|
|
Council of Europe / Conseil de l'Europe
F-67075 Strasbourg cedex (France)
Tél :+33/ 3 88 41 20 00
Fax : +33 / 3 88 41 27 02
Email : [email protected]
http://stars.coe.fr/
Doc. 8057
2 April 1998
Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedures
(April 1997 – April 1998)
Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States (Monitoring Committee)
Rapporteur: Mr Guido de Marco, Malta, Group of the European People's Party
Summary
The committee was established on 25 April 1997. This is the first activity report, required to be presented annually according to Resolution 1115 (1997). The report gives an account of the main activities of the committee: follow-up to procedures started under Order No. 508, design and opening of new procedures according to the terms of reference set forth by Resolution 1115, exchanges of views and opening of dialogue with ten national parliamentary delegations, and visits of co-rapporteurs to ten of the fifteen countries on the committee’s agenda. Some proposals are made for improving the new system - as regards, for instance, constitution of the committee, transparency of procedures, and the presentation of interim information reports to the Assembly.
Building on the inheritance of Orders Nos. 488 (1993) and 508 (1995), the committee has based its work on cooperation with the national parliamentary delegations of the countries concerned, on complementarity with the work of other committees of the Assembly, and on dialogue with the Committee of Ministers - notably, in respect of the Council of Europe’s intergovernmental activities for the development and consolidation of democratic stability. It has tried to give expression to the political dimension of parliamentary monitoring, with emphasis not only on formal subscription to legal texts but on implementation of principles to which explicit commitments have been made.
I. Draft resolution
1. The Assembly recalls that at the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government (October 1997) Council of Europe member states confirmed their determination to respect the commitments and obligations which flow from the Organisation’s basic principles: pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
2. The Assembly reaffirms the sui generis character of its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States (Monitoring Committee), established on 25 April 1997 by Resolution 1115 (1997) in order to strengthen its means of inquiry into the observance of these principles.
3. The Assembly approves the guidelines developed by the Monitoring Committee for its work, notably:
i. a non-confrontational long-term approach based on the logic of persuasion, with a view to solving specific problems in the “monitored” countries;
ii. focus on the political character of parliamentary monitoring;
iii. full account of the geopolitical context and domestic concerns of the “monitored” countries;
iv. development of a confidential dialogue focused on well-defined issues with the national parliamentary delegation of the member state for which monitoring is initiated or envisaged.
4. It notes that the Monitoring Committee:
i. has brought before the Assembly reports on the Czech Republic and on Lithuania, leading to the adoption of recommendations aimed at influencing:
a. monitoring procedure of the Committee of Ministers, and
b. Council of Europe’s intergovernmental work programme, notably the special programmes of co-operation and assistance for the countries of central and eastern Europe;
ii. has transmitted to the Bureau, at its request, a written opinion on the situation of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace (Greece);
iii. has proposed and obtained the opening by the Bureau of the Assembly of a monitoring procedure for Latvia, on the basis of a written reasoned application prepared in full co-operation with the Latvian parliamentary delegation;
iv. is currently monitoring obligations and commitments of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine.
5. The Assembly stresses the need for efficient co-ordination between the monitoring activities of its various committees, including ad hoc committees of the Bureau, on the basis of the following understanding:
i. that under Resolution 1115 (1997), the Monitoring Committee is responsible for the whole range of obligations (Statute of the Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights and other conventions) and commitments entered into by each monitored country (“country monitoring”);
ii. that under existing rules and procedures, other committees may deal with specific issues of a short-term character which arise in a monitored country.
6. The Assembly stresses the need for stronger co-operation and dialogue with the Committee of Ministers. To this effect, monitoring of obligations and commitments of member states should be regularly on the agenda of the Joint Committee.
7. With a view to transparency, the Assembly decides that written opinions of the Monitoring Committee on whether to open a procedure will be published as attachments to the Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee.
8. The Assembly urges national parliamentary delegations to continue to co-operate constructively with the Monitoring Committee.
II. Draft recommendation
1. The Assembly recalls that at the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government (October 1997) Council of Europe member states confirmed their determination to respect the commitments and obligations which flow from the Organisation’s basic principles: pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
2. Recalling its Resolution … (1998), the Assembly stresses the need to strengthen co-operation and dialogue with the Committee of Ministers as regards monitoring of obligations and commitments by member states.
3. The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i. adopt ministerial replies to Assembly recommendations on monitoring as a matter of priority;
ii. reconsider its decision on absolute secrecy of its monitoring documents;
iii. make information available to the Monitoring Committee’s rapporteurs;
iv. include monitoring regularly on the agenda of the Joint Committee.
III. Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur
A. Introduction
B. The mandate and the sui generis character of the Monitoring Committee
1. The mandate
2. Opening of a monitoring procedure
3. The sui generis character of the Committee
C. The development of a new monitoring approach
1. A non-confrontational approach
2. Working methods
(a) criteria for appointment of rapporteurs
(b) priority issues
(c) confidential dialogue with the national parliamentary delegations
concerned
(d) in camera meetings of the Committee
3. Relations with other Assembly committees
4. Relations with the Committee of Ministers
(a) parliamentary monitoring as distinct from intergovernmental monitoring
(b) Assembly Recommendations and the need for prompt replies of the Committee of Ministers with a view to follow-up action
D. State of procedures
1. Presentation of Recommendations on the Czech Republic and Lithuania
2. Consultation on the opening of a monitoring procedure: minority rights in
Western Thrace (Greece)
3. Opening of a new procedure: Latvia
4. Progress in respect of other procedures
E. Proposals for improvement
1. Constitution of the Committee
2. Transparency of “consultation procedures”
3. Accountability to the Assembly: interim information reports
F. Conclusions
Annex 1 State of procedures
Annex 2 Opening of a monitoring procedure – schematic representation
Annex 3 Areas which have been covered under monitoring procedure
Annex 4 Development of the Assembly’s monitoring system 1993-1997
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Committee came into existence and held its first meeting on 25 April 1997, in accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997). Its terms of reference are part of this Resolution.Its essential purpose, as set forth in the first two Assembly Recommendations resulting from its work1, is to inquire more effectively, on behalf of the Assembly, into the observance by Member States of the Council of Europe of "… the principles of the rule of law and the enjoyment by all persons within [their]juridiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms " (article 3 of the Statute, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
2. The creation of the Committee was the culmination of a long process of reflection with a view to establishing an effective parliamentary monitoring procedure. The process started in 1993 when the Parliamentary Assembly was the first body of the Council of Europe to set up a monitoring mechanism. The Assembly has never since stopped adapting and strengthening this mechanism. A brief presentation of the various steps - Order 488 (1993), Resolution 1031 (1994), Order 508 (1995) – is given in annex.
4. 3. From its first meetings, the Committee has sought to determine the implications of its special mandate and sui generis character, as established by Resolution 1115. It has permitted itself a margin of creativity, within the parameters set by the Resolution. It has thus been able to develop its own approach, working methods and principles; to define the character and distinctive purpose of parliamentary monitoring; to establish its role in relation to other Assembly committees and to other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms.
5. 4. By the terms of Resolution 1115, the Committee is required to present an annual report on “the general progress of monitoring procedures”. In less than a year, the Committee has taken forward all eleven monitoring procedures taken over from the previous system, has caused the opening by the Bureau of the Assembly of a new procedure, and has been consulted by the Bureau on the opening of another procedure. The Committee has also reflected on some problematic aspects of its mandatory Resolution and has drawn up some proposals to improve its work.
B. THE MANDATE AND SUI GENERIS CHARACTER OF THE COMMITTEE
B.1. Mandate
5. According to Resolution 1115, the Monitoring Committee has a special mandate to verify:
- the fulfilment of general obligations assumed by all Member States under the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and other Council of Europe conventions ;
- the honouring of specific commitments entered into by the authorities of some Member States upon accession.
6. Specific commitments are listed in the Assembly’s Opinion on the accession of the State concerned. They are frequently referred to in the Committee of Ministers’ Resolutions on accession. They can thus be easily identified.
7. As far as general obligations are concerned, the Preamble and Article 3 of the Statute constitute the general framework: respect for the principles of pluralist democracy; the rule of law; and the enjoyment by all persons within the State’s jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. An indefinitely long list of areas may be considered as covered by these three main obligations, which in any case partially overlap. The Committee may have to specify them more precisely.
8. A list of 21 areas which have been covered under monitoring procedure is in annex. Although this list cannot be more than indicative, it has proved to be a helpful point of reference.
B.2. Opening of a monitoring procedure 2
9. It emerges from the Committee’s mandate that all Member States may be subject to the Assembly’s monitoring process, since they all have obligations under the Statute. At the same time, a special system for the opening of a procedure is foreseen by Resolution 1115. It was introduced in response to criticism that under the previous system decisions to open procedures – a politically sensitive matter - were taken too abruptly. Except in special circumstances, a procedure should not be opened until six months after accession.
10. Under the new system, the Bureau of the Assembly has the authority to open a procedure, but not without consulting the Monitoring Committee. The decision to open a procedure can be taken on the basis of an application:
- from the Monitoring Committee3 or other Assembly committees, through a “reasoned written application” to the Bureau;
- from not less than ten members of the Assembly (representing at least two national delegations and two political groups) through the tabling of a Motion for a Resolution or Recommendation ;
- from the Bureau of the Assembly.
11. Applications (other than those made by the Monitoring Committee itself) are referred for consultation to the Monitoring Committee. When consulted by the Bureau on a proposal for the opening of a procedure, the Committee appoints two co-rapporteurs to prepare a draft written opinion on whether a procedure should be opened , having carried out any “necessary investigations”.4 The Committee seeks to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to justify the opening of a procedure for the State concerned.
12. The Bureau’s decision, in the light of the Committee's opinion, is recorded in the Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee.5 The Assembly has the opportunity to ratify or query this decision when adopting this Report.
13. If the Bureau decides to open a procedure, the matter is referred for report to the Monitoring Committee, which appoints two co-rapporteurs. At the same time or at a later stage, the Bureau may decide to refer the matter for opinion to other committee(s) "when strictly necessary".
B.3. The sui generis character of the Monitoring Committee
14. The Committee’s special mandate - including the system for opening a monitoring procedure - already implies its sui generis character. Resolution 1115 has further implications to this effect:
- constitution and composition
- members are proposed by Political Groups – not by National Delegations - and are appointed by the Bureau (subject to ratification by the Assembly);
- there are no alternates;
- Chairpersons of the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights are ex officio members;
- rapporteurships
- two co-rapporteurs - ensuring a “political and regional balance” – are appointed in respect of each Member State for which a procedure is initiated (or for which the Committee must prepare an opinion on whether a procedure should be initiated) ;
- the co-rapporteurs remain members of the Committee, until the Assembly takes a decision on the relevant report;
- discussion in Committee
provision is made for the participation of members of the national parliamentary delegations who represent the opposition to the ruling majority in the Member States concerned;
- annual “progress report”
no other Committee has this obligation;
- relations with other Assembly committees
- when a procedure is initiated by the Bureau, the Monitoring Committee is necessarily and exclusively seized for report;
- other committees will only be seized for opinion “when strictly necessary”;
- special relationship with the Bureau of the Assembly
- members are appointed by the Bureau;
- the opening of a procedure is the result of co-operation with the Bureau;
- the Bureau itself has authority over the status – confidential or not - of the Committee’s “memoranda and drafts”.
C. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MONITORING APPROACH
C.1. A non-confrontational approach
15. Since its first meeting, the Committee has reflected on the character and purpose of parliamentary monitoring. It has adopted a non-confrontational long-term approach, in contrast to a sanction-orientated approach. Monitoring is understood as a process of seeking solutions to specific problems rather than a process of confrontation. It is not the threat of sanctions but the logic of persuasion that should prevail in order to achieve the desired changes. This should not be interpreted as weakness. If the Committee feels that the logic of persuasion is interpreted as weakness or lack of determination, it can propose concrete action, including sanctions, to the Assembly -and through the Assembly, by means of a Recommendation to the Committee of Ministers.
16. At the same time, the Committee has tried to give expression to the political nature of parliamentary monitoring. The emphasis is not exclusively on whether a Convention has been ratified but - if ratified - how it is applied in practice. For this, the Committee has tried to give expression, in its reports, to a deeper understanding of the geopolitical context and domestic concerns of the country being monitored.
C.2. Working methods
17. Accordingly, the Committee has developed specific methods. These methods include:
(a) criteria for appointment of rapporteurs
18. From the outset, at its first meeting on 25 April 1997, the Committee determined:
- that no rapporteur should deal with more than one State at a time;
- that no rapporteur should belong to a neighbouring State, or to one having a special relationship with the State being monitored;
- that the two co-rapporteurs for each State should come from different countries and different political groups, and that their appointment should take into account regional and political balance as well as other rapporteur appointments.
19. With a view to continuity and insofar as these new criteria permitted, former rapporteurs for procedures under the previous system who were members of the new Committee were re-appointed.
(b) priority issues
20. The mandate of the Committee covers all specific commitments and general obligations undertaken by Member States. As already mentioned, an indicative list of 21 areas covered under previous monitoring procedures was prepared as a reference document and is joined in annex.
21. Experience under the previous system suggested that it was unrealistic and even counter-productive to seek to cover all these areas during a single visit of rapporteurs or in a single report. The Committee thus decided to focus, in the first phase of its work, on well-defined specific issues, in respect of which progress should be made as a matter of priority. Co-rapporteurs have thus prepared issues papers for each State being monitored, as a basis both for initial exchanges of views with national parliamentary delegations and - in the light of these exchanges - for focusing discussion during their visits.
(c) confidential dialogue with the national parliamentary delegations of the States concerned
22. Dialogue with the national parliamentary delegations of the States for which procedures are initiated or envisaged has taken various forms at different phases of procedure.
- In the first phase, exchanges of views with the national delegations concerned have been organised as a basis for decisions on further action. In each case, the invitation to the Chairperson of the delegation specified that members representing not only the ruling party but also the opposition should attend. Issues papers drawn up by the co-rapporteurs served as a basis for discussion.
- In the second phase, dialogue was pursued through the organisation of co-rapporteurs’ visits to the countries concerned. In all cases, co-rapporteurs met with representatives of State authorities – government, parliament and the judiciary - of political parties (including the opposition) of the media, of non-governmental organisations, and of the diplomatic and international community. The programmes of the visits were shaped by the priority issues previously defined by the Committee.
- In the third phase, dialogue takes again the form of an exchange of views with the national parliamentary delegation – this time, on the basis of a preliminary draft report. These reports are designed to be approved for transmission to the national parliamentary delegations, with a view to comments and supplementary information from the authorities of the States concerned. These comments should permit the finalisation of a draft report, to which the Committee may join a Draft Resolution or Recommendation.6
23. Until the comments of the authorities of the States concerned are received via the national parliamentary delegations, the texts of the Committee are confidential. This is essential to a non-confrontational approach, based on persuasion. Only in exceptional circumstances, by decision of the Bureau of the Assembly, can texts be made public before a national delegation has responded.
(d) in camera meetings of the Committee
24. To ensure free and confidential discussion – in particular, with members of the parliamentary delegations of the States being monitored – the Committee has decided to meet, as a general rule, in camera - that is, without the presence of representatives of governments. The Committee has already permitted exceptions to this rule, by authorising the presence of the Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe from the State concerned during final discussion of a report, in agreement with the Chairperson of the national parliamentary delegation.
C.3. Relations with other Assembly committees
25. The key-word is complementarity. If the Monitoring Committee is responsible for the whole range of obligations and commitments entered into by Member States (country monitoring), there may arise specific issues in a monitored country which fall within the traditional responsibility of other committees.7
26. It was probably not the Assembly’s intention in setting up the Monitoring Committee to create a monopoly for all country-specific issues. This would have meant an unacceptable degree of interference with the traditional areas of competence and modes of action of other committees, as well as a quite unmanageable workload. Resolution 1115 endows the Monitoring Committee with a special role – long-term, non-confrontational. Nonetheless, this should not prevent the Committee from reacting quickly, if need be, to unexpected events.
27. Currently, other Assembly committees do indeed work on specific issues in Member States which are relevant to on-going monitoring procedures - such as return of refugees and displaced persons to Croatia, access to higher education in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, the conflict between the government and the constitutional court in Albania8, the new Russian law on religion, the trial of the Russian environmentalist Alexander Nikitin in St. Petersburg.
28. To ensure complementarity and efficiency - and to avoid complications in the long-term dialogue between the Monitoring Committee and the authorities of monitored States - information must be fully exchanged between the Monitoring Committee and other Assembly committees when dealing with issues relevant to monitoring procedures.
C.4. Relations with the Committee of Ministers
(a) parliamentary monitoring as distinct from intergovernmental monitoring
29. Resolution 1115 opts for a country-by-country monitoring approach. On the one hand, all Member States may be subject to the Assembly’s monitoring process, but not simultaneously and automatically; on the other, once a monitoring procedure is opened, the Monitoring Committee may verify the respect of all commitments undertaken and obligations assumed by the State being monitored.
30. The monitoring system established by the Committee of Ministers – on the basis of a Declaration adopted on 10 November 1994 - opts for a theme-by-theme approach. Different themes, reflecting the various commitments accepted by Member States, are chosen, on which all 40 Member States are simultaneously monitored. The themes so far chosen are: freedom of expression and of information; the functioning and protection of democratic institutions, including matters relating to political parties and free elections; for 1998, the functioning of the judicial system and local democracy.
31. The difference in approaches makes co-ordination practically impossible. However, co-operation should be improved, since the political objectives are identical. Moreover, the two approaches, though different, may partly overlap. For instance, freedom of expression is a key issue for parliamentary monitoring in several Member States. Access to the relevant information of the Committee of Ministers could thus be useful.
32. So far, co-operation has been impeded by the absolute secrecy surrounding both meetings and documents of the Committee of Ministers. Contrary to parliamentary monitoring, which eventually leads to a public debate on the basis of a published report, no public documents emerge from inter-governmental monitoring. So far, there are no exceptions to the rule that meetings of the Committee of Ministers on monitoring are held in camera.
33. Members of the Monitoring Committee raised this question at the Joint Committee meeting (29 January 1998) which had monitoring as the main item on its agenda, and to which all rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee were invited. The Committee of Ministers is urged to reconsider its decision on secrecy and to envisage, for instance, transmission of relevant information to the co-rapporteurs concerned. It is proposed to organise further Joint Committee meetings devoted to monitoring at least once a year.
(b) Assembly Recommendations and the need for prompt replies of the Committee of Ministers with a view to follow-up action
34. For the debates on monitoring of the Czech Republic and Lithuania at the autumn 1997 part-session9, the Committee determined that Draft Recommendations were the most appropriate form for the Committee’s conclusions. This is because an Assembly Recommendation requires a reply by the Committee of Ministers and thus promotes dialogue.
35. More specifically, the two Draft Recommendations were designed to influence:
- the monitoring procedure of the Committee of Ministers, by drawing attention to specific issues;
- the Organisation’s intergovernmental work programme and the special programmes of co-operation and assistance, by making proposals – for the States concerned - on priority areas, allocation of resources and other forms of follow-up action.
36. The Committee of Ministers finally replied to Recommendation on Romania’s monitoring, adopted on 24 April 1997 under the previous system, and to Recommendations on the Czech Republic and Lithuania, adopted on 22 September 1997. The Committee of Ministers must adopt Replies to Recommendations on monitoring as a matter of priority, if dialogue and co-operation between the two monitoring systems is to flourish.
37. The transmission of Ministerial Replies to Assembly Recommendations on monitoring is essential, also, for the Committee to evaluate follow-up action. Like other Assembly committees, the Monitoring Committee is responsible for reviewing action taken on Recommendations which it has brought before the Assembly10. The Committee may be satisfied with a Committee of Ministers’ Reply, or consider that further inquiry into measures taken is necessary. With Recommendations which state the “closure” of a monitoring procedure – as was the case with Romania, the Czech Republic and Lithuania – such closure formally supervenes with appraisal by the Monitoring Committee of the Committee of Ministers’ Reply.
D. STATE OF PROCEDURES
38. The Committee took over from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights eleven procedures opened under the previous system of Order No. 508 (1995). They concerned: Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine. Resolution 1115 instructed the new Committee to resume work on procedures from the point at which they stood.
D.1. Presentation of Recommendations on the Czech Republic and Lithuania
39. In the case of the Czech Republic and Lithuania (procedures opened in 1995), “introductory memoranda” had been transmitted to the national parliamentary delegations, for comments, in April 1997. The comments of the Czech and Lithuanian authorities were made available in June 1997.
40. During the June part-session, the Monitoring Committee organised exchanges of views with the Czech and the Lithuanian parliamentary delegations, on the basis of issues papers drawn up by the (new) co-rapporteurs. In the case of Lithuania, one of the two co-rapporteurs had also been rapporteur under the previous system, and in this capacity had visited Lithuania in April 1997. The Committee considered that a new visit to the country was not indispensable. For the Czech Republic, both co-rapporteurs were new. A new visit was accordingly organised for late August 1997.
41. The Committee adopted Draft Recommendations on 3 September 1997. They had a similar structure. The main issues addressed under monitoring procedure were listed. The current position on each of them was given. An overall assessment followed, which was positive in both cases. Follow-up action was recommended – first on the part of the Assembly and its committees; secondly, by the Committee of Ministers under its own monitoring procedure and through its intergovernmental programmes of co-operation.
42. In regard to the procedure itself, the texts presented a compromise solution: the procedure, opened in 1995 under the system regulated by Order No. 508 (1995) was considered as closed; nonetheless, if in the future “further clarification or enhanced co-operation should seem desirable”, the Assembly would pursue its dialogue with the Czech and/or Lithuanian authorities “with a view to reopening monitoring procedure in accordance with Resolution 1115”.11
43. The debates in the Assembly, which were held at the next part-session, showed a large degree of consensus – both on the positive basic assessments, and also on the issues for follow-up action. The Assembly endorsed the proposals of the Committee for follow-up action by the Committee of Ministers.
44. For the Czech Republic, this involved three issues:
(i) the question of implementation of the Czech citizenship law in accordance with Council of Europe standards, notably in regard to citizens of the former Czechoslovak Federal Republic: it was recommended that this should be addressed under the monitoring procedure of the Committee of Ministers;
(ii) racism and intolerance: it was recommended that the Committee of Ministers should ensure the necessary allocation of resources to the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance, so that proposals on the situation in the Czech Republic could be effectively implemented;
(iii) the absence of a law on civil service (pending the adoption of which the lustration law was expected to remain in force): it was recommended that this be referred to a steering committee of the Committee of Ministers, the European Committee on Legal Co-operation.
45. In the case of Lithuania, this involved:
(i) the question of the implementation of Lithuania’s new law on prevention of organised crime, to be addressed under the monitoring procedure of the Committee of Ministers;
(ii) the Committee of Ministers’ co-operation and assistance programmes, notably for reform of local government, police training and prison administration.
D.2. Consultation on the opening of a procedure: minority rights in Western Thrace (Greece)
46. The Bureau takes the final decision on the opening of a monitoring procedure, but only after consulting the Monitoring Committee, which presents its views in the form of a “written opinion”.
47. The first consultation procedure was initiated by the Bureau on the occasion of a Motion for an Order on the situation of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace (Greece). The Motion did not itself contain a “reasoned written application” for the opening of monitoring, as required by Resolution 1115, but only a request for authorisation of a fact-finding visit by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Given the nature of the allegations contained in the Motion - of discrimination against the Muslim minority - the Bureau decided to consult the Monitoring Committee.12
48. The Committee appointed two co-rapporteurs “for inquiry”. It determined that their “written opinion” should state whether there were sufficient grounds to justify the opening of a procedure. An exchange of views was held with the Greek parliamentary delegation on 22 June 1997 - on the basis of a written report by one co-rapporteur and an oral statement by the other. The Committee decided to authorise the co-rapporteurs to visit the region in order to verify matters in situ and to finalise a draft “written opinion” for the Bureau.
49. The co-rapporteurs visited Western Thrace and Athens 5 - 8 October 1997. One of the issues raised in the Motion was Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code, criticised as discriminatory vis-à-vis persons of non-Greek ethnic origin.
50. The draft opinion drawn up by the co-rapporteurs was presented for a first reading on 5 November 1997. It was agreed to revert to the question at the Committee’s meeting on 29 January 1998. Six days beforehand, on 23 January 1998, the Greek government (Council of Ministers) agreed to repeal Article 19 and to present draft legislation to Parliament to this effect.
51. The Committee agreed its opinion on 29 January 1998 and transmitted it to the Bureau for decision on whether a monitoring procedure should be opened. The experience may be interpreted as showing that democratic changes can be promoted through constructive dialogue, in the frame of a consultation procedure, even without or before the opening of monitoring.
D.3. Opening of a new procedure: Latvia
52. Resolution 1115 provides that a procedure may be initiated by decision of the Bureau on the basis of a “written reasoned application” by the Monitoring Committee itself.
53. The question whether a monitoring procedure should be opened for Latvia was raised at the Committee’s first meeting on 25 April 1997. At its second meeting, on 16 May 1997, the proposal was made that co-rapporteurs be appointed to prepare a “written reasoned application” to the Bureau. However, no specific reason was set forth to justify the proposal.
54. Such reason was presented in a letter of 30 May 1997 from Mr Bindig, in that one of the main commitments that had not been honoured by Latvia was ratification of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The question was therefore put on the agenda for the next meeting, on 22 June 1997, on the basis that a specific reasoned proposal had been made.
55. On 4 June 1997, some days after Mr Bindig’s letter, the Latvian Parliament ratified the ECHR. On 22 June 1997, the Committee agreed to appoint two co-rapporteurs “for inquiry” - i.e. into the proposal of Mr Bindig - in order to establish grounds for deciding whether or not to make the “reasoned written application” stipulated by its terms of reference.
56. The co-rapporteurs conducted their inquiry on the basis of information made available by the Latvian parliamentary delegation; neither a visit nor a formal exchange of views was thought necessary. Their advice in favour of making a reasoned written application was accepted by the Committee on 22 September 1997. On 26 September 1997, the Bureau opened procedure. The co-rapporteurs for inquiry were duly appointed co-rapporteurs for the procedure. Their visit to Latvia is now being prepared.
57. The steps followed for Latvia have probably set a precedent for future proposals from within the Committee for opening a monitoring procedure. Such proposals are politically sensitive. Decisions upon them require to be well-prepared. There is certainly some correlation between the decision of the Latvian Parliament to ratify the ECHR and the discussion which had started some weeks earlier in the Committee.
D.4. Progress in respect of other procedures
58. Progress has been made in respect of all eleven procedures taken over from the previous system of Order No. 508. Structured exchanges of views have been held with the national parliamentary delegations – with the exception of the Albanian delegation – on the basis of issues papers drawn up by the co-rapporteurs. In the course of their visits, co-rapporteurs have examined progress in virtually all the areas which are indicated in Annex 3.
Rapporteurs’ visits have been organised as follows:
Albania 12-15 March 1998
Bulgaria 18-22 December 1997
Croatia 9-12 October 1997
Moldova 15-18 October 1997
Russia 10-13 November 1997
“the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia” 6-8 November 1997
Turkey 23-26 November 1997
Ukraine 8-10 December 1997
Visits to Slovakia and Latvia are scheduled for the coming months.
59. Preliminary draft reports on Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine were approved for transmission, following exchanges of views with the parliamentary delegations end-January 1998. Comments by the authorities are expected within three months – except in the case of Ukraine for which a deadline of end-May 1998 was agreed in view of the forthcoming parliamentary elections. Memoranda on visits to Turkey and Albania were presented, respectively, on 15 January and 3 April 1998. Co-rapporteurs’ presentations of preliminary draft reports have led to the opening of dialogue with Croatia and “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. Summary analyses of compliance with commitments have been drawn up for Moldova and several other countries. Co-rapporteurs have taken part, as members of the Bureau’s ad hoc committees, in the international observation of parliamentary elections in Moldova and Ukraine, respectively, on 22 and 29 March 1998.
60. All texts remain confidential until comments have been received from national authorities via the parliamentary delegations concerned, and until draft reports - integrating these comments - are duly developed and approved. No analysis of their contents is therefore possible at this stage.
E. PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT
61. Resolution 1115 has certain areas of obscurity. This was probably the outcome of the effort to reach compromise solutions in the course of its adoption. In developing its working methods, the Committee has thus tried to clarify matters through reasonable interpretation of the Resolution. Some possible further improvements, which would require decision by the Assembly itself, have also been identified.
E.1. Constitution and composition of the Committee
62. Given the political sensitivity of the tasks and the specific character of the new Committee, nominations for the 65 seats of the Monitoring Committee are made by the political groups – not by national parliamentary delegations as for other Assembly Committees. Members are appointed by the Bureau , which “...shall aim at ensuring a regional balance”13. The Monitoring Committee should thus reflect the distribution of political forces in the full Assembly. The “experiment” may be said to have been successful, with one reservation.
63. It is however a weakness that some countries have not been represented.14 For two of these countries, Albania and Moldova (not represented for two consecutive years), there are monitoring procedures under way. Representation of all Member States seems desirable. The Committee is still pursuing its deliberations on this matter.
E.2. Transparency of “consultation procedures”
64. Experience shows that “consultation” under Resolution 1115 entails a procedure which is virtually identical to the monitoring procedure itself: exchange of views with a national delegation, visit to the country, preparation of a text. Moreover, in the case of Greece, as a result of dialogue involving the State authorities, the consultation procedure has led to a significant legislative amendment with high policy implications.
65. Under Resolution 1115, the Committee completes its work with transmission of its written opinion to the Bureau. Everything is confidential, and no provision is made for the Committee’s work - including practical results – to be brought before the Assembly. Resolution 1115 also provides that any negative decision of the Bureau needs to be confirmed by the Assembly, but gives no explanation on how the Assembly will be seized.
66. The natural procedure would be to record the Bureau’s decision in its Progress Report 15, with the Monitoring Committee’s opinion joined in annex. The Assembly will thus be fully informed, as a basis for ratifying the Bureau’s decision. This has added significance if the Bureau’s decision should differ from the Monitoring Committee’s opinion.
67. The Bureau, which can at any moment declassify “memoranda and drafts” of the Monitoring Committee, can thus also guarantee transparency of “consultation procedures”.
E.3. Accountability to the Assembly : Interim information reports
68. The Committee’s terms of reference provide that the "Committee’s conclusions should contain a summary of its position and give rise to an official Assembly document, including a draft resolution and/or recommendation as appropriate”.
69. The Committee has already presented two Recommendations to the Assembly. They concerned procedures started some time ago. Most of the issues were being adequately addressed. Both files were “mature” enough for draft recommendations to be adopted.
70. But with more “recent” or more complicated procedures – in cases where many issues are still open – it would be premature to present “conclusions” in the form of draft resolutions or recommendations. The question is therefore how to present “interim conclusions” to the Assembly.
71. There would appear to be two possible solutions. One could be the presentation of interim "information reports", as provided for by the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure 16. The other would be the closure of monitoring on some issues, while leaving it open for others which may justify further attention - an approach which might be described as "compartmentalisation".
F. CONCLUSIONS
72. After a first year of operation, has the Monitoring Committee proved its worth ?
73. The answer is “yes” - on account of progress with procedures for several Member States, on account of practical results, and of a change of style.
74. progress and practical results
i. Recommendations have been adopted for the Czech Republic and Lithuania – including proposals for follow-up action on the part of the Committee of Ministers.
ii. A written opinion was drawn up and transmitted to the Bureau of the Assembly on whether a monitoring procedure should be opened for Greece, in regard to the Muslim minority in Western Thrace (“consultation procedure”). In the course of the preparation of the Committee’s opinion - and at least partly as a result of dialogue with the Greek authorities - a significant legislative amendment with high policy implications was agreed by the Government: the abolition of Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Code, criticised as discriminatory vis-à-vis non-ethnic Greeks.
iii. A new monitoring procedure has been opened for Latvia, after preparation of a “written reasoned application” and its presentation to the Bureau of the Assembly. Again, results were achieved even before the opening of procedure, in the form of Latvia’s ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.
iv. Procedures have been advanced in respect of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Moldova, Russia, Slovakia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine. Exchanges of views have held with the parliamentary delegations of all these countries – with the exception of Albania. Co-rapporteurs’ visits have been organised to all of them. Preliminary draft reports have been approved for transmission to the authorities of Bulgaria, Russia and Ukraine. Preliminary memoranda on Turkey and Albania have been presented. Dialogue has been opened with the national parliamentary delegations of Croatia and “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, following presentation by co-rapporteurs of preliminary draft reports. Summary analyses of compliance with commitments have been drawn up for several countries, including Moldova.
75. changes in style and approach
i. The Committee has worked through the logic of persuasion. It has tried to give expression to the political nature of parliamentary monitoring, with emphasis not only on signature and ratification of Council of Europe texts but on practical implementation of their principles - having full regard to the geopolitical context and domestic concerns of the countries being monitored.
ii. The Committee has developed a methodology based on confidential dialogue focused on well-defined issues with the national parliamentary delegations of the States for which procedures are initiated or envisaged.
iii. Although there is still room for improvement, the Committee has ensured complementarity with other Assembly committees, which will continue to work on specific issues which may arise within their traditional areas of concern in monitored States.
iv. Finally, the Committee has established dialogue with the Committee of Ministers insofar as this is possible given the difference in approaches and the absolute secrecy of intergovernmental monitoring. The first exchange of views within the frame of the Joint Committee in January 1998 was successful. Monitoring should be regularly on the agenda of the Joint Committee. Avenues of dialogue have been opened also by the Committee’s decision to present its conclusions on monitored countries in the form of Draft Assembly Recommendations. If such Recommendations are adopted by the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers is called on to reply and to report on any adjustments to its programmes of co-operation and assistance.
76. Experience over this first year has led the Committee to frame some proposals for improvement as regards its composition, the transparency of its procedures, and its accountability to the Assembly through the presentation of interim information reports: these would deal with progress on procedures which had not yet reached the point of giving rise to firm conclusions for embodiment in a Draft Recommendation (or Resolution).
77. Continuing success will depend on constructive co-operation with national parliamentary delegations and the authorities of Member States, and on concerted action with other Assembly committees.For the future, thought must be given to how the Committee could be enabled to react to urgent situations, calling for immediate attention. This may require overcoming current procedural constraints.
78. Parliamentary monitoring - as determined by the Assembly - is contributing to the establishment and consolidation of democratic stability in Europe. It is reinforcing the action which is being undertaken through the Council of Europe's intergovernmental programmes and initiatives. It is creating that "democratic space " through which our common membership of the Council of Europe finds its true meaning - respect for the "rule of law" and human rights.
ANNEX 1
Strasbourg, 9 February 1998 AS/Mon (1998) 17
STATE OF PROCEDURES
A. PROCEDURES UNDER WAY
B. PROCEDURES HAVING LED TO ASSEMBLY DEBATES IN 1997
C. CONSULTATION ON THE OPENING OF A PROCEDURE
N.B. The Committee came into existence and held its first meeting on 25 April 1997. It took over 11 procedures from the previous system under Order No. 508. The Bureau of the Assembly authorised the opening of a new procedure on 26 September 1997. It has held 12 exchanges of views with national parliamentary delegations. Ten visits of rapporteurs have been organised. Three preliminary draft reports have been transmitted to the chairmanships of the national parliamentary delegations concerned for comment. Reports are being developed on other visits. A written opinion has been transmitted to the Bureau of the Assembly in response to a consultation on the opening of a procedure. Two procedures were the subject of reports to the Assembly at the autumn 1997 part-session.
A. PROCEDURES UNDER WAY17
1. Albania
Accession 13 July 1995
Assembly Opinion No. 189 29 June 1995
CM Resolution (95) 8 10 July 1995
Other references Res. 1114 on obligations and commitments 29 January1997
Rec. 1312 on obligations and commitments 29 January 1997
Rec. 1316 on the state of emergency 19 March 1997
Rec. 1328 on the state of emergency 24 April 1997
Res. 1133 on the situation in Albania 24 September 1997
Doc. 7991, Ref. No. 2248 30 January 1998
Rapporteurs Mr van der Linden Netherlands EPP/CD
Mr Sole Tura Spain SOC
Visits of rapporteurs 11-12 September 1997
22-23 January 199818
12-15 March 1998
2. Bulgaria
Accession 7 May 1992
Assembly Opinion No. 161 5 May 1992
CM Resolution (92) 8 5 May 1992
Rapporteurs Mr Atkinson United Kingdom EDG
Mr Gjellerod Denmark SOC
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 5 November 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 18-22 December 1997
Transmission of preliminary draft report 30 January 1998
3. Croatia
Accession 6 November 1996
Assembly Opinion No. 195 24 April 1996
CM Resolution (96) 31 2 July 1996
Rapporteurs Mr Jansson Finland LDR
Mr Figel Slovakia EPP/CD
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 24 June 1997
Visit of rapporteurs and chairman 9-12 October 1997
Summary analysis of compliance with commitments: 29 January 1998
First consideration of a preliminary draft report: 9 March 1998
4. Latvia
Accession 10 February 1995
Assembly Opinion No. 183 31 January 1995
CM Resolution (95) 3 6 February 1995
Proposal to open letter of Mr Bindig 30 May 1997
Rapporteurs for inquiry Mr Davis United Kingdom SOC
Mr Németh Hungary LDR
Approval by the Committee of a "reasoned written application"19 22 September 1997
Decision by the Bureau of the Assembly to open a procedure 26 September 1997
Visit of rapporteurs: planned for June 1998
5. Moldova
Accession 13 July 1995
Assembly Opinion No. 188 27 June 1995
CM Resolution (95) 7 10 July 1995
Rapporteurs Mr Columberg Switzerland EPP/CD
Mrs Durrieu France SOC
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 23 September 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 15-18 October 1997
Summary analysis of compliance with commitments 29 January 1998
6. Russia
Accession 28 February 1996
Assembly Opinion No. 193 25 January 1996
CM Resolution (96) 2 8 February 1996
Rapporteurs Mr Bindig Germany SOC
Mr Muehlemann Switzerland LDR
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 25 June 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 10-13 November 1997
Transmission of preliminary draft report 30 January 1998
7. Slovakia
Accession 30 June 1993
Assembly Opinion No. 175 29 June 1993
CM Resolution (93) 33 30 June 1993
Rapporteurs Mr Leoni Italy SOC
Mr Lesein France LDR
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 5 November 1997
Visit of rapporteurs planned for spring 1998
8. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Accession 9 November 1995
Assembly Opinion No. 191 27 September 1995
CM Resolution (95) 23 19 October 1995
Rapporteurs Mr Berceanu Romania SOC
Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout Netherlands LDR
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 23 September 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 6-8 November 1997
Summary analysis of compliance with commitments 29 January 1998
First consideration of a preliminary draft report 9 March 1998
9. Turkey
Accession 13 April 1950
References Rec. 1298 (1996) on respect of commitments to constitutional and legislative reforms
Rec. 1266 (1995) & CM Reply [Doc. 7334] of 22 June 1995
Res. 1041 (1994) on the dissolution of the Party for Democracy (DEP)
Rapporteurs Mr Barsony Hungary SOC
Mr Schwimmer Austria EPP/CD
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 25 September 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 23-26 November 1997
Memorandum on visit 15 January 1998
10. Ukraine
Accession 9 November 1995
Assembly Opinion No.190 26 September 1995
CM Resolution (95) 22 19 October 1995
Rapporteurs Mr Kelam Estonia EPP/CD
Ms Severinsen Denmark LDR
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 25 September 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 8-10 December 1997
Transmission of preliminary draft report 29 January 1998
B. PROCEDURES HAVING LED TO ASSEMBLY DEBATES IN 199720
11. Estonia Res.1117 (1997) 30 January 1997
under Order 508 Rec.1313 (1997) 30 January 1997
CM Reply21 9 April 1997
12. Romania Res.1123 (1997) 24 April 1997
under Order 508 Rec.1326 (1997) 24 April 1997
13. Czech Republic
Rec.1338 (1997) 22 September 1997
under Resolution 1115
14. Lithuania Rec.1339 (1997) 22 September 1997
under Resolution 1115
C. CONSULTATION ON THE OPENING OF A PROCEDURE
15. Greece: situation of the Muslim minority in Western Thrace
Bureau's referral of Motion for an Order22 18 March 1997
Rapporteurs for inquiry Mrs Err Luxembourg SOC
Mr Glotov Russia UEL
Exchange of views with Parliamentary Delegation 22 June 1997
Visit of rapporteurs 5-8 October 1997
Transmission of a written opinion to the
Bureau of the Assembly 20 January 1998
ANNEX 2
OPENING OF A MONITORING PROCEDURE
Schematic Representation
|
PROPOSAL |
MODALITIES |
CONSULTATION |
DECISION |
PA or AS/Perm | |||
AS/Bur 10 or more PA members* AS/Committee(s) AS/Mon |
---> ---> ---> Motion for a resolution/recommendation ---> AS/Bur ---> reasoned written application ---> ---> ---> AS/Bur ---> reasoned written application ---> ---> ---> AS/Bur ---> |
AS/Mon ---> ---> AS/Mon ---> ---> AS/Mon ---> ---> ---> ---> ---> |
---> ---> AS/Bur ---> ---> |
* representing at least two national delegations and two political groups
Abbreviations:
PA: Parliamentary Assembly
AS/Perm: Standing Committee
AS/Bur: Bureau of the Assembly
AS/Committee(s) any Assembly Committee(s) other than the Monitoring Committee
AS/Mon: Monitoring Committee
ANNEX 3
Strasbourg 12 June 1997 AS/Mon (1997) 13
AREAS WHICH HAVE BEEN COVERED UNDER MONITORING PROCEDUREÂ Â Â Â 9
Indicative List    10
Memorandum prepared by the Office of the Clerk on the instructions of the Chairman
--------
A. Pluralist Democracy
1. separation of powers
2. elections
(constitutional/electoral law; access to media; assessment of whether free, general, secret and fair)
3. political parties
(status; conditions for setting up/registration; fiscal rules/party finances)
4. parliament
(pluralist composition; minority representation; control over the executive; immunities; rights and duties of the opposition)
5. special powers in emergency situations (use and control)
6. local and regional self-government
B. Rule of Law and Human Rights
7. relationship between domestic law and international human rights treaties
8. effectiveness of constitutional/legal guarantees for human rights
9. judicial system
(independence of the judiciary; access to justice; criminal justice; role and status of public prosecutors; status of attorneys and autonomy of the bar)
10. police training
11. prison conditions and prison administration
12. respect for private and family life
13. property rights (restitution, fair compensation)
14. freedom of conscience and of worship
15. freedom of expression/independence of the media
16. freedom of association
17. freedom of movement and of assembly
18. equality between men and women
19. minorities
(non-discrimination; citizenship legislation; status of and education in minority languages)
20. policies to combat racism, antisemitism, xenophobia
C. Other
21. settlement of international and internal disputes by peaceful means
ANNEX 4
Strasbourg, 28 April 1997 AS/Mon (1997) 01 Rev.
DEVELOPMENTS OF THE MONITORING SYSTEM
OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
-------------------
[Extracts]
I. Introduction
II. The first monitoring mechanism: Order No. 488 (1993) and Resolution No. 1031 (1994)
III. Consolidating the procedure: Order No. 508 (1995)
IV. Implementation of Order No. 508 (1995): Assembly debates on Albania and Estonia in January 1997 and on Romania in April 1997
I. Introduction
1. The Parliamentary Assembly was the first body of the Council of Europe to establish in 1993 an effective monitoring procedure.
2. The Assembly wished that the Council of Europe could rapidly welcome the "new democracies" despite their difficulties in advancing from a totalitarian regime to that of a pluralist democracy respecting human rights and the rule of law.
3. It is for this reason that the Assembly introduced the practice of asking States, during the examination of their requests for membership, to undertake specific commitments on issues related to the basic principles of the Council of Europe. These commitments are explicitly referred to in the Assembly Opinion on the accession of the State concerned.
II. The first monitoring mechanism:
Order No. 488 (1993) and Resolution No. 1031 (1994)
4. In order to ensure the respect of these commitments, the Assembly established a procedure by adopting, in June 1993, Order No. 488 (known as the "Halonen Order") "on the honouring of commitments entered into by new member states". Through this Order it instructed its Political Affairs Committee and its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, on an equal footing, "to monitor closely the honouring of commitments entered into by the authorities of the new member states and to report to the Assembly's Bureau at regular six monthly intervals until all undertakings have been honoured." As regards possible consequences of non-compliance, Order No. 488 stipulated that "the honouring of these commitments is a condition for full participation of parliamentary delegations of new member states in its work".
5. For the purpose of defining the scope of application of this Order, the Assembly, less than a year later, adopted Resolution 1031 (1994) "on the honouring of commitments entered into by the member states when joining the Council of Europe." The reference to "new" member states was replaced by a reference to states "which had become members since the adoption in May 1989 of Resolution 917 (1989) on a special guest status with the Parliamentary Assembly". Moreover, in the first paragraph of the resolution, it was specified that all member states of the Council of Europe were required to respect their obligations under the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and all other conventions to which they were parties.
6. The Resolution also underlined that the monitoring procedure should be regarded as "a stimulus and guidance for the consolidation of democracy" in these states and as a means to assist them to comply with the commitments they had voluntarily undertaken to be able to adhere to the Organisation.
7. In case of failure to honour commitments, Resolution 1031 provided for recourse to the relevant provisions of the Council of Europe Statute and the Assembly Rules of Procedure.
III. Consolidating the procedure: Order No. 508 (1995)
8. Implementation of Order 488 in practice revealed the need to further strengthen the Assembly's monitoring system, given also the declaration on compliance with commitments accepted by member states, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 November 1994. Thus, a new text was adopted in April 1995, Order No. 508, which superseded Order 488, and introduced the following main novelties:
. The simple transmission of reports to the Bureau of the Assembly which could only decide to render them public was replaced by the possibility to hold an Assembly debate on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the state concerned on the basis of a draft resolution/recommendation in which proposals for the improvement of the situation in this state would be made. Thus the Assembly's monitoring procedure became transparent and more influential by allowing for a public debate.
. Given problems of co-ordination and timing between the two competent committees so far operating on an equal footing, it was decided to give the leading role to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights while the Political Affairs Committee - leading on accession - was to be seized for opinion. The Committee on Relations with European Non-Member Countries would also be seized for opinion with regard to member states which had previously enjoyed special guest status. The leading committee would decide whether to open a monitoring procedure vis-à-vis a member state, according to normal committee procedure.
. Last but not least, the distinction between "old" and "new" member states - already softened following the adoption of Resolution 1031 (1994) - was now clearly abolished: all member states were made subject to the Assembly's monitoring procedure.
9. The sanctions for persistent failure to honour commitments were enumerated in a more explicit way: non-ratification of the credentials of a national parliamentary delegation; a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers requesting it to take the appropriate action under Article 8 of the Council of Europe's Statute.
IV. Implementation of Order No. 508 (1995):
Assembly debates on Albania and Estonia in January 1997 and on Roumania in April 1997
10. Under Order 508, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights opened monitoring procedures in respect of a significant number of member states.
11. The first step in this monitoring procedure was the visit of the state concerned by the rapporteur of the leading committee, in preference together with the rapporteurs of the other committees concerned. Following the visit, an introductory memorandum was drafted and transmitted to the authorities of the state concerned for comments within three months. The practice was gradually established that, pending these comments, the introductory memorandum should remain confidential. Only after consideration of the comments of the state authorities the introductory memorandum was made public, together with the comments thereon, and a report on the honouring of the obligations and commitments entered into by the member state prepared for an Assembly debate.
12. So far, three monitoring procedures have led to an Assembly debate: the procedures concerning Albania and Estonia, debated during the January 1997 part-session, which could be considered as "pilot-cases", and most recently the procedure on Roumania, debated on 24 April 1997.
13. As regards Albania, the situation in this country has been closely followed by the Assembly: a first visit by the rapporteurs to the country took place in January 1996; an urgent procedure debate on the parliamentary elections in Albania was held in June 1966; a visit of an ad hoc committee of the Bureau - of which the three rapporteurs were also members - was organised in Tirana at the end of August 1996; the local elections in Albania, in October 1996, were observed and co-ordinated by an ad hoc committee of the Bureau, including the rapporteurs on Albania's monitoring, together with a delegation from the CLRAE (Congrès des Pouvoirs locaux et régionaux de l'Europe).
14. In its Resolution 1114 (1997) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Albania, the Assembly, after noting the considerable progress achieved, resolved to go on monitoring Albania's compliance with its obligations and commitments and insisted that the remaining commitments should be complied with within the agreed time frame. Concrete action was requested by the Albanian authorities. Moreover, the Assembly called upon the Albanian government and the opposition parties to end the political crisis in the country and proposed a number of specific measures for this purpose.
15. The Assembly's report on Estonia was also the final product of a long process: two reports drawn up under Order 488, following respective visits of the rapporteurs, were published in 1994 and 1995. A further visit under Order 508 was organised in February 1996.
16. Resolution 1117 (1997) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Estonia noted the considerable progress achieved by this state and enlisted the main positive developments towards compliance. At the same time, it enumerated some problematic areas in relation to which the Estonian authorities were urged to implement concrete measures. The Assembly, considering that the most important obligations and commitments had been honoured by Estonia, decided to close the monitoring procedure opened in May 1995 under Order 508, while resolving to continue to follow certain specified problems.
17. Finally, the report on Romania was the result of two visits by the rapporteurs to the country in 1995 and 1997, a memorandum drawn up in 1996 and comments thereupon of the authorities.
18. In its Resolution 1123 (1997) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Romania, the Assembly observed the considerable progress towards the fulfilment of the obligations and commitments of this state and set out the most recent positive developments. It further set out the problems that had still to be solved and earnestly requested Romania to fulfil certain conditions in response. The Assembly, considering that Romania had honoured its most important obligations and commitments, decided to close the monitoring procedure under Order 508 (1995). At the same time, the Assembly made it clear that it could decide to reopen the procedure, in accordance with Resolution 1115 (1997), should the conditions not be fulfilled within a year or if it considered that Romania was not honouring its obligations and commitments as a Council of Europe member state.
19. In all three cases of Albania, Estonia and Romania, the Assembly also adopted a recommendation in which it listed the measures that the Committee of Ministers should take in order to help these two member states to comply with their obligations and commitments.25 Thus the Assembly aims not only at offering a "stimulus and guidance" to the member states concerned, but also at helping them through requests addressed to the Committee of Ministers for continuing assistance (financial aid, expertise etc.).
Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of obligations and commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: to be assessed.
Reference to Committee: Resolution 1115 (1997).
Draft resolution adopted by the committee unanimously on 9 March 1998.
Draft recommendation adopted by the committee unanimously on 9 March 1998.
Members of the committee: Mr de Marco (Chairman), Mr Sole Tura (Vice-Chairman), Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout (Vice-Chairperson), Mr Glotov (Vice-Chairman), MM Akselsen, Atkinson, Averchev, Mrs Aytaman, MM. Bársony, Berceanu, Bindig, Brunetti, Christodoulides, Columberg, Dagys, Terry Davis, Dinçer, Domljan, Mrs Durrieu, MM Eltz, Enright, Mrs Err, MM Fico, Figel, Mrs Fleetwood, MM Frunda, Gjellerod, Gross, Gusenbauer, Hagård, Jansson, Jaskiernia, Mr Jurgens, Mrs Kautto, MM Kelam, Kiratlioglu, Kostytsky, Koulouris, Laurinkus, van der Linden, Leoni, Lesein, Magnusson, Marmazov, Martelli, Marten, Melcak, Mota Amaral, Mozetic, Muehlemann, Németh, Pahor, Ramirez Pery, Mrs Ringstad, Lord Russell-Johnston, MM. Sceberras Trigona, Schwimmer, Mrs Severinsen, MM. Shishlov, Sinka, Smorawinski, Steolea, Mrs Stoyanova, MM. Tahiri, Urbain, Valkeniers, Weyts, Mrs Wohlwend.
N.B. The names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries of the committee: Mr Hartland, Mr Dufour, Ms Chatzivassiliou
1 Recommendations 1338 and 1339 (1997) , on the obligations and commitments of, respectively, the Czech Republic and Lithuania, adopted on 22 September 1997.
2 The system for opening a monitoring procedure is schematically represented in Annex 2.
3 cf. section D.3, for a case in which the Monitoring Committee made such a “reasoned written application” for the opening of a monitoring procedure.
4 4 cf. section D.2, for a case in which the Monitoring Committee was consulted by the Bureau on whether a monitoring procedure should be opened.
5 cf. also below, under E.2, where a proposal is made for the publication of the Committee’s opinion as an Addendum to the Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee.
6 6 Cf. also paragraph 6 of the Committee’s terms of reference.
7 With regard to the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, complementarity is facilitated by the fact that their Chairpersons are ex officio members of our Committee.
A Political Group Leaders’ visit to Albania took place in November 1997 (cf. Doc. 7978 Add. II) and a Tri-Parliamentary Mission to Albania (including the President of the Assembly and delegations from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament), in which the Monitoring Committee’s co-rapporteurs also participated, was organised in January 1998 (cf. Doc. 7978 Addendum IV).
9 Cf. below, under D.1.
Rule 44 of the Rules of Procedure.
cf. Recommendations Nos. 1338 (1997) and 1339 (1997) on the obligations and commitments of the Czech Republic and of Lithuania.
12 The Motion for an Order was referred to the Committee on 18 March 1997. The reference was ratified by the Standing Committee the following day.
cf. Resolution 1115, paragraph 8.
In 1997, seven Member States were not represented: Albania, Andorra, Cyprus, Iceland, Moldova, San Marino and Slovenia. Following appointments in January 1998, five states are not represented: Albania, Andorra, Iceland, Moldova and San Marino.
15 cf. the recording of the Bureau’s decision to open a monitoring procedure for Latvia in the Progress Report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee (23 September 1997 – 26 January 1998), Doc. 7978, par.44, page 10.
Rule 47, paragraph 5. An information report was debated in the Standing Committee on 5 November 1997 on the Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe.
17 With the exception of Latvia (procedure opened under Resolution 1115), procedures have been taken over from the previous system under Order 508 (cf. Resolution 1115, paragraph 14). With the exception hitherto of Albania, the Committee has held an exchange of views with each parliamentary delegation, on the basis of an "issues paper", in order to shape and focus the programme of the rapporteurs' visit to the country.
18 As part of a tri-parliamentary mission, including the President of the Assembly and delegations from the OSCE Assembly and the European Parliament, cf. Addendum IV to the Progress Report, Doc. 7978, Add.IV)
19 Cf. paragraph 9 of Resolution 1115 (1997)
20 For Albania, cf. above section A.1
    9 sources: Statute of the Council of Europe
European Convention on Human Rights
Other Council of Europe Conventions to which a Member State is a party
    10 This list does not necessarily cover the specific commitments undertaken by Member States upon their accession to the Council of Europe.
25 Recommendations Nos. 1312 (1997), 1313 (1997), 1326 (1997) on the honouring of obligations commitments by Albania, Estonia and Romania, respectively.