Doc. 10794
23 January 2006

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (7 October 2005 – 23 January 2006)

Bureau of the Assembly
Rapporteur: Mr Bernard Schreiner (France, Group of the European People's Party)

Part I

1.       INTRODUCTION

1.       The Bureau met on 7 October 2005 in Strasbourg, on 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, on 12 December 2005 and on 9 January 2006 in Paris. The Standing Committee met on 25 November 2005 in Bucharest.

2.       FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSEMBLY

A.       PROGRESS REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AND OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE (7 OCTOBER 2005 – 23 JANUARY 2006)

2.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau appointed Mr Schreiner (France, EPP/CD) as rapporteur.

B.       FOLLOW-UP TO 4TH PART OF THE 2005 ORDINARY SESSION (STRASBOURG, 3-7 OCTOBER 2005)

3.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau:

i.       Opinion on the “Draft Framework Convention of the Council of Europe on the value of cultural heritage for society”: agreed with the proposal of the Committee on Culture, Science and of Education that a formal preparation of an opinion of the Assembly was not necessary considering that in paragraph 17 of Recommendation 1712 (2005) on “Follow-up to the Third Summit” the Assembly had already taken position in favour of the Framework Convention and called on member States to sign and ratify it;

ii. Follow-up to be given to the texts adopted:

a.       Recommendation 1724 (2005) on “the Council of Europe and the European Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union”: decided to follow closely the implementation of the European Union Neighbourhood Policy and to discuss the modalities of this follow-up at its next meeting;

b.       Recommendation 1726 (2005) on “Serious human rights violations in Libya – inhuman treatment of Bulgarian medical staff”: took note that the President would follow closely the situation in Libya ;

iii.       Joint Committee: took note of the proposal of the Russian Permanent Representative to increase the involvement of the Assembly in the implementation of the conclusions of the Third Summit, on the occasion of the Russian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers.

C.       1st PART OF THE 2006 ORDINARY SESSION (23-27 JANUARY 2006)

4.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau:

i.       adopted the draft agenda ;

ii.       took note of the letter from Mrs Bargholtz and Mr Lindblad requesting to hold a debate under urgent procedure on “Freedom of the media in Russia” during the January part-session 2006 and decided to consider this request at a future Bureau meeting;

iii.       was informed by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights that this Committee might request a debate under urgent procedure on “Alleged secret detention centres in Council of Europe member States”.

5.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau:

i.       drew up the draft order of business;

ii.       Joint Committee (Thursday, 26 January 2006 at 6.30 pm): agreed to include the following topics on the draft agenda:

a.       Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union;

b.       Follow-up of the Third Summit;

c.       Alleged secret detention centres in Council of Europe member States.

6.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau:

i.       Requests for debates under urgent procedure:

a.       Current situation in Belarus:

b.       Alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe member States:

c.       Freedom of the media in Russia: recommended to the Assembly not to hold this debate under urgent procedure and proposed to refer the matter to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education for report;

d.       Riots in Europeans cities: lessons and Council of Europe response: recommended to the Assembly not to hold this debate under urgent procedure and proposed to refer the matter to the Committee on Social Health and Family Affairs for report and to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs for opinion;

e.       took note of the information by Mr E�rsi that a request concerning the “use of energy supplies as a political tool” is under preparation;

ii.       up-dated the draft order of business;

iii.       took note that the President would hold a meeting with the Chairpersons of the parliamentary national delegations on Tuesday 24 January from 6 pm to 7.30 pm.

D.       MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE (BUCHAREST, 25 NOVEMBER 2005)

7.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau took note of the draft agenda and the draft programme.

8.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note of the updated agenda.

9.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Standing Committee:

E.       MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE (PARIS, 17 MARCH 2006)

10.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau agreed to hold an exchange of views with the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Mr Juncker.

F.       ADOPTED TEXTS

11.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Standing Committee, on behalf of the Assembly, adopted the following texts:

Resolution 1472 (2005)        on Abolishing the last piece of iron curtain in Central Europe;

Resolution 1473 (2005)       on European waterways: focus on the Danube-Oder-Elbe Canal project;

Resolution 1474 (2005)       on Activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);

Resolution 1475 (2005)       on the 50th Anniversary of the Europe Prize – Stocktaking and Outlook;

Recommendation 1728 (2005)       on Budgetary powers of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
      Council of Europe;

Recommendation 1729 (2005)       on Activities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR);

Recommendation 1730 (2005)       on the Private Management of cultural property;

G.       REFERENCES AND TRANSMISSIONS TO COMMITTEES

12.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau approved the following proposals which were ratified by the Assembly later that day:

a.       modification of references

13.        On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Standing Committee ratified the following references and modifications of references proposed by the Bureau:

a.       references to committees:

Reference No. 3147       Doc. 10715
      Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Van den Brande and others

      Doc. 10726
      Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Cubreacov and others

Reference No. 3148        Doc. 10717

Reference No. 3149       Doc. 10721
      Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Christodoulides and others

Reference No. 3150       Doc. 10722
      Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Flynn and others

Reference No. 3151       Doc. 10723
      Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Lloyd and others

Reference No. 3152       Doc. 10727

Reference No. 3153       Doc. 10748

b.        modifications of references

Reference No. 3155       Doc.10619
      Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Pourgourides and others
      Abuse of the criminal justice system in Belarus

Reference No. 3156       Doc. 10636

Reference No. 3157       Doc. 10106 rev.
      Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Holovaty and others
      The institutional balance at the Council of Europe

Reference No. 3158       Docs. 9865 and 9866

      Mechanisms to promote gender equality in practice, and
      Motion for a recommendation presented by Mrs Cliveti and others
      Women’s participation in decision-making

Reference No. 3159       Doc. 10698
      Motion for a recommendation by Mr Toshev and others

c.       requests to extend references

Reference No. 2895       Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Bindig and others

Reference No. 2826       Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Iwinski and others
      Situation in Kazakhstan (Doc. 9775)

Reference No. 2889       Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Mart�nez Casa� and others

      Ref. 2889 of 25 November 2003 – Validity: 25 November 2005

Reference No. 2902       Motion for a recommendation presented by Mr Nazar� Pereira and others

d.       follow-up after consultation

Reference No. 3154        Motion for a recommendation presented by Mrs Hajiyeva and others


- took note of the decisions of the Bureau concerning:

C.       TASK FORCE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

38.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau, following the proposal of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, appointed Ms Hilary Fisher, Director of Amnesty International’s campaign “Stop Violence against Women”, as an expert of the Assembly to this Task Force.

D.       NORTH-SOUTH PRIZE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

39.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note that the Prize was awarded to Mrs Bogaletch Gebre (Ethiopia) and Mr Bob Geldof (Ireland).

4.       RELATIONS WITH OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

A.       COOPERATION BETWEEN THE ASSEMBLY AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

40.       On 7 October 2005, took note of the two memoranda prepared by the Secretary General of the Assembly as well as the proposals of the President following the meeting with Mr Daul, Chairman of the Conference of Committee Chairmen of the European Parliament;

41.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note of the conclusions of the Joint meeting of the Presidential Committee and the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament which took place on 20 October 2005 in Brussels and agreed to send them to the Assembly committees for a follow-up.

B.       RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

42.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau was informed that the President has addressed letters to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, to the President of the European Commission and to the UK Secretary of State:

43.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris the Bureau took note of the reply of Mr Alexander, UK Minister for Europe, and agreed that the President should ask the Chairman-in-office of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to transmit to the Assembly the draft memorandum of understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union prepared by the UK Foreign Office.

C.       COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

44.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau approved a draft Cooperation agreement.

D.       CONFERENCE ON “100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE DUMA OF RUSSIA AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARIANISM: HISTORY AND THE PRESENT” (ST PETERSBURG, 28 APRIL 2006)

45.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris the Bureau:

i.       agreed to co-organise this conference with the Inter Parliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States (IPA CIS) provided that the Assembly takes equal part in its preparation;

ii.       decided to set-up an ad hoc committee to participate in this conference;

iii.       proposed to the IPA CIS the following title “Conference on European parliamentarianism: History and the Present (held on the occasion of the centenary of the establishment of the Russian State Duma)”.

5.       ELECTIONS

A.       PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN AZERBAIJAN (6 NOVEMBER 2005)

46.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau:

a.       approved and declassified the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the observation of the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan;

b.       noted that the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee on Azerbaijan should visit the country as soon as possible and asked Mr Platvoet to accompany them in his capacity of Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee to observe the parliamentary elections;

47.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau:

a.       heard an oral report on the post-electoral visit of the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee and the Chairman of the Ad Hoc committee on the observation of the parliamentary elections;

b.       agreed that they should visit the country again before the partial re-run of the elections;

c.       decided to observe the partial re-run of the elections;

d.       took note of the intention of the President to address a letter to the President of Azerbaijan and the Speaker of parliament;

e.       invited the Ad Hoc committee which observed the elections to organise a hearing on this issue during the January 2006 part-session, including representatives of the opposition;

f.       invited the Monitoring Committee to consider measures which could be taken as follow-up to the parliamentary elections, in the framework of the monitoring procedure;

g.       expressed its full support to the co-rapporteurs and stressed that any pressure on them is unacceptable;

h.       decided to come back to this matter at its next meeting.

48.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau :

a.       took note of the letters from the President to the President of Azerbaijan and the Speaker of the Parliament;

b.       took note of the letter from the Speaker of the Parliament concerning the new composition of the delegation of Azerbaijan to the Assembly;

c.       took note of the letter from the Deputy Chairman and executive secretary of the New Azerbaijan Party transmitting a declaration of 724 candidates taking part in the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan;

d.       was informed by Mr Gross that the members of the delegation which carried-out the post-election visit in Azerbaijan last December, were in favour of challenging the credentials of the delegation of Azerbaijan.

B.       CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM IN ARMENIA (27 NOVEMBER 2005)

49.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau:

a.       took note of the letter from the President of the Parliament of Armenia, Mr Baghdasaryan, stating that the referendum on constitutional reforms in Armenia will be held on 27 November 2005;

b.       called on the political groups to appoint members (3 SOC, 2 EPP/CD, 2 ALDE, 2 EDG, 1 UEL) to observe this referendum and authorised the President to approve the proposals submitted by the political groups and to appoint the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee.

50.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note of the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the appointment by the President of Mr Jirsa (Czech Republic, EDG) as Chairperson.

51.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau:

a.       approved and declassified the report of the Ad Hoc Committee which observed the constitutional referendum;

b.       invited the Monitoring Committee to consider follow-up to be given to the referendum in the framework of the monitoring procedure.

C.       ELECTIONS IN THE CHECHEN REPUBLIC (27 NOVEMBER 2005)

52.       On 7 October 2005 the Bureau approved the composition of the delegation which will be present on the occasion of these elections as follows: Mr Bindig (Germany, SOC), Mr Mihkelson (Estonia, EPP/CD), Mr Messerschmidt (Denmark, EDG), Mr Christodoulides (Cyprus, UEL), Mr Gross (Switzerland, SOC) Chairman of the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee for the organisation of the Round Table on the political situation in the Chechen Republic and Mr Iwinski (Poland, SOC) former rapporteur on the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population on the “humanitarian situation of the Chechen displaced population”.

53.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau heard oral reports by Messrs Bindig, Gross and Iwinski on their presence in the Chechen Republic on the occasion of these elections.

D.       PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN KAZAKHSTAN (4 DECEMBER 2005)

54.       On 7 October 2005 the Bureau :

a.       decided to set up an ad hoc committee to observe this election composed of 5 members (one for each political group);

b.       authorised the President to approve the proposals submitted by the political groups and to appoint the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee;

c.       authorised the President to cancel this observation mission in case of real obstacles occurring before the election.

55.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note of the composition the Ad Hoc Committee and of the appointment by the President of Mr Iwinski (Poland, SOC) as Chairperson.

56.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau heard an oral report by Mr Iwinski who chaired the Ad Hoc committee which observed the election .

E.       ELECTION IN TRANSNISTRIA (11 DECEMBER 2005)

57.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau decided not to observe this election.

F.       ELECTIONS TO THE PALESTINIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (25 JANUARY 2006)

58.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note that the pre-electoral mission foreseen from 10 to 14 December 2005 has been postponed until January .

59.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau was informed that the list of members of the Ad Hoc Committee was not yet available and urged the political groups to appoint their representatives.

60.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau:

a.       Pre-electoral mission:

b.       approved the list of members of the Ad Hoc Committee.

G.       PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN BELARUS (19 MARCH 2006)

61.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau:

a.       took note that the presidential election in Belarus will take place on 19 March 2006;

b.       took note of the letter from Mr Lebedko, Chairman of the United civil party, Mr Vecherko, Chairman of the BFP Party, and Mr Kaljakin, First Secretary of the Central Committee of PKB of Belarus, asking the President to address the Venice Commission with the request to give an opinion about the illegality (or legality) of Mr Lukashenko’s participation in the next presidential election;

c.       was informed by the President about his proposal to hold a conference in Prague, possibly in February 2006.

H.       PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN UKRAINE (26 MARCH 2006)

62.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau decided to set up an Ad Hoc Committee to observe these elections composed of 40 members (SOC: 14; EPP/CD: 12; ALDE: 7; EDG: 5; UEL: 2).

I.       REQUEST BY THE UNITED NATIONS ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE DIVISION (UNEAD), THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (NDI) AND THE CARTER CENTER (TCC) FOR ENDORSEMENT OF A DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES FOR INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVATION AND A CODE ON GOOD CONDUCT FOR INTERNATIONAL ELECTION OBSERVERS

63.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau endorsed the Declaration and the Code on Good Conduct.

J.       PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE GUIDELINES FOR THE OBSERVATION OF ELECTIONS BY THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

64.       On 7 October 2005, the Bureau approved the update the document [AS/Bur (2005)115].

6.       BUDGETARY AND ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS

65.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau:

i.       Budget of the Assembly for 2006: took note of the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat;

ii.       Proposal for the apportionment of the allocation to the political groups for 2006: took note of the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat and approved the apportionment of the allocation to the political groups for 2006.

7.       OTHER MATTERS

A.       USE OF ARTICLE 52 OF THE ECHR

66.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe requested, in accordance with article 52 of the ECHR, information from all forty-five governments of the High Contracting Parties on reports suggesting that terrorist suspects may have been secretly detained in or transported through a number of Council of Europe member states with the possible involvement of foreign agencies.

B.       ALLEGED SECRET DETENTIONS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES

67.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris the Bureau:

a.       took note that the President will send an open letter to the U.S. Congress;

b.       took note of the intention of Mr Marty, rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, to propose to the committee to present a first report on this subject to the Assembly during the January 2006 part-session under urgent procedure;

c.       invited the national parliaments to cooperate fully with Mr Marty in the preparation of his report.

68.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, on the President’s proposals, the Bureau invited the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to organise a hearing on this matter with those who can provide useful information (in particular NGO’s representatives, journalists, witnesses…) during the January part-session 2006 and to inform the Bureau on its action.

C.       EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF PRESIDENTS OF PARLIAMENT, TALLINN/HELSINKI (30 MAY – 1 JUNE 2006)

69.       On 7 October 2005 agreed on the two main themes to be addressed: “Bridge-building through Parliamentary Diplomacy” and “Role of Parliaments in promoting pluralistic democracy at home and abroad”.

70.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note of the state of preparations;

D.       HEARING ON THE CULTURAL SITUATION OF THE KURDS IN IRAN, IRAQ, SYRIA AND THE DIASPORA

71.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau following a discussion on the Hearing on cultural situation of the Kurds foreseen by the Committee on Science, Culture and Education in Paris on 30 November 2005, invited the Chairman of this Committee to postpone it in order that the Committee could re-consider the list of the invited personalities with a view to having a more appropriate balance.

72.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau :

i.       took note of the letters from the Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education and from the Chairman of the Turkish parliamentary delegation;

ii.       confirmed that it was the responsibility of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to establish the list of persons invited to this hearing;

iii.       invited the Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education to take into account the discussion in the Bureau when finalising the list of persons invited.

73.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau was informed by the Chairman of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education that the three persons proposed by the Chairman of the Turkish delegation will be invited in the hearing.

E.       COMMUNICATIONS

74.       On 25 November 2005 in Bucharest, the Bureau took note of the written communications by the President; the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe; and the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly.
75.       On 12 December 2005 in Paris, the Bureau took note of the communications by the President, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly.
76.       On 9 January 2006 in Paris, the Bureau took note of the communications of the President, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, as well as the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly.

AS/Mon(2005)38rev
5 December 2005
amondoc38R_2005

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

Post-monitoring dialogue with Slovakia

Memorandum prepared by Mrs Hanne Severinsen, 1st Vice-Chair, following her visit from 21 to 24 September 2005

I.        INTRODUCTION

1.       The Republic of Slovakia joined the Council of Europe on 30 June 1993, pursuant to the Assembly Opinion No. 175 (1993) and to Committee of Ministers resolution (93) 33. A monitoring procedure was opened in June 1995 on the basis of Order No. 508. Three fact-finding visits were carried out in this context in between 1996 and 1999, resulting in two interim reports. On 21 September1999, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1196 (1999) and Recommendation 1419 (1999), which closed the monitoring procedure. At the same time, it resolved to pursue its dialogue with the Slovak authorities on a number of issues referred to in paragraph 5 of the Resolution, or on other issues arising from the obligations of the Slovak Republic as a member State of the Council of Europe.

2.       At its meeting on 19 December 2000, the Monitoring Committee agreed to start implementing the post-monitoring dialogue in respect of Slovakia. Accordingly, the Slovak authorities were invited to provide written comments on the follow-up to the recommendations on the specific issues stipulated in Resolution 1196 (1999). On 19 June 2002, Mr Peter Weiss, the then Chair of the Slovak delegation to PACE, submitted an information paper on fulfilling the recommendations [AS/Mon (2002) 37].

3.       At its meeting on 15 December 2004, the Monitoring Committee authorised its then Chair, Mrs Durrieu, to make a fact-finding visit in January 2005 in order to obtain supplementary information and observe the progress in implementation of paragraph 5 of Resolution 1196 (1999). Due to the change in chairmanship, however, this visit had to be postponed. Finally, at its meeting on 1 June 2005, the Monitoring Committee authorised me, in my capacity as Vice-Chair of the Committee, to carry out this fact-finding visit to Slovakia from 21 to 24 September 2005 with a view to examining the possibility of terminating the post-monitoring dialogue with the Slovak authorities.

4.       During my visit, I met with the Vice-Chairman of the Government, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Education and Construction and Regional Development, the President of the National Council (Parliament), the chairs of the political parties and members of the PACE delegation, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, the Chairmen of the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, the Ombudsman (Public Defender of Rights), the President of the Council for Broadcast and Retransmission, the Vice-Chair of the Slovak Bar Association, the Mayors of Košice and Spišsk� Nov� Ves, representatives of human rights organisations and the Roma and Hungarian communities (see the attached programme). I am most grateful for the co-operation and valuable information that I received, which have fed into this memorandum. I appreciated the openness as well as critical and self-critical attitude towards carrying out the necessary reforms that I encountered during the meetings that I held with government officials and various state institutions.

5.       Having been rapporteur for the first Opinion concerning the accession of the Slovak Republic back in 1993, the various concrete steps taken and in particular the real legislative marathon, are obvious proof of the substantial progress achieved since accession to the Council of Europe. The accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 has further opened a new and promising phase in the country's development as a fully-fledged democracy that guarantees all its residents their rights and dignity.

6.       I sincerely thank Mrs Brestensk�, Head of the Slovakian delegation to the PACE, and the Slovak parliamentary delegation secretariat as well as the Council of Europe Information Centre in Bratislava who made a great effort to accommodate my requests, including the extension of the visit to meet the Roma Community in the region of Spiš and the Hungarian minority in Košice. I am grateful for the co-operation I received from the Slovak authorities, the Slovak parliamentary delegation to the PACE, the diplomatic representatives in Bratislava and the different NGOs alike.

II.       ISSUES REFFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF RESOLUTION 1196 (1999)

7.       The post-monitoring dialogue with the Slovak authorities has concentrated on the following issues that remained pending since Resolution 1196 (1999):

i.       the rights of the opposition, notably its participation in the parliamentary committees which oversee the activities of the intelligence services (control committees);
ii.       the independence of the judiciary, notably the procedures for the election of judges and the appointment of presidents and vice-presidents of courts, the case-load of courts, the implementation of decisions of the Constitutional Court, amnesty issues and the creation of the institution of Ombudsman;

iii.       administrative reform of the local and regional self government;

iv.       independence of the media, including during electoral campaigns;

v.       protection of minorities, notably the consequences of the law on state language and the need for a law on the use of minority languages;

vi.       measures to address the problems of the Roma population.

8.       The chapters below will strive to evaluate whether the steps taken in the follow-up to these issues have been such that they warrant envisaging the termination of the post-monitoring dialogue. They will concentrate on the developments between December 2000 and 24 September 2005. Any development subsequent to that date is not covered in the following paragraphs nor taken into account in the conclusions and recommendations of this memorandum.

9.       Already at the time of the adoption of Resolution 1196 (1999) the Assembly maintained that, after the 1998 elections, the opposition had become sufficiently represented in the parliamentary control committees and had the chair of one of them. Today, two out of three Special Control Committees of the National Council (the Special Control Committee for the Control of Activities of the National Security Authority and the Special Control Committee for the Supervision of Activities of the Military Intelligence Service) are chaired by an opposition MP.

10.       It is also noteworthy that the current government of Slovakia is in a minority position, with four opposition parties comprising 63 seats of the 150-MP Parliament and another 20 MPs acting as independents. Despite its minority position, the current ruling coalition in power since 2002 has managed to push through a rather bold and coherent reform package, which has been helped by the formerly authoritarian HZDS party (one of the major opposition parties) having changed its focus and backing Slovakia's EU and NATO membership in 2004.

11.       My visit to Bratislava coincided with the end of a nine-day political crisis brought about by Slovakia's minority cabinet having failed to secure enough votes to open a regular autumn session of parliament days after expelling the pro-business ANO party from its ruling coalition. I was pleased to observe in general the calm atmosphere of common sense that reigned in the Parliament even in these circumstances, which I consider as a good indication of the maturity of the political forces in the country.

12.       Since the opening of the post-monitoring dialogue, Slovakia has made substantial progress in bringing its legislation into harmony with its international obligations. I sincerely welcome the modification of Article 11 of the Slovak Constitution, according to which all international instruments on human rights and freedoms ratified by the Slovak Republic after taking effect of the Constitutional Act No. 90/2001 Coll. and promulgated under statutory requirements have taken precedence over national laws.

13.       Constitutional amendments in 2001 closed several loopholes which had previously enabled authoritarian forces to weaken the separation of powers in their favour. It also considerably strengthened the independence of the judges and the transparency of their election process. Several new institutions were created, including an ombudsman for human rights (Public Defender of Rights) and the Judicial Council. The position of the Constitutional Court was strengthened, and a second self-governing administrative level was created. The Slovak system of checks and balances thus became similar to those systems found in developed democracies.

14.       The judicial reforms have continued in May 2005 when the penal code was amended. The new law strengthens the rights of citizens, replacing Slovakia's outdated criminal statutes of 1961. A special court and prosecution office were established to prosecute corruption and organized crime. In addition, the civil code was amended in order to reduce the length of proceedings.

15.       Despite this progress, there have been frequent complaints of corruption in the administration and in the courts. This corruption is widespread, according to various reports.

a) Independence of the judiciary

16.       As regards the independence of the judges and the transparency of their election, under Article 6 of the Act No. 385/2000 Coll. on Judges and Lay Judges and on the amendment of certain acts, the so-called four-year "trial" period was removed and replaced by appointment of judges for an unlimited period. Whilst earlier the judges were elected by the Parliament upon proposal from the Government, now the judges are appointed by the President based on the proposal by the newly created Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic, an independent 18-member body presided by the President of the Supreme Court.

17.       The constitutional amendments have also enhanced the independence of the judges of the Constitutional Court through the extension of the term of office to 12 years and through making it impossible to be re-elected.

18.       At the time of adoption of Resolution 1196 (1999), the presidents and vice-presidents of district and regional courts were appointed, replaced and dismissed by the Minister of Justice, which was seen as an interference with the independence of the judges, in particular because the president of the courts used to distribute cases to the judges. Moreover, the disciplinary panels of judges were also appointed by the president of the court.

19.       According to the reformed system, the presidents and vice-presidents of the courts are elected from among the members of the council of judges established at all levels of courts, which themselves are elected by the assembly of the respective court from their ranks in a secret ballot. The President and the Vice-President of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of the Slovak Republic on the basis of a proposal of the Judicial Council of the Slovak Republic for a 5-year term and for not more than two consecutive terms (Article 145 (3) of the Constitution). Moreover, all cases at all levels of the court system are now distributed by a new electronic random computerized system, which has been operational since April 2005. Special courts were set up by Act No. 458.2003 Comm. to deal with disciplinary cases of the judges of district and regional courts and judges of the Constitutional Court.

20.       I fully acknowledge the success of the legislative and administrative reforms, which have significantly improved the independence of the judiciary. On the other hand, during my visit to Bratislava, my attention was drawn to some new discrepancies which I believe to have been created by the over-eagerness by the legislators to combat excessive delays in courts or to prevent any possibility of solidarity-based corruption among the judges in disciplinary courts. The latter concerns the introduction of some legislative changes affecting the position of judges, which could possibly pose a threat to the independence of the judiciary. For example, the new Act on Liability for Loss Caused by Public Power makes it possible for the State of Slovakia to require a judge to reimburse in full the compensation paid by the State to a citizen because of damage caused by the judge due to unnecessary procedural delays. This seems contrary to Opinion 3 of the Consultative Council of Judges to the Council of Europe (CCJE) on the principles and the Council of Europe rules governing judges' conduct, in particular ethics, incompatible behaviour and impartiality. This is also contrary to Article 16 of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, stating that “without prejudice to any disciplinary procedure or to any right of appeal or to compensation from the State in accordance with national law, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions”. The Prosecutor General has submitted an appeal against this provision to the Constitutional Court.

21.       The new Slovak legislation also includes a way of creating disciplinary senates according to which a person other than a judge may be elected as a member of a disciplinary senate and representatives of the executive and legislative powers may propose a decisive number of the disciplinary senate members, thus creating an area for direct or indirect actual influence of the other two state powers on the performance of judges.

22.       Furthermore, several provisions of the new Act on Judges and Lay Judges concerning wages of judges and aiming at better reflecting the differences in responsibilities have been delayed till now, thus creating a negative impact as regards the material guarantees for the independence of judges.

23.       Finally, despite the Act on Judges and Lay Judges of 2000 having strengthened the status of the judiciary by enshrining the principle of the non-transferability of judges, the recent Act on New Venues and Districts of Courts introduces a possibility to transfer a judge to another court without his/her consent.

24.       The competencies and independence of the Constitutional Court have been considerably strengthened, including also the enforceability of its rulings and a higher level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The new Section 7 of Article 129 makes the decisions of the Constitutional Court binding for all relevant public authorities, natural or legal persons. The relevant public authority is thus obliged to ensure implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court without any delay.

25.       New competencies of the Constitutional Court include the assessment of constitutionality of international contracts and questions to be subject of referendum, and a possibility to suspend the effect of legal regulations, parts thereof or some of their provisions once the Constitutional Court has accepted a motion to start proceedings, provided that their further application would jeopardize fundamental rights and freedoms, or that considerable economic damage or any other irreparable situation could result.

26.       Access to justice has also been considerably strengthened, enabling the Constitutional Court to decide on complaints lodged by natural persons who allege violations of their constitutional rights or of their human rights and fundamental freedoms resulting from an international treaty ratified by the Slovak Republic. In deciding in the case of a complaint when any basic rights or freedoms are breached, the Constitutional Court may award appropriate financial compensation.

27.       The constitutional amendments have thus created an effective domestic tool of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, which will in the long run also alleviate the case-load of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

c) handling of the case-load of courts

28.       The fundamental right of every person to have his or her case tried without undue delay as guaranteed by Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Slovak Constitution, and the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention of Human rights are the most frequently violated rights in the Slovak Republic. More than 95% of the total number of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic on constitutional complaints by individual applicants, concern violation of these rights. Similarly, most of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights against Slovakia relate to violation of the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time. Despite various efforts made over the years to reduce the courts’ backlog and eliminate delays of proceedings, the case load still remains excessive for a variety of reasons.

29.       In order to combat this problem more effectively, a position of senior judicial officers was created in 2002 to handle simple cases. According to the Ministry of Justice, about 800 such senior judicial officers have been recruited, which should be welcomed. Unfortunately no statistics seem to be available on the real impact of the creation of this position.

30.       In 2004, several laws were further adopted with a view to reducing undue delays in court proceedings: the new Code of Civil Procedure Amendment set a time limit of nine months after the filing of a motion to court before the first hearing; the Act on Mediation and the Act on Probation and Mediation Officers introduced the use of mediation respectively in civil and criminal matters as a form of out of court settlement between the parties.

31.       Notwithstanding all these positive developments, a cause for concern is the recent adoption in May 2005 of the new Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which upon the motion submitted by the Minister of Justice, will bring the Slovak Police Force back under military jurisdiction as from January 2006. I regret not having been aware of these provisions to re-militarise the Slovak police at the time of my visit to Bratislava, for it seems clear to me that any attempt to include the police officers under the jurisdiction of military courts and their militarization is not in compliance with the resolutions and recommendations of the Council of Europe, the Geneva Convention or the acquis communautaire of the European Union. As was explained to me by the Chair of the Slovak Police Trade Union at a later meeting in Strasbourg, this decision had been justified by the fact that, with the professionalisation and reduction of the Armed Forces, the military courts would be able to hold court proceedings in an accelerated manner. Such reasoning, however, is unacceptable and finds no support in any European police-related law or in the Council of Europe resolutions and recommendations as stated above.

32.       Another concern raised in Resolution 1196 (1999) was the possibility offered by Slovakian law of granting an amnesty during an investigation, and even before it has begun, which is not compatible with the requirements of the rule of law. I have received a confirmation from the Slovak authorities that this possibility has been repealed by the constitutional amendments of 2001.

33.       The institution of Ombudsman (Public Defender of Rights) was set up in March 2002 with the election by the National Council of the first Slovakian Ombudsman, who was elected from within the oppositional party Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (HZDS).

34.       By law, the Office of the Ombudsman, being an independent body, participates in the protection of basic rights and freedoms of both natural and legal entities in case of action, decision-making or inactivity of bodies of public administration provided that their action, decision-making or inactivity run against the legal regulations or principles of a democratic state of law. The Ombudsman can receive complaints from individuals or can act on his/her own initiative. He does not provide private individuals with a legal remedy against discriminatory establishments, but his Office can provide independent legal services to victims. Regrettably the office's usefulness is seriously curtailed by its lack of direct sanctioning authority and by a relatively narrow scope of manoeuvre, having persuasion, notification of superior bodies and the media as the only instruments at hand. Although frequently present in all eight regions of the country, the fact that the Ombudsman does not have regional branches or the resources to effectively cover the whole territory diminishes further the control that this body can exert upon local authorities.

35.       Nevertheless, this new institution seems to have established itself well in the Slovak legal and administrative framework. It currently comprises a staff of 39 persons. In its three years of functioning, the office has received approximately 7,800 applications, of which 93% have been processed. It has further provided legal counsel and advice in 12,000 cases. According to the Ombudsman, less than 300 applications concerned constitutional breaches of human rights regarding undue delays of procedures, violation of the right to information, to permanent residence or to health care. The largest number of complaints has been filed against state administration, social insurance and public health authorities.

36.       In its Resolution 1196 (1999), the Assembly called upon the Slovak authorities to promote decentralisation and the restructuring of the administration by increasing the powers of local self-government authorities, introducing regional self-government and carrying out elections to regional councils by 2001. It also urged the state authorities to ratify the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

37.       The National Council of the Slovak Republic ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government by its Resolution No. 516 on 26 October 1999. The Charter came into effect on 1 June 2000.

38.       Local and regional democracy in the Slovak Republic have undergone a radical change since then, the country having evolved from a strong unitary system to a fully decentralised one. The reform has been conducted on a comprehensive basis, developing at the same time the local and the regional layers of government. Along with the ratification of the European Charter, the government in power in 2000 published a strategic political document called the "Concept for decentralisation and modernisation of public administration" (No. 230, of 11 April 2000). Most of the developments that have taken place afterwards have been anchored in that strategy with the final aim of creating a streamlined government territorially divided in three layers: a) State administration, b) regional authorities and c) local authorities.

39.       The Constitutional amendments of 2001 provided the prerequisites for carrying out this reform. In addition, on 4 July 2001, the National Council approved the Act No. 303 on Self-government of Higher Territorial Units (Act on Self-Governing Regions), which set up eight self-governing regions and called for elections to those bodies. In the same year the transfer of a number of competencies in various areas of public administration from the bodies of local governments to regional governments was approved as well.

40.       The first regional elections in Slovakia's history took place on 1 December 2001, after which the governing bodies of the Regions were established. The autonomous regions started their activities in 2002 with a transitional period until the end of 2003. During that period, a number of acts and amendments to existing legislation were passed with a view to establishing a full and comprehensive statutory framework for the regions. Also, during the same period the state transferred many powers and jurisdictions from the state level to the regional one, for instance in education, health care, social services, environmental matters and even local taxes. Many former state administration powers such as the state welfare system, issuance of building permits, management of construction proceedings, etc. have been transferred to the municipalities. January 2004 marked the beginning of the full life of the regions, which has improved the overall level of democracy in Slovakia.

41.       The regional democratisation process has also become more dynamic after Slovakia's accession to the EU, which is supporting regional development policy of the member states by offering them different instruments. On the other hand, it would be wishful thinking to expect that such a complex and radical reform would not be accompanied by some problems, even if the Slovakian authorities truly deserve recognition for the fact that no serious failures have occurred during the transition process. Although the regions are functioning relatively well, thought should be given to ways of improving their efficiency, particularly in political and economic terms.

42.       The funding of the regions has evolved in the last three years. In 2002 – 2004, the regions were mainly financed by direct subsidies from the central administration in order to fund their operating expenses. However, the financial system of the regions has been completely renovated as from 1 January 2005, following some new legislative amendments approved in 2004. In the new system, the regions have a new financing system, in which they levy their own tax, and get a share of income tax. While under the old system, the regions received 98% of their revenues via subsidies, under the new system this share is less than 50% from this source and around 50% from the regional tax. Nonetheless, it seems that the current system only covers the operating costs of the regions, but that it has not solved yet the problem of investment costs. To this end, it would be desirable to reinforce the process of fiscal decentralisation and to increase the financial autonomy of the regions so that they would be able to perform a comprehensive programme of investments in order to boost the quality of life and regional competitiveness.

43.       Another issue brought to my attention by the Mayor of Košice is the regrettable fact that while the regions have been vested with the primary task of regional development, the management of the European Union structural funds is entrusted to the central administration (this being linked to the insufficient size of the regions). As also pointed out in the final statement of the recently held colloquy on the "Regional Democracy in the Slovak Republic and the Process of Strengthening Regional Authorities", the self-governing regions would like to have more intensive participation in the complex management and implementation procedures of the EU structural funds, especially in the programming period which is now under preparation for the years 2007-2013 in the National strategy reference framework.

44.       Unfortunately the public administration reform does not seem to have triggered much popular support so far. I had a feeling that many people simply still do not fully understand the role of the regions in the new decentralised society. This is probably also one of the reasons that explains the low participation rate in the last regional elections. New regional elections are scheduled to take place on 26 November 2005. Barely two months before the forthcoming elections, I was surprised during my stay not to find any sign of political campaigning for these elections. It remains to be seen whether the electoral turnout will improve with this election, but there seems to be a serious need for helping Slovak citizens getting "connected" with their regional authorities.

45.       Finally, the various new competences of local and regional authorities, such as the sale of municipally-owned real estate, the allocation of flats or public procurement to name but a few, are tempting sources for corruption and misuse of public resources. With this danger in mind, proper supervising and independent monitoring mechanisms would need to be set up. The recent creation of special courts to deal with corruption cases of public officials is the first positive step in this direction.

46.       The Slovak Republic has been listed among the top eight countries with the greatest press freedom in the third annual worldwide index of press freedom announced by the Reporters without Borders for the year 2004.

47.       The independence of the media in the Slovak Republic is safeguarded through the freedom of expression, the right to information and the right to express opinion guaranteed in Article 26 of the Slovak Constitution and other laws regulating press publishing and broadcasting (the Act of Periodic Press and the Act of Broadcasting and Retransmission). There is an undeniably high degree of pluralism in the press and the electronic media as witnessed by the great number of printed press and electronic media channels – both public and private (e.g. there are currently 83 licensed TV broadcasters, four of whom nation-wide). The only restriction is applied to foreigners who need to apply for an approval of a competent state authority in order to be granted access to press publishing, which seems to be in contradiction with Article 26 paragraph 2 of the Slovak Constitution guaranteeing that "everyone" has the right to express opinion in print and that no approval is required for press publishing.

48.       The previous Monitoring Committee report on Honouring the Obligations and Commitments by Slovakia (Assembly Doc. 8496 of 6 September 1999) criticised the composition and status of the Broadcasting and Retransmission Council, which was at the time not compatible with the independent nature of this institution. In the year 2000, new Acts on the Radio and Television Broadcasting and on the Broadcasting and Retransmission Council were adopted, which created a dual system of public media and private media broadcasting and strengthened the independence of the Broadcasting and Retransmission Council as the regulatory authority. The latter is now funded 90 per cent from subscription fees and advertising, the share of state subsidies having decreased to a mere 10 per cent (the percentage is supposed to drop even further). The nine members of the Board of the Broadcasting and Retransmission Council are now elected by the Parliament for a period of six years, renewable once. In order to ensure objectivity and guarantee continuity, every other year three of the nine members rotate. Nonetheless, as was pointed out by Mr Cs�ky, Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for European Affairs, Human Rights and Minorities, as well as by the President of the Broadcasting and Retransmission Council, the new system of appointment of members of the Council's board is still not entirely free of political influences and interests of different party groups.

49.       In early 2004, the new Acts on the Slovak Television and Slovak Radio came into force which turned them into proper public service broadcasters based on public funding, functioning for public service under public supervision. While earlier the CEOs and Directors of the Slovak TV and the Slovak Radio were nominated by the parliament, the new Acts foresee that these nominations are made by the Board of the Broadcasting and Retransmission Council.

50.       Participation of private electronic media in election campaigns has been for a long time fully guaranteed in the case of presidential election campaign and municipal self-administration election campaign. Until lately the participation of private media was not governed by the Act on elections for bodies of self-governing regions nor by the Act on elections to the National Council since the Act on broadcasting and retransmission, adopted in September 2000, prohibited political advertising in radio and television broadcasting unless provided differently by a special regulation. I received, however, confirmation from different sources that these problems have now been solved.

51.       Ethnic Slovaks form about 85.8% of the country's multi-ethnic population representing 12 national minorities spread throughout the country: Hungarians 9.7%, Roma/Gypsies 1.7%, Ruthenians 0.4%, Ukrainians 0.2%, Germans 0.1%, Moravians and Silesians 0.1%, Croatians 0.02%, Jews 0.04%, Polish 0.06%, Bulgarians 0.02% and Czechs 0.8%. Geographically speaking, none of them occupies a whole region.

52.       In general, Slovakia may be regarded as exemplary in Europe in providing its minorities their cultural rights to promote their language and culture. It has ratified most of the major Council of Europe instruments on the protection of national minorities: the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1998), the European Convention on Nationality (2000) and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (2001). It has also signed – though not yet ratified - Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

53.       At national level, the legislative framework for minority protection has also been considerably improved in the past years. The ratification of the European Charter of Regional and Minority languages has called for new amendments to the existing domestic legislation. Currently, as was pointed out to me by the Deputy Prime Minister for EU Integration Mr Cs�ky, some provisions of the State Language Law are still in contradiction with the Charter. In order to implement the Charter properly, as many as eight domestic acts would need to be amended in the nearest future. New draft laws on national minorities and on the funding of minority cultures, based on the government resolution No. 278 of 23 April 2003, are also currently being prepared.

54.       The Law on the Use of National Minority Languages (Minority Language Act, No. 184/1999 Coll.), which came into force in September 1999, grants members of a national minority, which constitute at least 20% of the population of a municipality, the right to use their language in official communications with the authorities. The law also provides for street names and other local geographical signs to be written in that language. Some minority groups, particularly the Hungarians, are making use of the possibility of using their own language in contacts with local authorities. However, as regards especially the Roma community, the Law is underused in the 54 municipalities that exceed the required percentage. One barrier to its implementation is that the official figures for persons who have identified themselves as Roma in the last census in 2001 widely under-estimate the real size of the Roma population (see more below); another is that the Romany language, which exists in a number of dialects in Slovakia, is not codified and is not spoken by all Roma. Also, some of the Ruthenian communities (in about 20 municipalities) are limited in their right to use their minority language in official communication for the reason that the government has still not adopted an updated list of municipalities in which members of the national minority represent at least 20 per cent of its total population after the 2001 census.

55.       According to Article 34 of the Slovak constitution, persons belonging to national minorities and ethnic groups have the right, under the conditions laid down by a law, to be educated in their language. Citizens of Czech, Hungarian, German, Polish and Ruthenian nationality are ensured the right to education in their own language to an extent proportional to the interests of their national development. Thus minority schools exist not only at primary level but also at secondary level. The first public University offering education of students mainly in Hungarian was recently opened in Kom�rno. The preferential treatment agreement concluded in 2003 between the Slovakian and Hungarian governments on the mutual support for national minorities in the field of education and culture has further strengthened the rights and protection of the largest minority group – the Hungarians. The latter community is also represented in the government coalition by the Ethnic-Hungarian Coalition that occupies 20 seats of the 150-member National Council.

56.       The legislative framework for combating discrimination has also been considerably improved and is generally in line with European norms in this area. The implementation of the EU anti-discrimination Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC has further enhanced minority protection. The key achievement in this area, however, has been the adoption of the comprehensive "Law on Equal Treatment in Some Fields and on Protection against Discrimination" (generally referred to as the Anti-Discrimination Law) in May 2004, which provides protection against any form of discrimination and guarantees the victims a possibility to claim for an adequate and efficient protection by the court, including compensation of damages and non-pecuniary loss. The entry into force of some of its provisions related to positive (affirmative) action has been delayed by the fact that the Slovak Government has recently challenged their compatibility with the Constitution. The outcome of the Constitutional Court ruling on this issue will be of great significance to the future development of the Roma communities in Slovakia as it is difficult to imagine the possibility of reducing or eradicating de facto discrimination against the Roma minority without these measures.

57.       Another positive step has been the extension by the Anti-Discrimination Act of the role of the Slovak National Human Rights Centre, which has been vested with the task of promoting equal treatment and combating all forms of discrimination. The Centre has thus become the main body for monitoring and collecting complaints against discrimination on the labour market and providing legal assistance to the victims of discrimination.

58.       In addition, I note with appreciation the setting up of a special commission to deal with racially motivated violence and of the Racism and Xenophobia Monitoring Centre, which further manifest the continuous efforts undertaken to combat racial discrimination and related violence. Nevertheless, I share the concern of several other international institutions and NGOs about the occurrence of racially motivated crimes and incidents in the country.

59.       The situation of the Roma community remains probably one of the most serious problems in the Slovak society. The scope of this report does not permit comprehensive elaboration on all the problems related to the Roma society in Slovakia; therefore I will limit the discussion on a few key issues that I regard as the most relevant ones for the purpose of this report, namely

60.       My observations during the visit to Slovakia as regards the Roma community largely fall in line with the recommendations presented in various other recent reports dealing with the Roma issues, such as the United Nations Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on Slovakia, the reports of the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights, the third ECRI report on Slovakia, the report by Mr Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights on his visit to the Slovak Republic in 2001, and many others.

61.       The Government of the Slovak Republic has stated that the situation of the Roma is their short and long-term priority. It has focused its policy and invested considerable sums on eliminating the poverty in Roma settlements and mitigating the results of social exclusion of the Roma, especially by solving their housing situation, reducing unemployment, developing education projects and improving their access to main social institutions. The overarching priorities in these areas have been set out in the Priorities of the Slovak Government in respect of Integration of Romany Communities for 2004. These priorities are reflected in the Slovak Republic's first National Action Plan against poverty and social exclusion which were submitted in 2004.

62.       The governmental policy has also included some institutional changes. In October 2001, a detached office of the Government Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities was opened in Prešov with the purpose to collect information, coordinate activities and monitor effectiveness of particular governmental measures related to Roma communities. This office was restructured in 2004 and provided with more staff and increased budget allowing its activity to expand and five regional branches to be set up.

63.       Another institutional measure has been the establishing of a Multi-Sector Commission for Issues of Roma Communities, a consulting, initiating and coordinating body of the Government for issues related to the position of the Roma in the Slovak Republic.

64.       At the end of 2001, the Secretariat of the Government Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities launched a campaign under the title We Are All Citizens of the Slovak Republic – Solution to the Relations between the Roma And the Non-Roma lies in Cooperation, supported by a grant from the World Bank. Activities of the campaign are directed to state and public employees, media and the general public. It is the ambition of the campaign to start up a process of gradual changes, to change attitudes of the majority society towards the Roma, to improve communication between the Roma and the Non-Roma, and to make the Roma visible positively.

65.       According to the Slovak Intelligence Service's report published in May 2004, an increased amount of funds, both EU funds (PHARE) and from the budget of the Slovak Government, has been invested to deal with the Roma issues very year. Yet it voices strong criticism over the fact that the lack of project co-ordination and transparency in activities of entities involved, vague objectives of the projects and especially insufficient control, have resulted in ineffective spending or sometimes misuse of these funds.

66.       One of the fundamental problems, which remain the basis for many other inadequately tackled problems, is the general lack of reliable and solid data about the Roma community in Slovakia. Even the number of the Roma living in the Slovak territory is very difficult to establish. In the last national census in May 2001, 89 920 citizens of the Slovak Republic professed the Roma nationality, which accounts for 1.7% of the population of the Slovak Republic. However, different estimates put the current population of Roma origin in Slovakia between 320,000 and 450,000.

67.       In view of the need for more precise information on the Roma population in Slovakia, the Office of the Government's Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities ordered a Socio-graphic Mapping of Romany communities in Slovakia in 2003-2004, which concluded that Roma lived in 1,575 settlements of various types, of which about 60 per cent (in 722 settlements) live in an integrated manner, dispersed among the majority population.

68.       Most of the Roma NGOs and representatives that I met in Bratislava and Spišsk� Nov� Ves were very critical about the government and political parties not being sufficiently interested in dealing with the Roma issues. However, I found it very difficult to synthesise any credible information from the complaints that mention concrete percentages yet not agreeing on whether it applied to a community of 300,000 or 500,000. In this regard, I am convinced that many of the specific Roma problems could be tackled with much wider-scale attention at national level if the Roma community was more organised and manifesting its identity. Given the dispersed nature of the different Roma communities around the country, as well as the almost non-existent representation of the Roma in state, regional and municipal institutions, active Roma representatives should be encouraged to integrate into existing political structures in different regions where their concentration among local population is high.

69.       Despite serious improvements in all areas concerning the Roma situation and numerous programmes and policies, progress remains slow and somewhat intangible. Poverty persists in Roma communities and consequently access to appropriate housing, employment and education, social, health and financial services remains severely limited.

70.       Housing remains a mayor concern, with large numbers of Roma living in segregated settlements lacking such basic amenities as water, sanitation and electricity . Many Roma live in extremely substandard, racially segregated slum settlements. Most such slum settlements are characterised by extremely substandard housing, ghetto-like neighbourhoods, a prevalence of environmental hazards including toxic waste, rubbish tips, etc., lack of formal infrastructure such as paved roads, electricity, heating, sewage removal and are frequently excluded from other public services, such as bus or the post. Roma remain particularly vulnerable to eviction from housing. Discrimination in the allocation of social and other public housing has also been frequently reported in the Slovak Republic. Municipalities often tailor ostensibly neutral criteria for housing, such as requirements for employment, permanent residence, or "moral credit", in such a way as to disadvantage Roma as much as possible. Municipal administrations are also reported to exploit Roma in order to force them to move. Together with housing companies and gas and electricity firms, they impose exorbitant fines on poor families when they are late in paying services.

71.       Ensuring access to education is still a serious challenge, and a form of segregation. Despite the formal guarantee of non-discrimination in education under Articles 12 paragraph 2 and 42 of the Slovak Constitution, segregation of Roma children in special schools continues. Though various programmes have been introduced focusing on improving the educational opportunities of the Roma children such as pre-school grades at elementary schools, the inclusion of the Romany language education, the preparation classes in elementary schools and positions of teacher's assistants for Roma pupils, there is still a disproportionately high representation of Roma children in the special (mentally disabled) schools on the Slovak territory. It is believed by some of the Roma NGOs I met that in some schools for the mentally disabled, 95 per cent of the children are of Roma community. According to more official data of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights, 7,000 out of the total number of 32,244 children attending special schools were of Roma minority.

72.       In March 2004 a PHARE project on the Reintegration of Socially Disadvantaged Children from Special Schools to Standard Elementary Schools concluded that the current diagnostic tests that all children at school-entry age have to undergo fail to take account of the cultural and social differences between children, upon which the Ministry of Education has undertaken to prepare differential diagnostics for Roma children from a socially disadvantaged environment.

73.       The 2001 PHARE project Support of the Roma Minority in the Educational Field, which aims to improve the educational level of the Roma children through involving mothers in pre-school establishments, introducing whole-day education, etc. is also at the implementation stage. In May 2004, the government approved the concept for the Integrated Education of Roma Children and Youth with the aim of creating conditions for the integrated education of the Roma children and youth. Initiatives have also been launched to train Roma language and literature teachers for primary and secondary schools.

74.       The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its concluding observations recognises the efforts made in the field of employment, including the recent adoption of the amended Labour Code which prohibits discrimination in its section 13. However, the de facto discrimination against Roma and the over 90 per cent unemployment rate among the Roma community (compared to 17.5% nationwide) remains an alarming fact. Racial discrimination in employment is often disguised by the fact that the Roma are less educated, and, thus, are not qualified for employment. Despite the recent amendment to the Labour Law, which has made such practices illegal, discrimination in employment (both in direct and indirect forms) remains widespread.

75.       I am convinced that only co-ordinated efforts carried out in the context of an overall plan and addressing comprehensively the multiple problems of access to employment, housing and education will make it possible to break out of the relentless spiral in which the Roma community has been trapped all too long. It is therefore indispensable that the authorities realise the specificity of this community's needs and cater for them by allocating the necessary resources.

76.       Discriminatory attitudes and feelings of hostility towards members of the Roma community are deep-rooted and widespread throughout the country. Racially motivated violence against the Roma continues to be a significant problem in the Slovak Republic. The response of the police to such crimes has considerably improved owing to the establishment of the Commission for Co-ordinating Actions to Eliminate Racially Motivated Crimes, a body tasked with exchanging information on racially motivated crime and co-ordinating action in eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, including offences committed by police officers, and its extension to regional branches at the level of directorates of the Police Corps. In 2004, a commission focused on the acquisition and exchange of information on the occurrence of all forms of intolerance, xenophobia and expression of all forms of extremism and racism was set up by the Ministry of the Interior. Furthermore, within the framework of the reorganisation of the Police Force, an unit to combat racism and extremism was created on 1 January 2004 in the department for the fight against terrorism at the office for the fight against organised crime of the Police Force Presidium. In addition to the above, police force officers take part in seminars and conferences organised by bodies active in the area of Roma national minority issues. While the presence of Roma in the police force is still very low, the Minister of the Interior has recently announced the proposal to establish twenty police specialists for Roma communities by 2007. These specialists will be expected to be fluent in the Romany language and have a thorough knowledge of the community.

77.       Nevertheless, the continuing alleged incidents of police brutality against the Roma and other vulnerable groups, harassment and ill-treatment during police investigations indicate a need to remain vigilant in this area. Because of prevalent stereotypes and biased attitudes towards the Roma, the latter are extremely vulnerable to degrading and inhumane treatment at the hands of police and prison staff. As reported by ECRI as well as by several NGOs, the investigation of crimes of torture committed by police or prison authorities continue not to be properly investigated, and perpetrators are hardly ever brought to justice. The victims of such crimes often continue to be treated as the perpetrators of crimes with little credibility given to their testimony. Regrettably, police investigators are often insufficiently trained in identifying racially-motivated crimes based on other factors besides the use of racist language during the course of the crime, resulting in racially-motivated crimes being underreported.

78.       While acknowledging the many initiatives taken by the Slovak authorities in the field of training and education of the police, these efforts should be stepped up so as to put an end to discriminatory practices. Prompt and impartial investigation is paramount in countering discriminatory attitudes and practices. As long as similar practices persist among the law-enforcement bodies, there is little hope that stereotype attitudes would change among the mainstream population or any confidence could be built up between the police and the marginalised communities.

79.       In addition, adequate mechanisms should be put in place to encourage victims of racial ill-treatment to lodge complaints. Such mechanisms could include independent contact points, recruiting police officers from minority or other vulnerable groups or appointing members of these groups as advisors or liaison officers to the police at local level.

80.       It is also recommended that the investigation of complaints in respect of the police be conducted and overseen by a body independent of the police and the Ministry of the Interior.

81.       Furthermore, effective legal protection and remedies are generally lacking for victims of discrimination, notably for the Roma community, which makes it extremely difficult for them either to defend themselves against criminal charges or to seek to vindicate their rights through the judicial system. Although formal legal representation is given to every defendant for whom such representation is legally required, the quality of this legal assistance is highly variable. It is therefore recommendable to diversify targeted training programmes for judges and other public officials working with the Roma and other vulnerable groups.

III.       CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

82.       The Slovak Republic has formally fulfilled its commitments undertaken in Opinion 175 (1993) upon accession to the Council of Europe as well as the major bulk of the recommendations listed in Resolution 1196 (1999) which closed the monitoring procedure and opened a post-monitoring dialogue.

83.       The country has made outstanding progress in a very short time in remodelling its politics, economy and society and carrying out important judicial and administrative reforms. I commend the Slovak authorities for the recent Constitutional amendments and other legislative reforms which have significantly strengthened the independence of the judiciary, allowed access for natural persons to constitutional complaints, facilitated speeding up the court proceedings and fight against corruption in courts. The country has also successfully carried out its administrative reform. Furthermore, I particularly welcome the establishment of the offices of the Ombudsman (Public Protector of Rights) and the Government Plenipotentiary for Roma Communities.

84.       Nevertheless, some important shortcomings still persist in areas referred to in the various paragraphs of this memorandum, which are not denied by state authorities. Although various different measures and strategies have been conceived over recent years to improve the situation of the Roma minority in Slovakia, it is evident that this community still continues to be gravely disadvantaged in most key areas of life and that their situation requires serious attention as the social and economic precariousness of this community embodies a crucial obstacle to a homogenous and equitable development of the country's population as a whole. There is also justified concern about the increase of racially motivated violence and allegations of discriminatory behaviour by the police and other law-enforcement bodies towards members of minority groups, particularly Roma, including acts of ill-treatment and violence. Although anti-discrimination laws are generally in place, real, widespread and sustainable improvements coupled with adequate resources are needed for the adequate application of the legislation. I appreciated the openness as well as critical and self-critical attitude towards tackling the above problem issues that I encountered during my meetings with government officials and various state institutions in Bratislava. These exchanges of views have convinced me that the authorities truly seek to improve and to implement legislation regarding the above fields.

85.       Also, as most of the issues pertaining to racism and discrimination are to a large extent similar to problems faced elsewhere in western and central Europe, I am convinced that they will continue to be tackled through the EU directives and programmes as well as through specific international instruments that the Slovak Republic has adhered to, which are closely monitored by various competent organisations: EU, UN, OSCE, Council of Europe.

86.       With regard to the fulfilment of its obligations and the remaining commitments as member state of the Council of Europe, the Slovak authorities should continue to work towards short and long-term improvements in the various areas underlined in the above chapters of this memorandum as well as in the recent reports by different international inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations. To this end, they are called upon to:

i.       continue the efforts in combating excessive delays in court proceedings and fighting corruption in public services, without any prejudice to the independence of the judiciary or financial liability of the judges;

ii.       examine the possibility of extending the direct sanctioning authority as well as the resources of the Office of the Ombudsman and setting up fully-functioning regional offices in the country;

iii.       step up bringing national laws in line with the Charter of Regional and Minority Languages; examine the possibility of ratifying Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

iv.       exert additional efforts to combat racial intolerance and xenophobia by efficiently implementing the Anti-Discrimination Law and providing for the necessary structures and means for the functioning of the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights as the monitoring authority in discrimination matters;

v.       intensify co-ordinated efforts under a comprehensive plan for access of Roma to housing, employment, mainstream education and financial services with a view to combating their exclusion and social marginalisation. Make full use of the resources offered by the EU for that purpose;

vi.       fully implement in practice the legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment and all discriminatory practices in the labour market; take further measures to focus on professional training of the Roma in order to reduce unemployment among this community; to this end, consider the introduction of some elements of positive (affirmative) action into legislation concerning education, training and employment;

vii.       continue monitoring all tendencies that may give rise to racist and xenophobic behaviour and to combat the negative consequences of such tendencies; take all necessary measures to combat racial violence and incitement, provide proper protection to Roma, and establish effective, reliable and independent mechanisms to receive complaints from victims and ensure prompt and impartial investigation and prosecution of cases of racial violence and incitement of racial hatred; make adequate provisions for compensation and rehabilitation of victims of torture and ill-treatment;

viii.       set up an independent monitoring mechanism to investigate allegations of police abuse;

ix.       enhance the efforts to offer targeted training to the police, the judiciary and public officials pertaining to the issues of human rights and in particular implementation of legislation concerning racial discrimination.

87.       I have confidence in the Slovak authorities' will and capacity to continue to take action on the above as well as on the further recommendations by different organisations, including the various specialised Council of Europe bodies such as the ECRI, the CPT, the CLRAE, the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention of Protection of National Minorities and the Office of the Commissioner of Human Rights. In this belief, I deem it timely and appropriate to propose to the Bureau of the Assembly to conclude this post-monitoring dialogue with the Slovak authorities.

Programme

of the visit of the 1st Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe
(Monitoring Committee)

of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
to the Slovak Republic

September 21-24, 2005

21 September 2005 – Wednesday

11.25       Arrival of Mrs Hanne Severinsen (Denmark, ALDE) and Mrs Ivi-Triin Odrats, Co-secretary, Monitoring Committee in Bratislava by Slovak Airlines flight 6Q 321 from Brussels

13.55       Departure for the Government of the Slovak Republic

14.00 –15.00       Meeting with Mr P�l CS�KY, Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic for European Affairs, Human Rights and Minorities

15.05       Departure from the Office of the Government of the Slovak Republic

15.10 – 15.30        Meeting with Mr Viliam FIGUSCH, Director of Information Office of the Council of Europe and representatives of the Slovak Society for the Foreign Policy

15.30 – 17.30       Meeting with NGO representatives

19.00       Dinner hosted by H.E. J�rgen Munk RASMUSSEN, Danish Ambassador,

22 September 2005 - Thursday

8.50       Departure for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic

9.00 – 9.30       Meeting with Mr Eduard KUKAN, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic
      (Hlbok� Street 2, Bratislava)

9.30 – 10.30       Meeting with Mr Pavol HRUšOVSK�, President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (tbc.)

12.00 – 13.30       Lunch hosted by Mr Vojtech TK�c, member (former Head) of the Slovak delegation to the PACE

13.45 – 14.55       Meeting with the Chairmen of the political parties

15.00 – 15.50       Meeting with Mrs Darina MICHALKOV�, Vice-Chairman of the Bar Association

16.00 – 16.45       Meeting with Mrs Val�ria AGOCS, President of the Council for broadcast and retransmission
      (N�mestie SNP c. 12, Bratislava)

17.00 – 18.00       Meeting with Mr Pavel KANDR�c, Ombudsman

19.00       Dinner with the Members of the Permanent delegation of the NC SR to the PA CE

23 September 2005 - Friday

8.30       Departure for the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic

8.40 - 9.15       Meeting with Mrs Lucia ŽITnANSK�, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic

9.15       Departure for the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic

9.20 – 10.00       Meeting with Mr Milan KARAB�N, Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic and Mr Juraj MAJCHR�K, Chairman of the Association of Judges of the Slovak Republic

10.00       Departure for the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic

10.15 – 10.55       Meeting with Mr Martin FRONC, Minister of Education of the Slovak Republic

11.00       Departure for the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic

11.15 – 11.50       Meeting with Mr Vladim�r PALKO, Minister of Interior of the Slovak Republic

11.55       Departure from the Ministry of Interior of the Slovak Republic to the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic

12.05 – 12.45 Meeting with Mr L�szl� GYUROVSZKY, Minister of Construction and Regional Development of the Slovak Republic

12.45       Departure for the lunch

13.00 – 14.10       Lunch hosted by Mrs Be�ta BRESTENSK�, Head of the Permanent delegation of the NC SR to the PACE

14.20       Departure for Košice

17.30 – 18.00       Meeting with Mrs Anna FEDOROVA, Mayor of Spišsk� Nov� Ves and visit of the Roma community in the region of Spiš

19.30        Arrival to Košice

24 September 2005 – Saturday

8.30       breakfast at the hotel

9.00 – 9.30       Meeting with Mr J�n Maz�k, Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic

9.45 – 10.15       Meeting with Mr Zdenko Trebula, Mayor of Košice

11.00 – 11.45        Visit of the Hungarian minority

12.00 – 13.00       Lunch hosted by Mrs Be�ta Brestensk�, Head of the Permanent delegation of the NC SR to the PACE

13.00       Departure for the airport

13.10       Arrival to the airport of Košice

14.25       Departure for Prague

Composition of the delegation:

Contact address:

National Council of the Slovak Republic

Tel.: 00 421/2/59 72 25 01
Fax: 00421/2/54 41 53 24

Part II

1.       INTRODUCTION

1.       The Bureau met on 23 January 2006 in Strasbourg.

2.       FUNCTIONING OF THE ASSEMBLY

A.       PROGRESS REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AND OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE (7 OCTOBER 2005 – 23 JANUARY 2006)

2.       On 23 January 2006, the Bureau approved the Progress report.

B.       1st PART OF THE 2006 ORDINARY SESSION (23-27 JANUARY 2006)

3.       On 23 January 2006, the Bureau:

i.       Request for debate under urgent procedure:

ii.       up-dated the draft order of business;

iii.       agreed to give the floor to the Secretary General of the Assembly in the context of the Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee;

iv.       meeting with the Chairpersons of the parliamentary national delegations (Tuesday 24 January 2006, from 6 pm to 7.30 pm): took note of the draft agenda;
v.       Credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan: in case of challenge, recommended to the Assembly to refer this matter to the Monitoring Committee for report and to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities for opinion.

vi.       Urgent debate on the “Situation in Belarus on the eve of the presidential election”: took note of the participation of Mr Milinkievic (Belarus opposition) and agreed that only the Speaker or the first deputy speaker of the Belarus parliament would be entitled to take part in this debate.

C.       REFERENCES AND TRANSMISSIONS TO COMMITTEES

4.       On 23 January 2006, the Bureau approved the following proposals, subject to ratification by the Assembly:

a.       references:

1.       Doc. 10536
Motion for a resolution presented by Mr Torosyan and others

2.       Doc. 10782