Doc. 9307

21 December 2001

Implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Report

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Rapporteur: Mr Erik Jurgens, Netherlands, Socialist Group

Summary

The Assembly takes stock of one year’s action at parliamentary level to obtain the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of the Human Rights. This assessment is positive since five of the eight parliamentary delegations concerned followed up the requests to put pressure on their governments to implement the decisions concerning them.

The Assembly will therefore continue this exercise and will submit a new report in one year's time.

In the special case of Turkey, the Assembly proposes to take up the matter again in June 2002.

I.        Draft resolution

1.        The Assembly refers to its Resolution 1226 (2000) on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in which it made a number of proposals for dealing with the problems arising from the non-execution of Court judgments.

2.        It reiterates that correct implementation of the decisions of the Court by member states of the Council of Europe is of the utmost importance for conserving the present great authority of decisions of the Court.

3.        Some of the solutions it proposed were for implementation at national level and others within the Council of Europe. Among the latter, the Assembly itself undertook to take a number of measures. It decided to regularly debate the execution of judgments, on the basis of a record which it would draw up, and to hold a debate within a year from the adoption of that resolution.

4.        Its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights compiled the above-mentioned record using two criteria: the time elapsed since the Court’s decision without its being implemented by the governments concerned and the urgency attaching to the implementation of certain decisions.

5.        It wrote to eight national delegations asking them to prevail upon their respective governments to implement the unexecuted decisions, setting a three-month deadline for replies. The delegations concerned were those of Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

6.        By the time the deadline expired, only three delegations had replied: Austria, Greece and the Netherlands. They described the measures that had been taken or were being taken to comply with the relevant Court decisions. Belgium and the United Kingdom replied subsequently.1

7.        In the special case of Turkey, concerning which 193 cases are still before the Committee of Ministers, including 56 which raise major issues, such as the undue length of police custody, torture and ill-treatment or violation of freedom of expression, a different method was adopted. An informal meeting was held on 27 June 2001 between the Turkish delegation and a delegation of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights. According to the Turkish delegation, the constitutional amendments then being considered by the Grand National Assembly were expected to enable these problems to be resolved. However, the agreed meeting during the September session was cancelled by the Turkish delegation and no further information has been received. The Assembly deplores this fact.

8.        Considering the large amount of decisions against Turkey which have not been implemented, the Assembly instructs the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to confer with the national delegation of Turkey and with the Turkish government, and to report to the Assembly, in June 2002 at the latest, on the progress made. The Assembly envisages inviting the Turkish Minister of Justice to the June part-session to confer on this matter.

9.        The Assembly is now able to take stock of one year’s experience in reviewing the execution of Court judgments. The situation is varied: five delegations failed to respond within the deadline that had been set to the requests that had been made of them. Of these five delegations, three replied later and two did not reply.

10.        However, one can say that the experience is worth being pursued as it is not only useful for the cases under consideration but also for the execution of decisions in general.

11.        The procedure based on Assembly Resolution 1226 (2000) for monitoring the progress made by the Committee of ministers concerning the implementation of decisions of the Court by the Assembly is dependent on active participation by national delegations, because only these have the competence to call their governments to account within their own national parliamentary procedure. The Assembly therefore deplores the fact that national delegations which have been asked to intervene as to specific decisions have in some cases not responded (Italy and Portugal), have responded belatedly (France), or have not been able to respond in detail because of lack of information given to them by their governments.

12.        The Assembly accordingly again calls upon national delegations to monitor the execution of specific Court judgments concerning their governments through their respective parliaments to take all necessary steps to ensure their speedy and effective execution.

13.        Decides to continue the exercise started a year ago and instructs its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to continue to update the record of the execution of judgments and to report to it as appropriate.

II.       Draft recommendation

1. The Assembly refers to its Resolution …(2002) on the execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

2. It refers also to its Resolution 1226 (2000) and Recommendation 1477 (2000) on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in which it asked the Committee of Ministers to take a number of measures to facilitate implementation of the Court’s judgments.

3. It regrets that, one year later, the Committee of Ministers has still not replied to the recommendation.

4. The Assembly accordingly reiterates its recommendations to the Committee of Ministers:

i.        to amend the Convention so as to give the Committee of Ministers the power to ask the Court for a clarifying interpretation of its judgments where necessary and to introduce a system of “astreintes” (daily fines for a delay in the performance of a legal obligation) to be imposed on states that persistently fail to execute a Court judgment;

ii.       to ask the governments of High Contracting Parties to make more use of their right to intervene in cases before the Court;

iii.        to be more firm in carrying out its functions under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

iv.        to ensure that measures taken by Governments constitute effective means to prevent further violations being committed.

5.       It welcomes the report of the evaluation group of the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights.

6.        It also recommends that a wider range of responses be developed to cases of failure of member states to abide by the human rights standards of the Council of Europe, bearing in mind existing proposals.

7.       In this context, the Parliamentary Assembly also strongly supports the Committee of Ministers' appeal to the authorities of the member states to take whatever action they deem necessary to ensure the proper execution of judgments in situations where the Committee of Ministers has found the respondent state to be in breach of its fundamental obligation under the Convention to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as it did in the Loizidou case (see Interim Resolution DH (2001) 80).

III.        Explanatory memorandum

1.        On 29 September 2000 the Assembly adopted Resolution 1226 (2000) and Recommendation 1477 (2000) on the execution of decisions of the European Court on Human Rights. In the present report the word “implementation” is used consistently instead of “execution”, because implementation is a broader term, meaning also the recognition of decisions of the Court by other member states than only those states against which specific court decisions have been directed and by whom they must be executed.

2.        In its Resolution 1226 (2000), the Assembly made suggestions for action by the Committee of Ministers and the member states and by the Court itself. The Assembly also decided to take action itself to promote the implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. It decided, among other things, to hold a yearly debate on a progress report concerning the implementation of decisions, to be held for the first time within a year of the date of Resolution 1223. This is the first such report.

3.        On suggestion by the Rapporteur, the Committee on Legal affairs and Human Rights delegated to its Sub-committee on Human Rights the preparatory work for Assembly action to promote implementation of decisions. The Sub-committee recognises that the Convention makes the Committee of Ministers responsible for the supervision of decisions, according to Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. The Assembly can only apply parliamentary scrutiny to the work of the Committee of Ministers and to make recommendations to the Committee of Ministers and to member states concerned in specific court decisions.

4.        Since the adoption of new Rules for the “supervision of the execution of judgments of the Court” on 1 January 2001 (see Appendix I) the agenda of the special human rights meetings of the Committee of Ministers is made public. This allows the Sub-Committee to follow which cases have not yet been implemented and which need the attention of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 § 2 of the Convention. During its meeting of 25 April 2001, the Sub-committee received a briefing from Ambassador Wolf, Chair of the Human Rights (DH) meetings of Committee of Ministers. This briefing was published as AS/Jur/DH (2001) 3. It opens possibilities for the Sub-committee to follow closely the work of DH meetings of the Committee of Ministers.

5.        Consequently the Sub-Committee decided to institute the following procedure:

a. to make use of existing material on the implementation of judgments;

b. to add to this information that contained in the annotated agendas of the DH meetings of the Committee of Ministers, now available on the Committee of Ministers' internet site;

c. to discuss the non-implemented cases contained in the information received in the presence of a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for each of the member states concerned, and to select those cases where action on the part of the Assembly could help to bring about implementation;

d. to use the following instruments:

- co-operation with the national parliamentary delegations of the countries concerned;

- written or oral questions to the Committee of Ministers;

- direct contacts with the national parliaments of the States concerned;

- debate in the Assembly on the yearly progress report, if necessary in the presence - at the invitation of the Assembly – of the competent Minister of the member State concerned in the case.

6.        Clearly, if such activities aimed at stimulation of implementation are not successful, the possibility of sanctions against refusal to implement Court judgments or against unjustified extreme delays in doing so must be envisaged.

Resolution 1226 mentions two sanctions:

- opening of monitoring procedure;

- use of Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.

If such a procedure appears to be necessary this can only be done by the Assembly as such on the basis of a report from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. At this moment the development of the activities mentioned under 5 have priority for the Sub-Committee. Discussions on sanctions are as yet premature.

7.        The Sub-Committee welcomes reflection on the subject in the different instances: at the Ministerial Conference in Rome, subsequently in the Committee of Ministers, in the Steering Committee on Human Rights and in the Evaluation Group of the Committee of Ministers.

8.        The Sub-Committee has started its activities in this field by sending letters to eight national delegations (see Appendix II), on 28 March 2001 annexing a synopsis of each of the Court judgments which had not been implemented by their government for five years or more and asking the delegations to bring these cases up within their own national Parliaments. Replies were requested within three months, i.e before 28 June 2001. A letter was sent to two more delegations on 21 May 2001 requesting a reply by 14 July 2001. Hereafter is a list these cases together with a summary of the questions they raise.

9. a.        Austria

i. Ahmed against Austria, judgment of 17 December 1996

The case concerns the decision to deport a Somali national, taken following his conviction for attempted robbery, despite the fact that the applicant faced a real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in Somalia (violation of Article 3).

General measures: in 1997, the Austrian authorities amended the relevant provisions of the Asylum Act and the Aliens Act. These reforms inter alia transferred the competence to examine the conformity of grounds for deportation with the European Convention from the Aliens Police to the Asylum authorities. However, the new Aliens Law still contains the awkward provision authorising deportation to a country despite an established serious risk that the applicant could be subjected there to treatment contrary to Article 3 (former Section 37§4, new Section 57§4). The need to modify this provision, which had already been challenged by the Ahmed judgment (see §21), has been accordingly raised within the Committee of Ministers.

By letter of 12 July 2001, the Austrian authorities confirmed their intention to consider the clarification of Article 57 of the Austrian Aliens Act during the forthcoming amendment of this legislation. The authorities furthermore recalled that the reasoning and conclusions of the Ahmed judgment are being effectively taken into account in the Supreme Administrative Court’s practice (as confirmed by its judgment of 8 June 2000) and in the professional training of Ministry of Interior staff. Having regard to the general measures already adopted and to the legislative reform under consideration, the Secretariat is preparing a draft interim resolution in collaboration with the Austrian authorities.

The delegation of Austria replied on 26 June 2001 (see Appendix III), indicating that the matter should be settled in October 2001. It would be taking a stand on the Foreign Nationals Act, which was ambiguous.

9.b.       Belgium

The case concerns the retroactive effect of certain rules governing the state’s liability for acts and omissions of its pilots of sea-going ships, (introduced by the Belgian Act of 30 August 1988) and the interference hereby caused with the peaceful enjoyment of the possessions of ship owners who had lodged law-suits against the state on account of accidents which occurred before the new law entered into force (violation of Article 1 of the Protocol No 1).

Individual measures: The national compensation proceedings have been resumed on the basis of the non-applicability of the retroactive effect of the new limitations on State responsibility, at the origin of the violation established by the Court.

General measures: Following the European Court’s judgment of 20 November 1995 on the merits, the Belgian courts have ceased to apply the 1988 Act which was at the origin of the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 found in the present case (see, for example, judgment of the Antwerp Commercial Court of 6 June 1996, judgment of the Ghent Court of Appeal of 31 October 1996). Furthermore, in 1997, the Government approved a bill which would delete the reference to the retrospective exemption from pilots’ liability provided for under the Act of 30 August 1988 and introduce a new system of limited liability for maritime claims prior to the entry into force of this Act. However, the Conseil d’Etat concluded, after examination of the bill, that its Article 2§2 “ran a serious risk of appearing to be contrary to Article 6 of the Convention” and that “the whole bill was therefore to be reviewed” (see Interim Resolution DH (99) 724). By letter of 28 May 2001, the Belgian authorities sent to the Secretariat a new draft law which simply abolishes the retroactive exemption of pilots’ liability and thus completely resolves the problem at the basis of violations in this case.

The Delegation of Belgium replied on 3 October 2001 (see Appendix IV), stating that a draft law has been under consideration by the House of Representatives since 19 July 2001.

9.c.       France

These cases concern the right to be represented before a Court of Appeal. In these cases, the Court of Appeal judged the cases of the applicants in their absence and their counsel were not authorised to present their defence. The cases also concern the inadmissibility of the applicants’ appeals on points of law, on the grounds that the applicants had not surrendered to a judicial arrest warrant.

In the case of Van Pelt and in the case of Poitrimol, the European Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6§§1 and 3; in the case of A.C., the Committee of Ministers held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention.

General measures:

- the issue of the inadmissibility of appeals on points of law for the sole reason that the applicant had not surrendered to a judicial arrest warrant, has been settled by a change in the case-law of the Cour de cassation (Cassation plenary 30 June 1999, Rebboah).

- As regards the right to be represented before a Court of Appeal, the Cour de cassation has given an important judgment (Cassation plenary, 2 March 2001, Vicenzo Dentico) in which it held that “the right to a fair trial and the right of every person accused to be represented by counsel are opposed to a court’s judging an accused who fails to be present without excuse, without giving a hearing to the accused person’s counsel, if present in the court”.

A final resolution putting an end to the Committee of Ministers’ examination of this case is under preparation.

9.d.       Greece

The case concerns the conviction of Jehovah's Witnesses for having had set up and operated a place of worship without the authorisation of the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs (violation of Article 9).

Individual measures: the necessity to strike these convictions from the applicants’ criminal records has repeatedly been pointed out before the Committee of Ministers.

The Greek authorities initially indicated that the Minister of Justice was preparing an interpretative circular which should allow the courts to strike convictions from criminal records without reopening the whole proceedings. However, after the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 525§5) which allows the re-opening of domestic proceedings following violations found by the European Court, the Greek authorities indicated that the striking out of these convictions from the applicants’ criminal records could only be possible in future through re-opening the criminal proceedings in question. A request could be formulated for this purpose by the applicants as well as by the prosecutor. The Secretariat has not yet been informed about the concrete action taken according to the new legislation in order to allow the striking of the convictions from the applicants’ criminal records. In order to reach this result quickly in these four cases, it was suggested in the meantime that the prosecutor should himself, by virtue of his competence, take the initiative in applying to the courts for the striking-out of the convictions at issue.

General measures: The Government has published and disseminated the judgment, with a circular, to authorities implicated in these types of decisions. It also referred to a positive evolution in the jurisprudence and in the practice of the authorities (Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage case, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court n° 1543/1995). The authorities have however been requested to re-examine the possibility to change the Royal Decrees of 20 May and 2 June 1939 which empowers the Minister to verify the “real need” for certain religious communities to established a place of worship. Further examples of jurisprudence confirming the effectiveness of the judicial control over the Minister's decisions have also been requested.

The cases concern the lack of remedies against sanctions (suspension from school) inflicted on Jehovah's Witness pupils who had refused, because of their pacifist religious convictions and those of their parents, to take part in school parades to celebrate the national holiday (violations of Article 13 combined with Article 2 of Protocol 1 and 9).

Final Resolutions have been adopted in these two cases (see respectively Resolution DH (2001) 83 and DH (2001) 82).

These cases concern the impossibility for the applicants to obtain full compensation after their land had been expropriated by the State in order to build a road (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 2). Greek law (Act No. 653/1977) provides in effect in such cases that the compensation is automatically reduced, in application of an "irrefutable presumption" according to which the building of a road is profitable to the adjoining owners, without taking into account the diversity of individual situations.

General Measures: In a memorandum dated 5 January 2001 the Greek authorities recalled that following the judgments of the Court European in the cases of Katikaridis and Tsomtsos, the Greek courts reversed the precedent concerning the interpretation and the application of this presumption: referring directly to the Convention and to the above-mentioned judgments of the European Court, they have declared that the presumption according to which the building of a road is profitable to the adjoining owners, should not be considered as irrebuttable any more, but should be applied taking into account the circumstances of every particular case.

A draft final resolution to terminate the Committee of Ministers’ examination of the above cases is being prepared.

The delegation of Greece replied on 22 June 2001 (see Appendix V). Concerning the Manoussakis case, the recent amendment of Article 525 paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings would enable domestic proceedings to be re-opened where the Court had found violations. It would then be for Mr Manoussakis to make an application to that effect.

The Greek delegation also stated that general measures had been taken and that the authorisation to open places of worship had been granted.

Concerning the Valsamis and Efstratiou cases, it indicated that the final resolutions were about to be adopted by the Committee of Ministers.

Lastly, concerning the Tsomtsos and Katikaridis cases, the Greek Supreme Court has taken a decision in keeping with the Court judgment and a final resolution should be submitted to the Committee of Ministers shortly.

9.e.        Italy

Following the cases of Zappia and Di Pede, four cases raising the same problems have been transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for control of execution: A.V. et A.B., judgment of 5/04/2000, definitive on 5/07/2000, Muso Aurelio III, judgment of 5/04/2000, definitive on 5/07/2000, De Luca Antonio (Interim Resolution DH(99)223), Finocchiaro (Interim Resolution DH(99)494).

In these cases violations of Article 6 § 1 were found on account of the excessive length of execution proceedings (in the case Finocchiaro) or of civil proceedings followed by execution proceedings (in the other cases).

Individual measures: as regards the Zappia case, the Representative of Italy stated at the 654th meeting (January 1999) that the Ministry of Justice would be approached with a view to bringing the case, which had been pending after more than 37 years before the domestic courts, to a rapid conclusion.

General measures : a comprehensive reform of civil justice is under way – see notably Interim Resolution DH(2000)135 and the Committee of Minister’s Press Release of 4 October 2001. In particular, as far as enforcement proceedings are concerned, a law was adopted in August 1998, the aim of which is to speed up forced sale procedures by entrusting them to notaries. Statistical data on the effectiveness of this law, in particular as regards execution proceedings not implying forced sale procedures, were requested in January 1999.

These cases mainly concern the lack of clarity of Italian law on monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence, leaving too much latitude to public authorities and allowing correspondence to the organs of the European Convention on Human Rights to be monitored (violations of Article 8). The Diana and Domenichini cases also concern the lack of effective remedies against such measures (violations of Article 13). Furthermore, in the Domenichini case, the Court found a violation of Article 6§3 because one of the applicant’s letters to his lawyer had been intercepted while penal proceedings were still pending, thus impairing his defence rights.

General measures : A Presidential Decree on penitentiary organisation entered into force on 6 September 2000, Article 38§11 of which provides that correspondence addressed to international human rights organisations should be exempt from monitoring. As regards the other problems highlighted by the Court in these judgments, a Bill (No. 4172/S) aimed at amending the law on monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence has been pending before Parliament since July 1999 and the Representative of Italy promised, at the 741st meeting (February 2001) to inform the Deputies, in April 2001, about the time-frame scheduled for its adoption. Waiting for the legislative amendments, the Domenichini judgment (the section “The law”) was translated and published in the Italian legal journal “Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo” (1997, vol. II, p. 119-124) and the Italian Ministry of Justice addressed, in March and April 1999, circular letters to Presidents and Public prosecutors of Appeal Courts, drawing their attention to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention, as established in the case-law of the European Court of Human rights about monitoring of prisoners’ correspondence, and to the prison authorities, giving them guidelines on how to comply with the above-mentioned requirements.

The case concerns the impossibility, in Italian law, to rehabilitate a person declared bankrupt before a minimum 5-year term has expired. The applicant was accordingly refused an earlier rehabilitation, in spite of the fact that he had been declared bankrupt while he was a minor and had no appointed guardian or legal representative (violation of Article 8).

General measures: the need for legislative changes has been raised since 1998: it has been suggested that the law should be made more flexible to allow for exceptions, subject to judicial supervision, in cases such as this. By letter of 26 June 2000, the Italian Delegation informed the Secretariat that the period of incapacity imposed on bankrupts would probably be modified, in the context of an envisaged reform of the bankruptcy law. The attention of the Italian authorities was drawn, however, to the fact that it was not the length of the period of incapacity that was at issue in this case, but the rigidity of the system, leaving no discretion to authorise derogation in special circumstances. In addition the publication of the Commission’s report was requested. Publication has not yet been confirmed.

The case concerns the deprivation of property deriving from the unlawful occupation of the applicants' land under an expedited procedure (occupazione acquisitiva) by the Municipality of Brescia in 1980. The Court found that a “fair balance” between protecting the right of property and “the demands of the general interest” had not been struck (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1), on account notably of the fact that the law (known as the “Zubani law”) providing for the full compensation for damage sustained by expropriated proprietors entered into force only in 1988, i.e. eight years after the expropriation at the origin of the case, and that the municipality had not yet paid the whole sum awarded by the tribunal. The enforcement proceedings brought by the applicants to obtain compensation are still pending twenty years after the expropriation.

General measures: Compensation in full applies for dispossessions effected after 30 September 1996 and, before that date, for dispossessions and deprivations of land that were not in the public interest. In the light of the judgments of 30 May 2000 in the cases of Carbonara and Ventura and Belvedere Alberghiera S.r.l., the Italian system by which unlawful expropriations are retroactively made legal by applying the “constructive expropriation” rule (occupazione acquisitiva), established by the case-law, raises new problems that go beyond the question of the amount of compensation. In fact, in these cases the Court found that the “constructive expropriation” rule, also at issue in the Zubani case, is inconsistent - as applied in Italy - with the requirement of lawfulness. The question of the general measures necessary to bring the Italian law in conformity with the Court case-law was therefore raised once more.

The case relates to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the delays in organising contact visits between the first applicant and her children, after they had been taken into public care and placed in a community, as well as on account of the limited number of such contact visits in relation to the aim of re-establishing contacts between the mother and her children. The Court also concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the placement, uninterrupted to date and without any time-limit, of the children in a community among whose managers were persons convicted for ill-treatment and paedophilia.

Individual measures: Two interim resolutions have been adopted by the Committee of Ministers highlighting the necessity of taking individual measures to erase the consequences of the violations found – see Interim resolutions DH(2001) 65 and 151. In the latter adopted on 3 October 2001 the Committee of Ministers concluded as follows:

General measures: firstly, it has been indicated that measures should be taken in order to draw the attention of all Italian Family Courts to the Court’s judgment. Secondly, it was asked what measures were envisaged to ensure that the inspections required by the law effectively take place (see paragraph 212 of the judgment). Lastly, the question was raised of how it happened that people convicted of paedophilia and ill-treatment were still managing a community entrusted with the care of children.

9.f.       Netherlands

The case concerns the surveillance of the applicants’ activities by the intelligence and security services, the fact that personal information concerning them had been compiled and maintained, as well as the denial of access to this information (violation of Article 8).

General measures: Since the facts of the present case, an Act of 1987 which entered into force on 1 February 1988 introduced new regulations governing the intelligence and security services. However, the Council of State (Raad van State), in two judgments of 16 June 1994 relating to the security services’ refusal to give access to personal information, relied on the report of the former European Commission on Human Rights adopted in the case of R.V. and others, to conclude that the new provisions, in particular sections 8 and 16 of the Intelligence and Security Services Act of 1987, were not in conformity with Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. In line with these conclusions, the Government decided to undertake a further legislative reform.

On 5 March 2001 the Netherlands Delegation sent the Secretariat copies of letters sent by the Ministry of the Interior to Parliament to inform it that the draft law had been transmitted for consultation to the European Commission (Commission of the European Union). During the last examination of the case at the 749th meeting (April 2001) – see notably Interim Resolution DH(2000)135 and the Committee of Minister’s Press Release of 4 October 2001., the Representative of Netherlands stated that his authorities were awaiting the European Commission’s answer.

In its reply (see Appendix VI), the Delegation indicated that a bill had been passed by the House of Representatives on 3 July 21001. The Senate was expected to vote on the Bill in October 2001.

9.g       Portugal

The case concerns the excessive length of several expropriation proceedings and the ensuing interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants’property (violation of Article 6§1 and Article 1 of Protocol N° 1).

Individual measures: the necessity to put an end to the different expropriation proceedings which are still pending (for more than 17 years) has been raised. The Directorate General of Human Rights has been in contact with the Portuguese delegation to find a solution to this problem.

By letter of 29 May 2001, the Committee of Ministers was informed that the Supreme Administrative Court had concluded the appeal procedure by judgment of 31 May 2000, which has confirmed the ownership of the property in question to the applicants. An appeal has been lodged before the Plenary Assembly of the Supreme Administrative Court, which confirmed its judgment on 21 February 2001. The decision became final on 7 March 2001. Other sets of proceedings are still pending concerning in particular the compensation to be granted following the expropriation.

However, four proceedings are still pending, inter alia, the proceedings concerning the amounts to be awarded as compensation for the expropriation. Information has been requested in this respect.

9.h.       United Kingdom

Following the case of Murray John, 5 cases raising the same problems have been transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for control of execution : Condron W. & K. (judgment of 02/05/2000, final on 02/08/2000), Quinn (Interim Resolution DH(98)214) Murray Kevin (Interim Resolution DH(98)156) Averill (judgment of 06/06/2000, final on 06/09/2000) Magee (judgment of 06/06/2000, final on 06/09/2000).

These cases concern the right to silence, the right not to incriminate oneself and the denial of access to legal advice during the first 48 hours of detention (24 hours in the Averill case), in combination with the provisions in national law whereby the choice of the accused to remain silent could result in the court’s or jury’s drawing unfavourable conclusions (violations of Article 6§3c alone or combined with Article 6§1).

General measures: a number of interim measures have been taken since the adoption of the judgments by the European Court and of decisions by the Committee of Ministers in these cases to avoid putting suspects in the situations impugned by the European Court and the Committee of Ministers. Legislative reforms are also under way. Interim Resolution DH(2000)26 was adopted in the Murray John case at the 695th meeting (February 2000) summarizing all the measures taken and envisaged by the United Kingdom authorities in order to implement the Court’s judgment. It was indicated that further information about the necessary legislative changes should be available during 2001.

The Delegation of the United Kingdom replied on 15 November 2001 (see Appendix VII). It indicated that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 had been amended in order to comply with the judgment of the Court in this case and that administrative arrangements were now in place to ensure that a situation similar to that in the Murray case would not occur again.

The case concerns the non-respect of the right to participate in elections to choose the legislature in that no election to the European Parliament was organised in Gibraltar (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No 1).

General measures: the Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee of Ministers about its efforts in the European Union to find a satisfactory solution to this case. The Government’s priority remains to secure the agreement of its EU partners to the enfranchisement of Gibraltar through a change to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is committed to achieving enfranchisement for Gibraltar for the 2004 European Parliament elections. However, it appears that, at the European Union level, the dossier currently remains blocked and, consequently, the United Kingdom has not ruled out any option available in order to fulfil the Court’s judgment. It has been asked that the Committee of Ministers be kept informed of any development in this field.

The case has received extensive newspaper coverage and, according to the United Kingdom authorities it has been published, notably, in the Human Rights Report, Human Rights Digest and other legal journals. Full details of the publication have been requested.

On 26 June 2001 the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution DH(2001)79 in which it notably concluded:

The Delegation of the United Kingdom replied on 15 November 2001 (see Appendix VII). In this case the United Kingdom Government indicated two ways in which it could give effect to the Mathews judgment. The first is by amendment to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections, which would require the unanimous agreement of all member States. The second is by national action to extend the franchise to Gibralter. This would involve bringing in domestic legislation without prior amendment to the 1976 Act. The United Kingdom Government is considering this latter course of action.

9.i.       Turkey

In the case of Turkey, the Sub-Committee addressed a written question to the Committee of Ministers, as the list of non-implemented judgments is too long. On 30 May 2001, the Sub-Committee decided to have a meeting with the Turkish delegation concerning these cases during the June part-session.

10.        On 27 June 2001, a delegation of the Human Rights Sub-Committee, comprising the Chair of the plenary Committee and the Rapporteur, met the Chair of the Turkish delegation, accompanied by Ms Gűlek, Mr Akçali and Mr Irtemçelik.

11.        The Rapporteur, after indicating that the President of the Assembly had written to the delegations of countries which failed to implement judgments of the Court, explained that in Turkey’s case it had been decided to hold an informal meeting instead. Turkey was concerned by 193 cases, of which about 50 raised major issues, such as freedom of expression and length of proceedings. A list was supplied to the Chair of the Turkish delegation. It comprised the following cases:

-        4 judgments and decisions relate to the excessive length of police custody

         (violations of Article 5§3);

-        30 judgments and decisions relate to homicides, torture, ill-treatment or destruction of property by the security forces (violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 1 of Protocol No 1);

-        21 judgments and decisions relate to violations of freedom of expression (violations of Articles 10 and 11).

In view of the continued consideration by the Committee of Ministers of the Loizidou case, which concerns the continuing violation of the applicant’s right of property and the non-payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, the Rapporteur has decided not to include this case in the present list.

12.        The Grand National Assembly must be persuaded to bring pressure to bear on the Turkish Government.

13.        The Turkish delegation gave assurances that 37 amendments to the Constitution currently being considered would enable these problems to be resolved. These amendments require a three-fifths’ majority in parliament; otherwise a referendum will be necessary.

14.        Subsequently, on 18 September 2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted a reply to Written Question No 390 in which it gives assurance that it will continue to pursue its examination of all outstanding points, until full and proper execution of the Court's judgments has been secured, notably in the context of its regular Human Rights meetings. It will define its future strategy in the light of the information which it expects from the Turkish authorities in the near future.

15.        The Rapporteur made it clear that he wished to be able to record these changes in the present report. He was given assurances to that effect. FURTHER monitoring is, however, necessary. The Assembly should instruct the Legal Committee to confer with the national delegation and with the government of Turkey, and to report on progress made in June 2002.

Conclusions

16.        Although the Sub-committee on Human Rights of the Committee of Legal Affairs and Human Rights has in the past year indeed set up a procedure to make it possible for the Assembly to monitor the efforts of the Committee of Ministers to implement the decisions of the Court the Rapporteur is worried about the lack of co-operation from most of the national delegations that have been asked to apply to their governments for information on progress being made in specific cases. Only national parliamentarians have the possibility and the constitutional competence to hold their governments accountable for non-compliance with decisions of the Court. When the Committee of Ministers has tried to solve specific cases of non-implementation with its process of inter-governmental consultation and decision-making, but is confronted with a lack of willingness of the government concerned, then there is clearly a role for national delegations to the Assembly to bring the matter up on a non-partisan basis with their own government within their own parliamentary procedure for such matters. I stress this element of a non-partisan initiative by national delegations, because the obligation to implement Court decisions rests on member-states as such, and should not be subject to the normal political divides within parliaments. The Assembly should therefore in my view speak out clearly on the necessity for national delegations to participate actively in the procedure to monitor the implementation of decisions of the Court.

17.        A second point of concern is the large amount of non-implemented decisions in the case of Turkey. I would suggest that a special procedure of consultation is necessary with the Turkish national delegation and with the Turkish government, resulting in a special report to the Assembly within a half a year.

18.        As to Italy there is also a large amount of non-implemented cases, be it that the large number is caused by the cases concerning the excessive length of trials (Art.6 ECHR). This problem should also receive special attention during the coming year.

19.        The two cases mentioned in my report of last year as examples of political causes of non-implementation should be mentioned specifically: the Loizidou case against Turkey and the languages case against Belgium. Here the Court ‘s decisions are not being implemented because the governments concerned claim that the matter can only be solved by a political solution of the Cyprus-issue, alternatively of changes in the constitutional compromise arrived at between the two main language groups in Belgium. Here an initiative by the Political or the Monitoring Committee of the Assembly might be more appropriate.

APPENDIX I

Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for

the application of Article 46, paragraph 2,

of the European Convention on Human Rights

 

(text approved by the Committee of Ministers

on 10 January 2001

at the 736th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

 

Rule 1

General provisions

a. The Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the execution of judgments of the Court will in principle take place at special human rights meetings, the agenda of which is public.

b. Unless otherwise provided in the present rules, the general rules of procedure of the meetings of the Committee of Ministers and of the Ministers’ Deputies shall apply to the examination of cases under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention.

c. If the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers is held by the representative of a state which is a party to a case referred to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that representative shall relinquish the chairmanship during any discussion of that case.

Rule 2

Inscription of cases on the agenda

When a judgment is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the case shall be inscribed on the agenda of the Committee without delay.

Rule 3

Information to the Committee of Ministers on the measures taken in order to abide by the judgment

a. When, in a judgment transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Court has decided that there has been a violation of the Convention or its protocols and/or has awarded just satisfaction to the injured party under Article 41 of the Convention, the Committee shall invite the State concerned to inform it of the measures which the State has taken in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligation to abide by it under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

b. When supervising the execution of a judgment by the respondent State, pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers shall examine whether:

- any just satisfaction awarded by the Court has been paid, including as the case may be default interest;

and, if required, and taking into account the discretion of the State concerned to choose the means necessary to comply with the judgment, whether

- individual measures footnote 1 have been taken to ensure that the violation has ceased and that the injured party is put, as far as possible, in the same situation as that party enjoyed prior to the violation of the Convention;

- general measures footnote 2 have been adopted, preventing new violations similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuing violations.

Rule 4

Control intervals

a. Until the State concerned has provided information on the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court or concerning possible individual measures, the case shall be placed on the agenda of each human rights meeting of the Committee of Ministers, unless the Committee decides otherwise.

b. If the State concerned informs the Committee of Ministers that it is not yet in a position to inform the Committee that the general measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment have been taken, the case shall be placed again on the agenda of a meeting of the Committee of Ministers taking place no more than six months later, unless the Committee decides otherwise; the same rule shall apply when this period expires and for each subsequent period.

Rule 5

Access to information

Without prejudice to the confidential nature of Committee of Ministers’ deliberations, in accordance with Article 21 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, information provided by the State to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention and the documents relating thereto shall be accessible to the public, unless the Committee decides otherwise in order to protect legitimate public or private interests. In deciding such matters, the Committee of Ministers shall take into account reasoned requests by the State or States concerned, as well as the interest of an injured party or a third party not to disclose their identity.

Rule 6

Communications to the Committee of Ministers

a. The Committee of Ministers shall be entitled to consider any communication from the injured party with regard to the payment of the just satisfaction or the taking of individual measures.

b. The Secretariat shall bring such communications to the attention of the Committee of Ministers.

Rule 7

Interim resolutions

In the course of its supervision of the execution of a judgment, the Committee of Ministers may adopt interim resolutions, notably in order to provide information on the state of progress of the execution or, where appropriate, to express concern and/or to make relevant suggestions with respect to the execution.

Rule 8

Final resolution

After having established that the State concerned has taken all the necessary measures to abide by the judgment, the Committee of Ministers shall adopt a resolution concluding that its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention have been exercised.

1) For instance, the striking out of an unjustified criminal conviction from the criminal records, the granting of a residence permit or the re-opening of impugned domestic proceedings (see on this latter point Recommendation No. R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers to the member States on the re-examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, adopted on 19 January 2000 at the 694th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).

 2) For instance, legislative or regulatory amendments, changes of case law or administrative practice or publication of the Court’s judgment in the language of the respondent State and its dissemination to the authorities concerned.

APPENDIX II

Model letter sent by the President of the Assembly to the Chairperson of the national delegations concerned

…

In its Resolution 1226 (2000) on the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly decided to keep a permanent updated record of the execution of judgments and invited the national delegations to the Assembly to carefully follow the execution of the judgments of the Court in which their governments are involved.

In conformity with these decisions, the Sub-Committee on Human Rights, of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, upon a proposal by its Rapporteur Mr Jurgens, has started to draw up a record of decisions of the Court which have not been implemented. From this record it appears that concerning your country the following judgment has not yet been implemented:

[Summary of the case]

[Measures to be taken]

The Sub-Committee on Human Rights and the Rapporteur would be most grateful if your delegation could do its utmost to convince your government, if necessary by making use of questions in your parliament, that it should execute this judgment of the Court. I would be much obliged if you could report before … the measures taken to this effect.

Thanking you for your co-operation, I remain,

…

APPENDIX III

Reply of 26 June 2001 from the Delegation of Austria

(translation)

…

I have received a letter from the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Lord Russell-Johnston, dated 28 March 2001, in which he points out that the judgment of 17 December 1996 of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ahmed v Austria has not yet been executed. As requested by the President, the reply is addressed to you as Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights.

Having studied the judgment, I made enquiries about the position to the international law office of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Apparently the Council of Europe wishes § 57 (4) of the 1997 Aliens Act to be amended. According to this provision, expulsion is admissible if aliens, for weighty reasons, constitute a danger to the security of the Republic of Austria, or if they have been convicted in an Austrian court of a particularly serious crime and, because of that criminal conduct, constitute a danger to the community.

In a statement of Austria’s position made in March 1999 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a reference to the possibility under § 57 in conjunction with § 75 of the Aliens Act of defending oneself against expulsion to a country where the person concerned is at risk of torture (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights). The latest Austrian memorandum, dated 4 April 2001, which refers to a judgment of 8 June 2000 of the Austrian Administrative Court (one of Austria’s highest courts, at the same level as the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court) making explicit reference to the Ahmed judgment, was noted by the Ministers’ Deputies, and the case was deferred for no longer than six months.

According to our international law office, the case could be provisionally concluded through an interim resolution as soon as the Austrian Government submits a clear statement of its position on the ambiguity of the Aliens Act to which the Council of Europe pointed. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs intends to provide such a statement as soon as possible, and has made contact with the Federal Ministry of the Interior, under the responsibility of which an appropriate amendment of § 57 (4) of the Aliens Act could be drawn up.

For your personal information, and to give you the clearest possible picture, I am enclosing with this letter the position statement made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I should like to assure you that the Austrian delegation takes a great interest in a positive solution.

signed:

Peter Schieder

Chairperson of the Austrian delegation

*****

Letter of 5 June 2001 from Dr Hans Winkler to Dr Stephan Toth

Apologies for the belated reply to your letter of 20 April 2001 requesting information, on behalf of the Chairperson of the Austrian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, about the execution of the judgment of 17 December 1996 of the European Court of Human Rights (case of Ahmed v Austria).

I am now able to tell you, on this subject, that:

The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment of 17 December 1996 in the case of Sharif Hussein AHMED v Austria, stated that Article 3 of the European Convention (prohibition of torture) would be violated if the applicant, a Somali national, were exposed to the real risk of treatment in Somalia contrary to this article, and if he were nevertheless expelled to that country. The costs awarded in respect of the proceedings (ATS 150 000) were paid punctually on 6 March 1997. Subsequently, the case regularly appeared on the agenda of the Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe.

As a ground for expulsion in pursuance of § 13 of the Right to Asylum Act existed - conviction of a particularly serious crime - Mr Ahmed had been refused a residence permit. The applicant, however, obtained a declaratory decree in pursuance of § 54 of the 1992 Aliens Act (now § 75 of the 1997 Aliens Act) stating that his expulsion to Somalia was prohibited. He subsequently benefited from several stays of execution of his expulsion, but after he failed to submit the appropriate application (for an extension), the final stay of execution came to an end on 1 March 1998. It also has to be stated that, until such time as a final decision is taken on an application for a decree in pursuance of § 75 of the 1997 Aliens Act, a person may be expelled only if the application must manifestly be rejected on the grounds of res judicata. On 15 March 1998 the applicant committed suicide in Graz’s Platz der Menschenrechte (Human Rights Square).

It has not been possible to conclude the case in the Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe because, in the view of the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Human Rights, the possibility of another violation of the Convention occurring in similar cases cannot be excluded. It was at issue whether the Austrian Right to Asylum Act (especially § 15) made provision for exceptions making it possible for persons to continue to be expelled from Austria in violation of the European Convention and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

This view was opposed in comments from Austria (March 1999). Irrespective of the Right to Asylum Act, it has been possible in Austria ever since the entry into force of the Aliens Act, Official Gazette (BGBl.) No. 838/1992, to defend oneself against expulsion to a country where the person concerned is at risk within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention. This effective remedy was also incorporated into the 1997 Aliens Act, BGBl I No. 75, making it possible for an alien whose asylum application has been rejected to defend himself or herself against impending expulsion (§ 57 in conjunction with § 75 of the Aliens Act). This provision is consistently applied, in accordance with fundamental rights and with reference to the case-law of the European Court, particularly by the courts which deal with public law. The Council of Europe Secretariat has been sent Constitutional Court decisions showing that practice conforms to the European Convention. Among these was the judgment of 27 November1997, which refers directly to the European Court’s judgment in the Ahmed case.

Mr Imbert, Director of the Directorate General of Human Rights, stated in October 1999 that, while there were guarantees in Austrian case-law, it was nonetheless desirable for a reference to the European Convention to be made in the decisive text of § 57 (4) of the 1997 Aliens Act. Furthermore, this provision practically corresponded to § 37 (4) of the 1992 Aliens Act, complained of by the European Court in its Ahmed judgment, indicating that Austrian law does not offer adequate protection from violations of the Convention in cases similar to the Ahmed case. In a letter of 10 February 2000, Mr Imbert requested that the exceptional provisions of § 57 (4) of the Aliens Act, which had led to the violation of the Convention found by the European Court, be amended so as to ensure that the absolute guarantee of Article 3 of the European Convention is safeguarded.

In June 2000 discussions took place in Strasbourg between representatives of the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Human Rights and the Austrian Ministry of the Interior. It was agreed that an examination of the case-law of the highest Austrian courts would be carried out in order to find out whether the European Court’s judgment had been reflected in Austrian decisions.

This examination was then conducted by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which established that the Constitutional Court had expressly referred in a decision of 8 June 2000 to the European Court’s judgment in the Ahmed case and had taken account of a possible violation of Article 3 of the Convention. An Austrian memorandum, which reiterated the main information given in the decision, was submitted on 4 April 2001 to the Ministers’ Deputies, who took note of it.

The Directorate General of Human Rights has now advised that the only question remaining is the ambiguity of the Aliens Act. It seems that a linguistic improvement of the provision complained of will be useful in the context of a future reform with a view to legal certainty. As soon as Austria has made its position on this matter clear, the case will be able to be provisionally concluded through an interim resolution (until such time as the Aliens Act is reformed).

The case was deferred on 4 April 2001 for no more than six months. It is the intention of the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs to make a position statement at the earliest possible opportunity, and to point to the fact that the relevant and constant case-law of the highest Austrian courts - not least in the context of the principle of legality that has to be strictly observed during execution - guarantees that a similar violation of the Convention to that found to have occurred in the Ahmed case cannot happen again. The Federal Ministry of the Interior, which bears responsibility in this sphere, has already been contacted on the subject of an appropriate amendment of § 57 (4) of the Aliens Act.

APPENDIX IV

Reply of 3 October 2001 from the Delegation of Belgium

…

In reply to your letter of 24 September, concerning the implementation of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of SA Pressos Compania Naviera v. Belgium, judgment of 20 November 1995, Interim Resolution DH (99) 724 (Information), I am pleased to inform you a draft law modifying Article 3 bis of the law of 3 November 1967 on the piloting of sea-going ships, modified by the law of 30 August 1988, was adopted by the Council of Ministers last June.

The draft law was transmitted to the House of Representatives on 19 July 2001 and should be adopted in the coming weeks.

For your information, I enclose the text of the draft law.

…

signed:

Jean-Pol Henry

President of the Belgian Senate

APPENDIX V

Reply of 22 June 2001 from the Delegation of Greece

APPENDIX VI

Reply of 12 July 2001 from the Delegation of the Netherlands

…

By letter of 28 March 201 you conveyed to the Delegation of the Netherlands the wish of the Sub-Committee on Human Rights to make efforts to secure implementation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (DH (2000) 25).

With apologies for the delay, I can inform you that the subject-matter in question has now been regulated in a bill (no 25877). This bill was passed by am large majority of the House of Representatives on Tuesday 3 July.

Under the Dutch legal system the Senate too will have to vote on the bill. This is expected to take place in October 2001.

signed:

J.D. Blaauw,

Chairperson of the Netherlands Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

APPENDIX VII

Reply received on 15 November 2001 from the United Kingdom Delegation


APPENDIX VIII

Letter from Mrs Josette Durrieu, Chairperson of the French Delegation

to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,

to Mr Eric Jurgens, received on 30 November 2001

Paris, 26 November 2001

…

You were kind enough to draw my attention, and that of Lord Russell-Johnston, President of the Assembly, to your draft Report on “Implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights”, and particularly to two cases concerning France, which you mention as still pending: the POITRIMOL and A.C. cases.

I am pleased to inform you that these two cases have now been concluded.

At their 757th (DH) meeting (13-14 June 2001), the Ministers’ Deputies decided that France had met its obligations.

Both these cases concerned the right to be represented before a Court of Appeal. Following the two judgments handed down on 2 March 2001 by the Cour de Cassation, the Ministry of Justice sent a memorandum to all the Principal State Prosecutors, pointing out that the Cour de Cassation had held that “the right to a fair trial and the right of every person accused to be represented by counsel are opposed to a court’s judging an accused who fails to be present without excuse, without giving a hearing to the accused person’s counsel, if present in the court”.

Consequently, the Court of Cassation’s new case-law on the application of Articles 410 and 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has had the immediate effect of bringing our procedural rules into line with the requirements of the Convention, without however requiring amendment of the articles themselves.

For technical reasons, the Directorate of Human Rights has unfortunately not yet drawn up the two final resolutions in the POITRIMOL and A.C. cases. This delay cannot be held against the French party.

Accordingly, and in the light of this information, I believe that the reference to these two cases among the unexecuted decisions is no longer justified. It would therefore be appropriate to remove them from the list in the report under preparation.

I hope that this reply has answered your legitimate concerns.

…

signed: Josette Durrieu

Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights

Reference to committee: Resolution 1226 (2000)

Draft resolution and draft recommendation adopted by the committee on 26 November 2001 with 27 votes in favour, no votes against and 1 abstention

Members of the committee: Mr Jansson (Chairperson), Mr Magnusson, Mr Frunda, Mrs Gülek (Vice-Chairpersons), Mr Akçali, Mr G. Aliyev, Mr Arabadjiev, Mrs van Ardenne-van der Hoeven (alternate: Mr Dees), Mr Attard Montalto, Mr Bindig, Mr Brejc, Mr Bruce, Mr Bulavinov, Mr Chaklein, Mr Clerfayt, Mr Contestabile, Mr Demetriou, Mr Dimas, Mr Enright, Mrs Err, Mr Floros, Mrs Frimansdóttir, Mr Fyodorov, Mr Guardans, Mr Gustafsson, Mrs Hajiyeva (alternate: Mr A. Huseynov), Mr Holovaty, Mr Irtemçelik, Mr Jaskiernia, Mr Jurgens, Mr Kelemen, Lord Kirkhill (alternate: Mr Lloyd), Mr Kostytsky, Mr S. Kovalev, Mr Kresák, Mr Kroupa, Mrs Krzyzanowska, Mr Lacão, Mrs Libane, Mr Lintner, Mr Lippelt, Mr Manzella, Mrs Markovic-Dimova, Mr Marty, Mr Mas Torres, Mr Masseret, Mr McNamara, Mr Michel, Mr Moeller, Mrs Nabholz-Haidegger, Mr Nachbar, Mr Olteanu, Mr Pellicini, Mr Penchev, Mr Piscitello (alternate: Mr Budin), Mrs Postoico, Mrs Roudy (alternate: Mr Hunault), Mr Rustamyan, Mr Simonsen, Mr Skrabalo, Mr Solé Tura, Mr Spindelegger, Mr Stankevic, Mr Stoica, Mrs Süssmuth, Mr Svoboda, Mr Symonenko, Mr Tabajdi, Mr Tallo, Mrs Tevdoradze, Mr Uriarte, Mr Vanoost, Mr Vera Jardim, Mr Volpinari, Mr Wilkinson, Mrs Wohlwend, Mr Wojcik, Mrs Wurm

N.B. The names of those members who were present at the meeting are printed in italics.

Secretaries to the committee: Ms Coin, Ms Kleinsorge, Mr Ćupina

1 France replied after the adoption of the present report. Its reply is set out in Appendix VII.