|
|
Doc. 8963
1 February 2001
Relations with the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
Motion for a recommendation
presented by Mr Jurgens and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it |
1. The Assembly recognises the most valuable work the European Commission on Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) is doing in upholding and reinforcing the legal and constitutional values and standards of the Council of Europe and promoting the constitutional order, rule of law and parliamentary democracy in Council of Europe member States as well as elsewhere.
2. On many occasions, the Assembly has sought and is seeking the advice of the Venice Commission and the opinions rendered have proven to be of great value for the Assembly’s work when considering certain legal, constitutional and political situations and in its monitoring procedures.
3. The Assembly thus wishes to fully support and promote the activities of the Venice Commission.
4. It welcomes recent decisions by its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to hold annual discussions on the work programme of the Venice Commission, to establish a strong liaison between the Secretariats of the Committee and the Commission and the participation of a member of the Assembly in working groups of the Commission.
5. As the Venice Commission is expected to have the moral authority to give impartial, independent and expert advice to the Assembly, to the Committee of Ministers and to individual (member) States, the Assembly points out that the members of the Venice Commission must posses the following three qualifications:
- they must be in command of expert knowledge in the field of (comparative) constitutional law;
- they must be formally independent of the government of the member State they represent in the Commission;
- they must have a general attitude and personal character which is supportive to taking decisions with impartiality.
6. Many members of the Venice Commission satisfy these three expectations, but the Assembly stresses that the member States should only propose candidates who do in fact possess these qualifications.
7. In this context, the Assembly is concerned by the fact that some members of the present Venice Commission are senior civil servants, or even government ministers, or have similar positions which link them to governments, and that the requirements of independence and impartiality are thus not always respected; and that also not all members can realistically be described as experts in the field of comparative constitutional law.
8. The Assembly therefore recommends the Committee of Ministers:
i. to accept the requirements of expertise, independence and impartiality for members of the Venice Commission in Article 3 of the Statute of 10 May 1990 which governs the composition of the Commission and the other provisions of that Article set out above;
ii. when putting forward candidates for membership of the Venice Commission, to ask the member States to ensure the transparency of the national selection procedure and to consult their national parliaments in the selection procedure;
iii. to set up a forum to screen candidate members of the Commission, in which forum the Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights would also be involved, so as to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled in a reasonable manner.
Signed : 1
Jurgens, Netherlands, SOC
Cilevics, Latvia, SOC
Dimas, Greece, EPP/CD
Jaskiernia, Poland, SOC
Kirkhill, United Kingdom, SOC
Marty, Switzerland, LDR
McNamara, United Kingdom, SOC
Nabholz-Haidegger, Switzerland, LDR
Olteanu, Romania, SOC
Posada, Spain, EPP/CD
Stoisits, Austria, SOC
Vera Jardim, Portugal, SOC
Wojcik, Poland, EPP/CD
1 SOC: Socialist Group
EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party
EDG: European Democratic Group
LDR : Liberal, Democratic and Reformers’ Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group