|
|
14 September 1995
Doc. 7383
REPORT
on the accession of the European Community to the
European Convention on Human Rights
(Rapporteur: Mrs WOHLWEND,
Liechtenstein, Group of the European People's Party)
Summary
The Parliamentary Assembly reiterates the wish it expressed in 1981 that the European Community should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Community treaty provisions on the protection of human rights are inadequate, and at present there is no external monitoring of the Community's acts.
Accession would enable the Community to recognise the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, which it would thus render enforceable in its legal system. Accession would also effectively strengthen the protection of all persons affected by Community law. Lastly, it would help to clarify the mechanisms for safeguarding human rights.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly solemnly reaffirms its dedication to respect for and effective protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.
2. In its Resolution 745 (1981) the Assembly expressed itself "desirous both to widen and to strengthen the scope of the Convention's implementation" and called on the European Community to make a formal application to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights in the near future. It repeated this wish in Recommendation 1017 (1985), considering that "the time has now come ... for the political decision to be taken for the Community to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights".
3. Noting that the European Parliament, on its side, has made similar recommendations, the Assembly welcomes the position repeatedly taken up by the European Parliament, notably in its resolutions of 15 December 1993, 18 January 1994 and 11 April 1995, where it reaffirmed the need for accession by the Community. The Assembly also takes note of the Commission's opinion, as well as the decision of 19 April 1994 of the Council of the European Union, that the Court of Justice of the European Communities should be consulted on the subject.
4. The European Parliament has referred many times, notably in its resolution of 18 January 1994, to the existence of gaps in the system for protecting fundamental rights, which have become more serious with the widening of the Community's powers and which will exist "until such time as the Community is subject to the monitoring procedures provided for under the European Convention on Human Rights, in the same way as its member states".
5. The Assembly is convinced that the Convention constitutes an unparalleled framework for the safeguard of fundamental rights and freedoms in Europe and that the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights's institutions should be extended to all persons affected by Community law.
6. The Assembly notes that the European Convention on Human Rights is not applicable to the organs of the European Community or to their legal acts. It points out that accession would strengthen the safeguard of human rights in Europe, ensure effective protection of the rights of Community citizens and establish coherence in the system for safeguarding fundamental rights, while avoiding any risk of parallel interpretation of the Convention's provisions by the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
7. The Assembly therefore expresses the hope that the Community will soon take the necessary steps to submit its formal application for accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.
8. It encourages the European Parliament to continue to advocate such action, while emphasising the paramount importance of the European Parliament's support in the matter.
9. It calls on the parliaments of the European Union's member states to promote the Community's accession, in particular by urging their governments to back within the Council of Ministers any formal accession proposal presented by the European Commission.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mrs WOHLWEND
Contents
I. Introduction
II. The arguments in favour of accession
A. Strengthening human rights in Europe
B. Strengthening the protection of Community citizens
C. Unifying European public law
III. Conditions for accession
A. Political and institutional objections
B. Technical objections
C. The practical implications
IV. Conclusion
Appendix
*
* *
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The European Community and the Council of Europe are the two main partners in the process of co-operation in Europe. One, whose role was at first chiefly economic, has had its powers considerably expanded; the other, whose function is of a more generalist kind, has developed an unrivalled instrument for promoting and protecting human rights in Europe.
2. The accession of the European Community to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) is regarded as a logical stage in the evolution of the two institutions, which are pursuing common objectives through the consolidation of the principles of democracy and the strengthening of the protection of fundamental rights. It was for the purpose of more fully safeguarding freedoms and human rights within the Community that accession was first proposed in the 1970s.
3. Following the Commission of the European Communities memorandum of 4 April 1979 and the European Parliament resolution of 27 April 1979, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe welcomed the prospect of such accession, emphasising in its Resolution 745 of 29 January 1981 that accession "would form an important bond between the European Communities and the member states of the Council of Europe in the specific field of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and would thus contribute to strengthening the principles of parliamentary democracy and the implementation of basic human rights".
4. The Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on 1 November 1993, symbolises the Community institutions' new concern that the fundamental rights of European citizens should be effectively respected in the exercise of the Community's ever more numerous powers. Accession to the Convention would undoubtedly represent the fullest possible application of the principles set out in Article F.
5. Pursuing the same approach, the European Parliament once more clearly reaffirmed its support for accession in three resolutions - those of 18 January 1994 (in which it emphasised that "there will be gaps in the system for protecting fundamental freedoms until such time as the Community is not subject to the monitoring procedures provided for under the European Convention on Human Rights, in the same way as its member states"), 4 May 1994 and 11 April 1995. Concurrently, on 19 April 1994, the Council of Ministers of the Community asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities for its opinion on the compatibility of accession to the European Convention on Human Rights with the Community treaties.
II. THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF ACCESSION
6. The European Community's powers and sphere of action have rapidly expanded with the progressive transfer of its member states' competencies, particularly since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty. However, these substantial changes, which entail a danger of infringements of Community citizens' rights, have not been counterbalanced by any additional legal protection.
A. Strengthening human rights in Europe
7. The fundamental rights and freedoms of Community citizens need to be clearly affirmed, especially as new protection requirements are becoming apparent. However, the Community treaties do not contain any reference to civil and political rights, nor any provision expressly devoted to the safeguarding of human rights.
8. Admittedly, in addition to laying down the important general principles of freedom of movement for workers (Article 48), freedom of establishment (Article 52) and freedom to supply services (Article 59), the EC Treaty does provide for certain specific rights (Article 119: equality of treatment between men and women; Articles 7 and 48: non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality), but these rights are scattered and therefore need to be grouped together as well as supplemented with new ones.
9. The preamble to the Single European Act of 17 to 26 February 1986 expresses the European Community member states' determination "to work together to promote democracy on the basis of the fundamental rights recognised in the constitutions and laws of the member states, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Social Charter, notably freedom, equality and social justice".
10. The Treaty on the European Union clearly emphasises — in Articles F, paragraph 2, J.1, paragraph 2, and K.2, paragraph 11 — the Community's dedication to human rights, as well as embodying four new rights (right to move and reside freely within the territory of member states; right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European elections in the member state where one resides; right to petition the European Parliament and right to apply to the European Ombudsman; protection in third countries by the diplomatic and consular authorities of any member state).
11. The European Community has endeavoured to strengthen the rights of Community citizens progressively, but these efforts have often been incidental to its economic role (see Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, of 9 December 1989). On the other hand, its proposed code of rights and freedoms is aimed at filling more effectively the gaps existing in the recognition and protection of individual rights.
12. In the absence of explicit references in the treaties, some Community member states have given the fundamental rights appearing in their national constitutions precedence over the provisions of derived Community law. Such a threat to the uniform application of Community law is one of the factors behind the drawing of a Community code of fundamental rights.
13. This process, which began long before the proposal for accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, led to the adoption on 12 April 1989 of a Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which does not however have the force of law, as well as a proposed constitution of the European Union, on 10 February 1994, comprising a catalogue of fundamental rights and a protective system.
14. It should be emphasised, however, that the European Convention on Human Rights constitutes the minimum standard of protection for rights common to the European democratic countries, on the basis of which the Community, like every state party to the European Convention on Human Rights, may develop its own principles, thus going beyond the European Convention on Human Rights's requirements.
15. The Council of Europe is trying to carry out the reforms necessary for improving the European Convention on Human Rights's effectiveness and adapt it to the new social circumstances. While the protection afforded by the European Convention on Human Rights relates mainly to the civil and political freedoms of individuals, and subordinately to economic and social rights, the Council of Europe can always in due course widen the protected fields, by means of additional protocols or by new instruments (Revised European Social Charter, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, draft protocol on cultural rights).
16. The Council of Europe has succeeded in progressively and pragmatically improving the mechanisms for protecting human rights, in particular with the opening for signature on 6 November 1990 of Protocol No. 9 (access for applicants to the Court) and on 11 May 1994 of Protocol No. 11 (establishment of a single, permanent Court operating full-time and introduction of an automatic right of individual petition so as to ensure sound and efficient investigation of abuses of fundamental rights).
17. A Community catalogue might therefore offer a "bonus" serving to supplement, not replace, the European Convention on Human Rights. It is this pragmatic, complementary approach that the European Parliament is sponsoring.
B. Strengthening the protection of Community citizens
18. The Community's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights would be a token of its will to make effective provision for human rights on its own account. Reference may be made in this connection to:
— the Copenhagen Declaration of 14 December 1973, where the Nine stated that they were "determined to defend the principles of representative democracy, the rule of law ... and respect for human rights";—
— the Joint Declaration of 5 April 1977, where the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission stressed "the prime importance they attach to the protection of fundamental rights, as derived in particular from the constitutions of the member states and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In the exercise of their powers and in pursuance of the aims of the European Communities they respect and will continue to respect these rights";—
— the Copenhagen European Council's Declaration of 8 April 1978, stating that "respect for and maintenance of ... human rights in each member state are essential elements of membership of the European Communities".19
19. With the enlargement of the scope of Community law, the Community is increasingly having direct legal relations with individuals, and its activity is no longer confined to certain sectors of the economy, such as those defined by the treaties, but cover all facets of society. In view of the growing influence of its actions on the everyday lives of citizens, it is not surprising that the wish is being expressed that the Community's powers should be counterbalanced by its formal subjection to clear and well-defined rights.
20. With a few exceptions, however, Community citizens are at present denied a protection of their fundamental rights. Indeed, they cannot institute proceedings for the setting aside of regulations or directives that do not concern directly and individually, even though they are applicable to them.
21. The Community's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will thus enable every citizen to be given the opportunity to appeal directly to an external international judicial institution, as well as enable acts covered by the Community legal system to be subjected to verification of their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights's provisions in the same way as acts covered by national legal systems.
22. Another obstacle to the safeguarding of fundamental rights is the impossibility of appealing to the European Convention on Human Rights's institutions against the Community itself or against its member states (either individually or collectively).
23. As observed by the European Commission in its communication to the Council of 19 November 1990, accession will serve to fill a legal vacuum, that of the judicial immunity of Community acts; for at present the only remedy available against such acts is a right of appeal to the Court of Justice of the Communities (Article 173 of the EC Treaty).
24. However, while the European Commission of Human Rights has refused up to now to examine petitions levelled directly against the European Community or against a member state that has properly applied Community law, that does not altogether preclude the possibility of subjecting Community acts to supervision by the Strasbourg institutions. The question of states' responsibility in respect of acts of the Community remains open.
25. The reason for this is that, in implementing Community law, it is the Community's member states that are ultimately liable to be subjected to the sanctions of the European Court of Human Rights in the Community's stead, and be condemned on account of derived Community law. The conclusion of the Community treaties by the states has not released them from the obligations they contracted in the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, it is still possible for an individual to submit to the Strasbourg Commission an application against a member state in respect of a national measure designed to implement Community law, and even a measure taken by the Community, and for the state to be condemned.
26. The European Community is not therefore penalised on account of the implementation of its acts, and it evades any control other than the "internal" supervision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights would remove this risk by permitting direct appeals against such acts as well as against implementing measures taken by member states in cases where they do not possess wide discretionary powers.
C. Unifying European public law
27. Just as much as the strengthening of the protection of rights or the recognition of new economic, social and cultural rights, a clarification of the system for safeguarding human rights under the European legal system now seems necessary.
28. As emphasised by the European Parliament, accession to the European Convention on Human Rights is the most appropriate means of co-ordinating the protection of human rights in Europe and structuring the European "area of freedom".
29. The protection of fundamental rights in the Community results from a noteworthy case-law construction. The Court of Justice of the European Communities, which has limited jurisdiction in the matter, has progressively attenuated the absence of recognition of fundamental rights in the treaties by referring both to the common constitutional traditions of member states and to the international instruments to which they have acceded.
30. Although the European Court of Justice refused at first to consider the validity of Community acts in relation to fundamental rights protected by national constitutions, it gradually amended its practice, clearly declaring that "it cannot uphold measures which are incompatible with fundamental rights recognised and protected by the constitutions of member states" or by the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus, in the NOLD v. Commission case of 1974 the Court of Justice stated: "... international instruments for the protection of human rights on which the member states have collaborated or of which they are signatories can supply guidelines which should be followed within the framework of Community law".
31. The Court of Justice has repeatedly referred both to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the solutions adopted by the Strasbourg Court. However, the Community is not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which only constitutes a source of "inspiration" for the Court.
32. There are therefore numerous overlaps, which sometimes lead to divergences in the applicable law as well as to contradictory judgments. These overlaps and, hence, conflicts between the two courts may occur at two levels of their case law:
— First, while the Luxembourg Court does apply the European Convention on Human Rights's provisions de facto, it is not bound to do so de jure. It therefore remains the sole judge whose interpretations of those provisions are unchallengeable. Some differences of opinion may therefore arise with regard to the substantive implications of this or that principle (such as in the matter of non-discrimination: Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 7 and 48 of the EC Treaty), as well as with regard to the restrictions which may be imposed on this or that protected right.—
— Secondly, one and the same disputed situation is liable to be dealt with by the two courts in a parallel but not necessarily concordant manner. The European Court of Justice may analyse a judicial case from a strictly economic point of view, without referring to any abuses of human rights. The existence of judicial supervisory machinery outside the Community legal system would make it possible to prevent rights and freedoms from being weighed up against the requirements of the internal market.33
33. It must be acknowledged, however, that both courts have so far endeavoured to adopt a cautious approach. Nevertheless, in cases of conflicts between Community acts and the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights it is now necessary to unify the ways in which the law is applied. In this respect, accession to the European Convention on Human Rights would be the appropriate solution as there is at present no system comparable to the European Convention on Human Rights for protecting human rights.
III. CONDITIONS FOR ACCESSION
34. As repeatedly stressed by the European Parliament and by the Commission of the European Communities in its Memorandum of 4 April 1979, the process of accession is complex and controversial yet "none of the difficulties which have appeared in this context seem insurmountable".
35. However, while the technical impediments can be readily resolved, the various political objections raised over the past fifteen years can only be overcome if a clear and positive determination to accede emerges both in the Community institutions and in the member states.
A. Political and institutional objections
36. In its reports the European Parliament has frequently recorded objections bearing principally on the reluctance of some Community member states.
37. Some states have for instance invoked constitutional problems, contending that accession would lead to changes in their national law. The "back door" argument has been raised by certain "dualist" states (United Kingdom, Ireland; Denmark and Sweden quite recently) which previously did not recognise the direct applicability of the Convention provisions in their domestic law. Once Community law automatically forms an integral part of national legal systems, accession would have the effect of making the Convention provisions directly enforceable, in the Community's areas of competence at the very least.
38. It would appear that this argument can no longer be validly invoked today. The ECJ itself applies the Convention to activities of member states coming within the ambit of the Community, whose accession to the Convention would thus guard against its application by the ECJ in a manner contrary to the accepted interpretation.
39. Certain states also fear that accession may have the effect of giving the Community a power in respect of human rights and the ability to exercise general control over their activity from that angle. Accession should bring about no major change, however, as the Community member states are already subject to the supervision of the ECJ.
40. These reservations would appear to have formed a serious impediment for the Commission, which has so far been unable to secure from the Council a mandate authorising it to negotiate the terms of accession, and they account for the Council's difficulty in reaching a decision on the proposal.
B. Technical objections
41. Accession to the Convention also raises another set of objections, concerning firstly the established supervisory machinery, whose effectiveness depends on the Community's compliance with them, and secondly the Community's position within the Convention organs (European Commission and Court of Human Rights; Committee of Ministers) which its compliance will entail.
1. Requirements for the Community's effective participation in the Convention organs
42. The Community's participation raises the awkward problem of its representation in the three Convention organs.
43. Where the European Commission and Court of Human Rights are concerned, the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates that these two organs may not comprise more than two nationals of the same state (Articles 20 and 38). However Protocol No. 11, in its new Article 20, removes this condition. Some have suggested that it would be inexpedient to appoint Community representatives, while others have proposed appointing a Commission member and a judge ad hoc, that is sitting only for cases which involve the Community. In fact there should be no problem over the question of effective participation by a Commission member and a judge for the Community in the decisions of their respective organs, in that the Community judge would represent the Community legal order and not his/her country of origin, in accordance with the principle of impartiality of judges who, it may be recalled, sit in an individual capacity (Article 23 European Convention on Human Rights; Article 21, Protocol No. 11). In order to secure the Community's full participation, it is necessary to attach to the Court and Commission a judge and a Commission member (only one judge if Protocol No. 11 comes into force) representing the Community as such and sitting permanently, irrespective of the type of case before them.
44. As to representation in the Committee of Ministers, it has been proposed that the persons sitting in this body should be the President-in-Office of the Council or alternatively the President of the Commission of the European Communities. It can nevertheless be accepted that the Community's representation in the Committee of Ministers (sitting by virtue of Article 32 European Convention on Human Rights) would not be mandatory if arrangements were made at the time of accession for automatic referral of all cases implicating it to the Court. This solution, in keeping with Protocol No. 9 and in a sense anticipating the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 (which takes away the Committee of Ministers from any role concerning the examination of applications), is advantageous in that it would avoid subjecting the Community to control, however limited, by representatives of the governments of states not belonging to the European Union, and would also reassure these states that no blocking minority would be formed within the Council.
45. On the other hand, as regards supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the execution of Court judgments (Article 54 European Convention on Human Rights) there is nothing to prevent the Community from being associated with the proceedings of the Committee of Ministers in this matter.
46. It should be emphasised that the Community's accession would be simpler if Protocol No. 11 was speedily ratified by all states Parties and took genuine effect as early as possible.
2. The Community's compliance with the Convention supervision procedures
47. Accession to the Convention is not only a matter of recognising the rights which it secures, but above all of complying with the supervision procedures defined therein.
48. The Community's accession to the Convention will be meaningless unless it asserts its resolve to safeguard human rights through the imperative acceptance of the two fundamental provisions:
—th e right of individual petition (Article 25), the cornerstone of the Convention;—
—st ate applications (Article 24).49
49. The operation of the right of individual petition determines the very effectiveness of the human rights protection machinery; in virtually all cases, the control exercised by the Convention organs is triggered by an individual applicant. Since the opening for signature of Protocol No. 11, under which the optional clause in Article 25 becomes mandatory, all new Convention signatory states must also accept this protocol. The same should apply to the Community.
50. As to state applications, there is no reason for the Community to be immune from applications by states Parties to the Convention (and vice versa). However, recourse to Article 24 might be confined to applications against states Parties to the Convention not belonging to the European Union. Applications against Union member states would in fact appear to come within the internal jurisdiction of the Community (Article 173 of the Treaty). Moreover, Articles 219 EEC, 87 ECSC and 193 EAEC forbid member states to subject any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaty to a method of settlement other than those provided for therein. As the Commission furthermore points out in its 1979 Memorandum, the Community has sufficient means of action at its disposal in the event of fundamental rights under Community law being violated. Conversely, some authorities on the subject have argued that there is no objective reason why, after the ECJ has delivered judgment in a dispute between the Community and a member state, the case should be referred to the Strasbourg Court.
3. The obstacle of exhaustion of domestic remedies (Article 26 European Convention on Human Rights)
51. It has been contended that accession to the Convention would entail lengthy delays for applicants as Article 26 would require them to make use of all remedies available under the Community system before referral of a case to the European Convention on Human Rights organs. This argument leaves out of account the preventive effect which accession would have in making the Community more careful to ensure conformity of its legislation with the Convention and with the Court's case-law. Furthermore, the procedure is prolonged solely at the initiative of the individual, and to his benefit since an additional remedy is thereby provided. Lastly, the provision of such a remedy need not obstruct the application of Community law; an application is not suspensive, so that the decisions of the ECJ remain enforceable. Prolongation of the procedure therefore cannot be invoked as a ground for denying the benefit of human rights protection arrangements.
C. The practical implications
52. This report deals only succinctly with the chief practical implications of the Community's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, since it will not really be possible to discuss them in detail until negotiations have opened and made sufficient progress.
1. The legal foundations for possible accession
53. Accession may be achieved through the adoption of a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights providing for the requisite derogations and revisions, and ratified by all Council of Europe member states. The Community should moreover accede to all Protocols, and in any case with as few reservations or interpretative declarations as possible.
54. The Commission of the Communities submitted it its 1979 Memorandum that the Community should make only such reservations as are absolutely essential having regard to its internal structure, justified by its specific nature, and strictly confined to matters specific to the Community.
2. The need to adapt the Convention
55. However it may be achieved, the Community's accession to the Convention presupposes some amendments to the text of the Convention itself, particularly to Articles 66 paragraph 1, 65 paragraph 3, and 38, which stipulate that only Council of Europe members may accede to it.
56. In addition, it will be necessary to amend provisions whose terms do not allow for the Community's legal personality: Articles 20 paragraph 1, 28, 31, 64 and, if applicable, 10 and 17, mention the concept of "state" (which will no doubt have to be replaced by the term "High Contracting Parties"), together with Articles 8 and 11 which refer to "national security" and "economic well-being of the country" (it should suffice to specify in the accession protocol that these concepts also apply to the Community).
V. CONCLUSION
57. The European Community and the Council of Europe pursue the identical goal of preserving a European heritage of fundamental rights and freedoms. Defence of this heritage must of necessity be consistent and based on a firm legal foundation.
58. The underlying aims of the projected accession are to offer citizens of the Community a comprehensive system safeguarding their rights, to unify practice and case-law and to guarantee the effectiveness of the Convention. Accession is desirable not only for legal reasons, being crucial to the coherent development of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in tomorrow's Europe, but also for political reasons in strengthening both the Council of Europe, which would be confirmed in its traditional function, and the European Community when it is transformed into a political union.
59. Accordingly, now more than ever before, new impetus must be given to relations between our two institutions. Considering the extent and complexity of the action required, the appropriate institutional machinery must be promptly set in motion. The debate can nevertheless be usefully continued and clarified in the light of the forthcoming opinion of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the conclusions of the Reflection Group set up to prepare the Inter-Governmental Conference when they come to hand.
60. For the foregoing reasons, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights proposes the draft resolution heading this report. It further proposes an amendment to the report on the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference of the European Union (Doc.7373 prov.), to read as follows:
"In the draft recommendation, insert after paragraph 12.iv a new sub-paragraph worded as follows:
`to set up forthwith a working party to determine the manner of the European Community's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and its practical implications for the Council of Europe.'"
APPENDIX
I. Relevant provisions of the Treaty on European Union:
Article F-para. 2: "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 ..."
Article J.1-para.1: "The objectives of the common foreign and security policy shall be ... to develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms".
Article K.2-para.1: "The matters referred to in Article K.1 that is asylum policy, immigration policy, combating drug addiction ...] shall be dealt with in compliance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ..."
II. Relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Article 24: "Any High Contracting Party may refer to the Commission ... any alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention by another High Contracting Party."
Article 25: "The Commission may receive petitions ... from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention ..."Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Reference to committee: Resolution 745 (1981).
Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 11 September 1995.
Members of the Committee: Mrs Err (Chairperson) (alternate: Mrs Lentz-Cornette), MM. Schwimmer, Jansson, (Vice-Chairpersons), Amaral, Bartumeu Cassany, Berti, Bindig, Bučar, Candal, Cimoszewicz (alternate: Bartodziej), Cioni, Columberg, Deniau, Endziņš, Fenech, Fogaš, Frunda, Fry, Fuhrmann, Galanos, Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout, MM. Grimsson, Guenov, Hagĺrd, Mrs Holand, MM. Hunault, Inönü (alternate: Mimaroglu), Mrs Jaani, MM. Jaskiernia, Kairys, Karas, Kastanidis, Kempinaire, Kirca, Lord Kirkhill, MM. Koschyk, Loutfi, van der Maelen, Maginas, McDowell, Mészáros, Moeller, Németh, Poppe, Rathbone, Rhinow (alternate: Gross), Robles Fraga, Rodeghiero, Mrs Scopelliti, MM. Severin, Solé Tura, Mrs Soutendijk-van Appeldoorn, Mrs Theorin, MM. Trojan, Vinçon, Mrs Wohlwend.
N.B. The names of those members who took part in the vote are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Bakardjieva and Ms Kleinsorge.
1 1 1. See Appendix.