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity.”

16.        For reasons of transparency, the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities also proposed that the following new second sentence should be inserted in Rule 53.1. relating to written declarations:

            “They shall be published unless the President has ruled that they are inadmissible in accordance with criteria outlined in paragraph 2 below".

D.         COMPLETION OF RULE 23 WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENT OF MOTIONS

17.        As there always is a kind of symmetry between the conditions for motions (Rule 23 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure) and written declarations, it should be considered to declare also as inadmissible motions containing propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the principles of the Council of Europe. Furthermore, motions with a racist, xenophobic or intolerant language or words and expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity, should also not be authorised.

18.               This would make it necessary to complete article 23.2 by an additional sentence worded as follows:

“Motions shall not contain propaganda for commercial purposes or on behalf of persons or associations whose ideas or activities are incompatible with the Council of Europe’s principles. They shall also not contain racist, xenophobic or intolerant language or words and expressions whose meaning bears an affront to human dignity.”

E.         FINAL REMARKS

19.        The Committee adopted, with a large majority, the draft resolution contained in this report and agreed that it be presented to the next meeting of the Standing Committee.

20.        The new provisions should enter into force upon their adoption.

Committee responsible for the report: Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities

Reference to committee: Doc. 9773, Reference No. 2825 of 27 May 2003

Draft resolution adopted, with 3 abstentions, on 27 April 2004

Members of the committee : Mr Holovaty, (Chairperson), MM. Magnusson, Manzella, Pourgourides, (Vice-Chairpersons), MM. Ak�am, Alibeyli, Bernik, Bottomley, Bougas, Calmes, Ceder, Collavini, Mrs D'Amato, Mrs Doktorowicz, MM. Doric, Dule, Frankenhauser, Mrs Garsdal, MM. Gedei, Gligoric, Mrs Grosskost, MM. Himmer, H�fer, Mrs J��teenm�ki, MM. Jung Armand, Jurgens, Kroupa, Maissen, Mišš�k, Monsen, Morales Monteiro, Olteanu, Ostrovsky (alternate: Mr Fedorov), Pentchev, Pereira Coelho, Mrs P�tursd�ttir, Mrs Radulovic Šcepanovic, MM. Rustamyan, S�laridze, Sharandin, Sileikis (alternate: Mr Cekuolis), Stepaniuc, Vis, Wright, Zernovski.

NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretariat of the committee: Mr Heinrich

[1] See in this connection written declaration No. 342 (2003) and an article in the French magazine “L’Express” of 26 June 2003.