Doc. 10960 revised (English only)
12 June 2006

Progress of the Assembly's Monitoring Procedure
(May 2005 - June 2006)

Report
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Rapporteur: Mr György Frunda, Romania, Group of the European People's Party

Link to the addendum

Summary

During its ninth year of existence, the Monitoring Committee presented to the Assembly nine reports, of which eight concerned Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. During the reference period, its rapporteurs carried out 21 fact-finding missions. Members of the Committee carried out 12 visits as part of the preparation for or observation of elections or referenda.

In order to further enhance clarity and increase the credibility and transparency of the Assembly's monitoring procedure, some amendments to the terms of reference of the Committee as regards the opening of a monitoring procedure and the conclusion of a post-monitoring dialogue are proposed.

The report also refers to the increasing importance of the work of the Monitoring Committee in the framework of the EU's future enlargement, the European Neighbourhood Policy or the EU special Partnership and Co-operation Agreement with the Russian Federation, and fully endorses relevant recommendations made in the Juncker report.

The great novelty of the present report consists, however, in the initiative taken by the Monitoring Committee to prepare and present in an Addendum periodic reports on states which are not currently under a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue. Such reports will be based on a country-by-country assessment carried out by other Council of Europe bodies and institutions as well as on Assembly resolutions and recommendations emanating from other committees.

For this year, 11 such reports have been prepared on Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France and Germany. The report addresses recommendations to their national parliaments and invites these states to ratify a series of Council of Europe conventions which provide for a specific monitoring mechanism. A second group of states will be examined as part of next year's Progress Report of the Committee. The first 3-year cycle will be completed with the last group of states being examined in 2008.

I.       Draft resolution

1.       The Assembly welcomes the work carried out for over 9 years now by its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments (Monitoring Committee). Its increasing efficiency, impact and credibility are widely acknowledged.

2.       Out of the eight monitoring reports the Monitoring Committee has presented to the Assembly from May 2005 to June 2006, three take stock of the situation in Georgia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine and constitute genuine road maps for future reforms in these countries; the other five react to current political events, namely the constitutional reform in Armenia, the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan and Moldova, as well as the challenge of the still unratified credential of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan on substantial grounds following the parliamentary elections in the country of November 2005.

3.       Amendments to Resolution 1115 (1997) which created the Monitoring Committee and defined its terms of reference, adopted last year by virtue of Resolution 1431 (2005), were aimed at reinforcing the role of the Assembly in what is a highly political area, namely the decision to open or re-open a monitoring procedure. One year after the entry into force of these changes, it appears, however, that the rules are still not clear, in particular as regards the time-limit within which the Bureau of the Assembly has to refer to the Monitoring Committee a motion for a resolution on an application to open a monitoring procedure.

4.       Also, Resolution 1115 (1997), as revised by Resolution 1431 (2005), still fails to properly regulate the modalities governing the conclusion of the post-monitoring dialogue carried out with a member state for which the monitoring procedure has been closed.

5.       Consequently, in order to enhance clarity and thus increase the credibility and transparency of its monitoring mechanism, the Assembly decides to further amend the terms of reference of the Monitoring Committee and notably to:

5.1.       introduce the following paragraph after paragraph 2 of the Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997):

"The Bureau shall refer applications tabled in accordance with paragraph 2. i and iii above to the Monitoring Committee at one of its next two meetings following their tabling.";

5.2.       introduce in the Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997) the following paragraph after paragraph 7:

"When reporting to the Bureau of the Assembly on the post-monitoring dialogue carried out with a member state upon a decision by the Assembly, the Monitoring Committee shall state in its relevant memorandum whether the post-monitoring dialogue with this state is to be considered concluded:

-       if the Bureau agrees with the Monitoring Committee's recommendation to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue, such recommendation should be recorded in the Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee;

-       in case the Bureau does not agree with the Committee's recommendation to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue, the memorandum adopted by the Monitoring Committee shall be transformed, by way of derogation from Rule 49.2 of the Rules of Procedure, into a report containing a draft resolution and the Bureau shall include the item in the agenda and order of business of the next Assembly part-session for debate and adoption of the draft resolution. A representative of the Bureau may speak in its name in this debate." ;

5.3.       The new provisions shall enter into force upon their adoption.

6.       The Assembly notes with satisfaction that the European Union Commission has regularly referred to the fulfilment of commitments and obligations towards the Council of Europe in its assessments of progress made by states involved in the European Union accession or pre-accession procedures. Compliance with Council of Europe obligations and commitments is also a very important element in the assessment of the democratic and human rights record of European states participating in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) or of the Russian Federation with which the European Union has a special Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Thus the work of the Monitoring Committee is of paramount importance in the framework of the European Union's future enlargement, the ENP or special agreements. This has been recently reaffirmed by Mr Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, in his report on the relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union.

7.       Therefore the Assembly:

7.1.       recalling its Recommendation 1724 (2005) on "The Council of Europe and the European Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union", reiterates that for the countries covered by the ENP which are members of the Council of Europe compliance with Council for Europe commitments and obligations should be made a pre-condition for any further European integration;

7.2.       fully endorses the recommendation made in the Juncker report according to which a working rule should be established whereby the reports, conclusions and recommendations to the states concerned issued inter alia by its Monitoring Committee, as well as its own Resolutions on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Council of Europe member states should be systematically and expressly cited as the first reference source in Europe for democracy, rule of law and human rights;

7.3.       encourages its Monitoring Committee to enhance its contacts with the European Parliament, as well as the relevant services of the European Union Commission and the Council of Ministers.

8.       Resolution 1115 (1997) clearly underlines the importance "to ensure full compliance with the undertakings made by all [Council of Europe] member states, in a spirit of co-operation and non-discrimination" and entrusts the Monitoring Committee with the task of verifying not only the honouring of the specific commitments accepted by member states upon their accession to the Council of Europe but first of all "the obligations assumed by the member states under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other Council of Europe conventions to which they are parties".

9.       However, despite the clear wording of Resolution 1115 (1997) and subsequent appeals by the Assembly, the Monitoring Committee has so far been unable to carry out its full mandate and to verify the honouring of statutory obligations assumed by all member states since, with the exception of one member state, monitoring procedures have so far been initiated only with respect to member states that have joined the Organisation since 1989. At the same time, it is also true that the mechanism to open new monitoring procedures is complex and carries a certain political weight.

10.       Consequently, the Assembly welcomes the Monitoring Committee's initiative to prepare and attach to its annual Progress Reports to the Assembly periodic reports on states which are not currently subjected to a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue. Such reports will be based on:

10.1.       a country-by-country assessment carried out by other Council of Europe bodies and institutions (the Committee of Ministers, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), the Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures (MONEYVAL), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the European Committee of Social Rights);

10.2.       resolutions and recommendations of the Assembly on specific issues in member States that have been examined by rapporteurs from other Committees of the Assembly.

11.       The Assembly underlines that, should the situation warrant it, the existence of such periodic reports shall not prevent the initiation of a monitoring procedure with respect to one or more of the states concerned in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997).

12.       For this year, the Monitoring Committee has presented such reports on 11 out of the 33 member states currently not involved in a monitoring procedure or a post-monitoring dialogue, which have been chosen on the basis of alphabetical order: Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France and Germany. A second group of states will be examined as part of the Monitoring Committee's Progress Report for 2007 whereas the first 3-year cycle will be completed with the last group of states being examined in 2008.

13.       On the basis of the reports attached to this year's Progress Report of the Monitoring Committee, the Assembly:

13.1.       invites the national parliaments of the states concerned to:

13.1.1.       use these reports as a basis for a debate on their country's record with regard to the fulfilment of its statutory and other conventional obligations as a member state of the Council of Europe;

13.1.2.       promote execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and compliance with recommendations made by the Commissioner for Human Rights and the other Council of Europe specific monitoring bodies, both by provoking and accelerating necessary legislative initiatives and exercising their role of oversight of government action;

13.2.       noting the Interim Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 April 2006 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Čonka against Belgium, encourages the Belgian authorities and, in particular, the Belgian Parliament, to accelerate the legislative reforms required to ensure full execution of the judgment;

13.3.       invites the Commissioner for Human Rights to give priority in organising visits and preparing reports on Austria, Belgium and Germany, which his predecessor did not visit.

14.       The Assembly, noting that a number of the member states under consideration are not yet subject to certain specific monitoring mechanisms of the Organisation because they have not ratified the relevant conventions or have not joined the relevant bodies, invites the member states to take the necessary steps within three years. The Assembly notably urges:

14.1.       Andorra to sign and ratify and France to ratify the European Charter of Local Self-Government;

14.2.       Andorra, Austria, Belgium, France and Germany to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption;

14.3.       Andorra, Austria, France and Germany to also ratify the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;

14.4.       Andorra, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France and Germany to sign and ratify and Austria, Belgium, Cyprus and Finland to ratify the 2005 Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, noting that all of them have ratified the 1990 Convention on the same subject-matter;

14.5.       Andorra, Denmark and France to sign and ratify and Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Germany to ratify Protocol No 12 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

14.6.       France to ratify Protocol No 13 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

14.7.       Andorra and Belgium to ratify Protocol No 14 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

14.8.       Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany to ratify the Revised European Social Charter, noting that all of them have ratified the 1961 European Social Charter;

14.9.       Andorra, Estonia and Germany to sign and ratify and Austria, the Czech Republic and Denmark to ratify the Protocol to the European Social Charter on collective complaints;

14.10.       Andorra and France to sign and ratify and Belgium to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;

14.11.       Andorra, Belgium and Estonia to sign and ratify and the Czech Republic and France to ratify the European charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

14.12.       Austria to join the specific monitoring bodies of GRECO and MONEYVAL;

14.13.       Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Germany to join the MONEYVAL.

II.       Explanatory memorandum

Table of contents

1.       INTRODUCTION

2.       OVERVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE'S ACTIVITIES: A CONTINUED RESPONSIVENESS BY THE COMMITTEE      

3.       COMMENTS ON THE MONITORING PROCEDURE  

a.       The opening of a monitoring procedure      
b.       Criteria for closing the monitoring procedure    
c.       The conclusion of a post monitoring dialogue    

4.       INCREASING THE IMPACT OF THE MONITORING PROCEDURE    

a.       Co-ordination with other Assembly committees   
b.       Co-ordination within the Council of Europe  
c.       Co-ordination with other European bodies    

5.       EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF MONITORING TO ALL COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MONITORING COMMITTEE'S MANDATE

Appendix I:        Monitoring procedures between May 2005 and June 2006      
Appendix II:       Country grid      
Appendix III:     Charter of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions  with a monitoring mechanism       
Appendix IV:      Council of Europe Non Conventional Monitoring Mechanisms: dates of latest reports     


1.       INTRODUCTION

1.       Resolution 1115 (1997) entrusted the Committee with the task of "verifying the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by the member states under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other Council of Europe conventions to which they are parties, as well as the honouring of the commitments entered into by the authorities of member states upon their accession to the Council of Europe".

2.       Paragraph 13 of Resolution 1115 (1997) also requires the Monitoring Committee to report to the Parliamentary Assembly once a year on the general progress of the monitoring procedures.

3.       Since it was established in 1997, the Monitoring Committee has presented seven such reports to the Assembly1.

4.       The present report covers the period May 2005 to June 2006. After a short overview of the Monitoring Committee's activities over this period (Chapter 2) and comments on the procedure, including proposed amendments to the Committee's terms of reference (Chapter 3), the present report examines ways of increasing the impact of the monitoring procedure (Chapter 4) and fulfilling the Monitoring Committee's mandate with respect to all member states of the Council of Europe (Chapter 5).

2.       OVERVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE'S ACTIVITIES2: A CONTINUED RESPONSIVENESS BY THE COMMITTEE

5.       Over the period under consideration, the Monitoring Committee presented to the Assembly one opinion and nine reports (including eight country reports and one Progress Report), on the basis of which eight resolutions and three recommendations were adopted.

6.       It has continued to make full use of its political mandate by consolidating its ability to react in a timely manner to current political events and recent developments in states it is monitoring. It has thus continued to increase its efficiency, impact and credibility.

7.       For example, after having followed closely developments in Armenia in the course of 2004, the Committee has presented a report under urgent procedure in June 2005 on the "Constitutional reform process in Armenia", which led to the adoption of Resolution 1458 (2005). Following the constitutional referendum of 27 November 2005, the Committee adopted a Declaration on the constitutional reform in Armenia in January 2006. The Committee has also shown a great responsiveness towards developments in Azerbaijan: it presented a report on "the functioning of democratic institutions" in this country in June 2005 with a number of recommendations in view of the forthcoming general elections scheduled for November 2005. In January 2006, following a "challenge of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan on substantial grounds", the Monitoring Committee prepared a report which led to the adoption of Resolution 1480 (2006). It presented to the Assembly in June this year a third report on Azerbaijan, namely on the "implementation of Resolution 1480 on the challenge of credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan", prepared in the light of the conduct of the re-run elections in Azerbaijan on 13 May 2006 and the developments occurred in the country since January 2006. The practice of preparing reports on the "functioning of democratic institutions" has also been used with respect to Moldova for which such a report was presented to the Assembly in September 2005.

8.       In addition to its Declaration on Armenia, the Committee adopted two further Declarations on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the unacceptable delay for the renewal of its composition respectively in December 2005 and in January 2006. In April 2006, it adopted a Declaration on the constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina and endorsed a Declaration made by its co-rapporteurs following their fact-finding mission to the Russian Federation.

9.       In parallel to this relatively novel function, the Committee continued its "traditional" reporting on the honouring of obligations and commitments by member states and presented to the Assembly three comprehensive reports with respect to the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Georgia respectively in June 2005, October 2005 and January 2006. The resolutions adopted by the Assembly on the basis of the Committee's reports take stock of the situation in these three countries on a whole range of issues covered by their obligations and commitments and constitute genuine "road maps" for future reforms.

10.       The impact of the Committee on the legislative work in the monitored states has been demonstrated with the elaboration of specific Action Plans by the Moldovan parliament, on the one hand, and the Executive in Ukraine, on the other, providing for concrete deadlines for the adoption or preparation of a series of laws or draft laws in the light of the Monitoring Committee's reports and the relevant Assembly resolutions3.

11.       Finally, the practice to involve rapporteurs, as well as other Committee members, in ad hoc election observation missions, as well as pre- and post-election visits, in the countries being monitored, has continued during the period under consideration. Thus, rapporteurs and/or members of the Monitoring Committee have participated in pre-electoral and electoral missions in:

-       Albania: parliamentary elections on 3 July 2005;

-       Armenia: constitutional referendum on 27 November 2005;

-       Azerbaijan: parliamentary elections on 6 November 2005 and re-run elections in May 2006;

-       Russian Federation: presence of the co-rapporteur, Mr Bindig, during elections in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation;

-       Ukraine: parliamentary elections on 26 March 2006

-       Serbia-Montenegro: referendum in Montenegro on 21 May 2006.

3.       COMMENTS ON THE MONITORING PROCEDURE

13.       In its last report, the Committee had expressed its satisfaction with two decisions taken by the Assembly, on the one hand to incorporate the post-monitoring dialogue arrangements into the Committee's terms of reference (see Resolution 1412 (2004), adopted on 23 November 2004) and, on the other, to amend the rules in Resolution 1115 (1997) governing the opening of a monitoring procedure (see Resolution 1431 (2005) adopted on 18 March 2005). These decisions were expected to prevent or settle problems which had arisen in the past, notably as regards: (a) the Bureau's refusal to open a monitoring procedure as regards Liechtenstein, despite a recommendation to this effect by the Monitoring Committee; (b) the handling of the request to reopen the monitoring procedure for Latvia, which was already the subject of a post-monitoring dialogue.

14.       Unfortunately, a number of new procedural problems in the Committee's relations with the Bureau have arisen, despite the decisions adopted by the Assembly in 2004 and 2005.

a.       The opening of a monitoring procedure

15.       Following the changes agreed last year with respect to the opening of a monitoring procedure, it was made clear that the Assembly could now exercise its prerogatives to the full in what is a highly political area: opening or reopening a monitoring procedure is as important for the country concerned as the opinion on accession. The Bureau of the Assembly can now no longer block initiatives approved by the Monitoring Committee to open a monitoring procedure since, in case of diverging opinions from our Committee and the Bureau as to whether a monitoring procedure should be opened, a debate is to be held before the Assembly. Debating such matters in plenary session is expected to raise the visibility of the Assembly's efforts to monitor member states' honouring of their obligations and commitments, since even if it does not eventually lead to the formal opening of a monitoring procedure, the presentation of a report by the Monitoring Committee to the Assembly, offers an excellent opportunity to debate, the situation in a given country as regards fulfilment of its statutory obligations in the plenary, within a much larger group of representatives of national parliaments.

16.       A year after the introduction of the new system, the first opportunity to test its efficiency in practice was given when a motion for a resolution on an "Application to initiate a monitoring procedure concerning the monopolisation of the electronic and the possible abuse of power in Italy" was tabled on 24 January 2006 (doc. 10811). According to the standard procedure, the Bureau should have referred the application to the Monitoring Committee for the appointment of two co-rapporteurs on the matter and the preparation of a written opinion containing a draft decision as to whether or not a monitoring procedure should indeed be opened in respect of Italy.

17.       However, the Bureau decided to postpone the consideration of the motion until after the parliamentary elections in Italy to be held on 9 April. The Committee was thus confronted with a situation in which written rules were not clear. Indeed, Resolution 1115 (1997), as revised by Resolution 1431 (2005), fixes no time-limit within which the Bureau has to refer a motion calling for the opening of a monitoring procedure to the Monitoring Committee. However, at least according to the spirit of these texts and common sense, the Bureau should proceed to such a reference at its next or its second next meeting after it receives an application for opening a monitoring procedure. Otherwise, the whole procedure for opening a monitoring procedure, as recently improved, could be jeopardized: it is sufficient that the Bureau blocks motions for resolution containing an application to open a monitoring procedure for an indefinite period of time for the whole system never to be put into place!

18.       As regards the concrete case regarding Italy, if the Bureau had had to rule on the motion immediately after it had received it, its decision would have come on the very day when the Italian parliament was dissolved in order to start the electoral campaign. When discussing the issue, some members of the Monitoring Committee expressed understanding that this might have been perceived as a gross interference in the internal affairs of a member state. However, the reference of the motion to the Monitoring Committee would not have meant much more than the tabling of the application itself. To avoid any interference during the electoral campaign, the Monitoring Committee could have postponed, for instance, the appointment of co-rapporteurs or the organisation of a mission to the country. Dealing almost permanently with highly sensitive political matters, the Committee has shown its political sense and has never been accused of undue interference in the internal politics in any country. By simply postponing the reference, the Bureau raised a question of principle which went far beyond the concrete case.

19.       The problem persisted after the elections in Italy when, at its meeting of 13 April 2006, the Bureau postponed once more the reference to the Monitoring Committee of the application to initiate a monitoring procedure arguing that the Chairman of the Italian parliamentary delegation was not present at the Bureau's meeting.

20.       To avoid that lack of clarity in the written rules leads to ever lasting disputes between the Monitoring Committee and the Bureau and undermines the credibility of the Assembly as a whole and its monitoring mechanisms in particular, it is proposed to further amend the terms of reference of the Monitoring Committee by introducing the following paragraph after paragraph 2 of the Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997:

b.       Criteria for closing the monitoring procedure

21.       There is a risk that countries will lose momentum or even slip back if the monitoring procedure is concluded too early, something the Assembly has been known to do on a number of occasions, whether from over-optimism or because it succumbed to the lure of promises that ultimately could not be met by the states in question. To give just one example, the monitoring procedure in respect of "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ended barely 6 months before interethnic violence engulfed the country.

22.       Past experience has shown that it would be useful to have a list of criteria with which to fend off premature requests for closure. The Monitoring Committee, at its meeting in Antalya in September 2005, considered positively such a list of criteria which were meant to be neither limitative nor exhaustive. They are reproduced here merely for guidance and in order to provide the Assembly with a check-list against which to measure progress made and results achieved.

23.       Broadly speaking, beyond fulfilment of the originally negotiated specific commitments, a monitoring procedure should not be concluded unless at least three cumulative requirements have been met:

a)       following genuinely free and democratic elections, the political situation in the country must be stable enough to allow for the conduct of tangible and irreversible reforms; reforms adopted must have been properly implemented;

b)       in the case of countries which do not have full sovereignty over their territories, countries which are partially or entirely under international rule, countries which are at war with a neighbor or experiencing serious ethnic and/or separatist tension, the authorities must have demonstrated a practical commitment to settling these conflicts in a lasting manner by peaceful means and in the interest of the populations concerned;

c)       at least all the Council of Europe conventions which include monitoring mechanisms (either judicial monitoring such as the ECHR, or via an obligation on states to report regularly) must have been ratified.

24.       More specifically, as far as the statutory obligations of observance of the principles of pluralist democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights are concerned, the following factors must in particular be considered:

a)       With respect to observance of the principles of pluralist democracy:

- the electoral laws must be fully compatible with European norms, as set out, for example, in the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters and the various standards developed by the Venice Commission;

- genuinely democratic elections must have taken place, both at national level and at local or regional level. International observers must have confirmed that these elections were conducted in a free and fair manner;

- the separation of powers must be guaranteed both in the Constitution and in practice: the executive must be accountable to parliament;

- media must be genuinely free of governmental control;

- civil society must be guaranteed proper legal, administrative and fiscal conditions for their work.

b)       With respect to observance of the principles of the rule of law:

- the rules of community life4 must be defined by law by the people, through their representatives in parliament. If the law proves to be flawed, only parliament or the highest court in the country should be able to change it;

- corruption and the over-concentration of political, economic or social power in the hands of a few are all contrary to the notion of a law-governed state. In any democracy, respect for the rule of law is a vital safeguard against arbitrary action at every level;

- respect for the rule of law implies that everyone, be they a government minister, judge, official or ordinary member of the public, is subject to the law, that no-one is above the law and that the law is equal for all. Respecting the rule of law means ensuring order, stability, legal certainty and the proper execution of court decisions. Unless this principle is respected, human rights cannot be fully guaranteed and protected;

- the judiciary must be independent and impartial, its decisions must be beyond reproach and implemented in good faith and law enforcement agencies must be professional, unbiased and free from corruption.

c)       With respect to the protection of human rights (including the rights of national minorities):

- steps must be taken to determine firstly whether the national system and practice respect the indivisible and universal rights of all persons within the jurisdiction of a particular member state, i.e. the political, economic, social and cultural rights conferred on everyone by international and Council of Europe instruments (ECHR, Social Charter, CPT, the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, etc). According to Article 46 ECHR, the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights must be executed. Furthermore, the case-law of the Court should also be respected by member states, even if they are not directly affected by a particular judgment finding that there has been a violation (erga omnes effect of judgments).

- secondly, efforts must be made to determine whether member states respect and encourage cultural and social diversity, tolerance and mutual respect and are taking the necessary action to protect minorities, be they national, linguistic, religious, sexual minorities, or disadvantaged groups (disabled persons, the mentally ill, refugees and asylum seekers, etc). Factors that might be considered here include ratification and at least an assessment of the initial reports produced by the relevant monitoring bodies provided for by the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities or the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, for example or by the Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).

c.       The conclusion of a post monitoring dialogue

25.       Resolution 1115 (1997) which created the Monitoring Committee and defined its terms of reference does not provide for any methodology for a post-monitoring dialogue mechanism with Member States. The need to continue monitoring member states on specific items under a different procedure came into existence only in 2000. On 6 March that year, the Bureau established such a procedure on the basis of proposals from the Monitoring Committee and a memorandum by the Secretary General of the Assembly (AS/Bur (2000) 018). The latter was approved by the Assembly on 3 April 2000 within the Bureau's progress report (Doc. 8689 and add).

26.       The Monitoring Committee finalised the exact details of this post-monitoring dialogue on 19 December 2000 when it adopted a specific methodology (AS/Mon (2000) 32 rev.), which was approved by the Assembly in Appendix G of the Monitoring Committee's progress report (Doc. 9198) of 11 September 2001. The modalities of post-monitoring were included in the Committee's mandate upon the adoption of the Assembly's Resolution 1425 (2005) on 28 January 2005, the chapter X, para. 6 of which revised Resolution 1115 (1997).

27.       According to the adopted methodology, the conclusion of a post-monitoring dialogue takes the form of a memorandum submitted by the Chair to the Committee for approval and transmission to the Bureau of the Assembly. The Bureau then decides if further information or more active co-operation is required, or if a new monitoring procedure should be opened. The Bureau may decide to declassify the memorandum and append it to its Progress Report.

28.       The common practice within this procedure has been to consider a post-monitoring dialogue concluded after the Bureau has taken note of the Monitoring Committee's decision presented in the conclusions of its memorandum, declassified the latter and appended it to the Bureau's Progress Report. However, no written rule provides for this procedure. What is more important, there is no clarity as to what happens if the Bureau does not agree with the proposal of the Committee to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with respect to a member state. This could be the case if the Bureau, for instance, asks the member state concerned for further information or clarifications and is subsequently not satisfied with the replies received.

29.       The risk of diverging positions between the Committee and the Bureau as to whether or not to conclude a post-monitoring dialogue is not merely theoretical. Recently the follow-up given by the Bureau to the Committee's proposal to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia showed that such a risk was real.

30.       More specifically, on 9 January 2006, the Bureau considered our Committee's proposal to conclude the post-monitoring dialogues with Slovakia and Latvia. It took note and declassified both reports but proposed to the Assembly to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue only with Slovakia. As regards Latvia, the President of the Assembly was asked to write a letter to the Chairman of the Latvian parliamentary delegation asking him to inform the Bureau, before the June part-session at the latest, about actions to be taken by the Latvian authorities on the specific recommendations contained in paragraphs 54 to 57 of the Monitoring Committee's memorandum and agreed to come back to this matter in the light of this reply.

31.       Whereas the Bureau had every right according to the adopted methodology to ask for additional information, its decision to do so while at the same time taking note of and declassifying the memorandum of the Monitoring Committee gave rise to a number of procedural questions, some of which were pointed out in writing by members of the Committee: if the memorandum was declassified, should the post-monitoring dialogue be considered as concluded? If not, did that mean that a "post-post monitoring dialogue" was to be carried out by the Bureau? What would happen if the Bureau was not satisfied with the replies of the Latvian parliamentary delegation? Would it refer the matter to the Plenary? Would it wait for further developments? Would the Bureau send the issue back to the Monitoring Committee? In the latter case, how could the Committee pursue the dialogue if it had already decided that this dialogue had produced the required results and should come to an end?

32.       Following a discussion on all these issues, it was understood that the Bureau's decision should not be considered as a challenge of the Committee's findings but as a kind of "compromise" between those who wanted to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia – as the Committee had proposed – and those who were against this proposal and wanted to have this dialogue pursued.

33.       Finally, the matter was solved when at its meeting of 13 April 2006, the Bureau, in the light of the information provided by the Latvian delegation on 10 March 2006, decided to recommend to the Assembly to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia and to append the Monitoring Committee's memorandum to its Progress Report.5 An unfortunate consequence of the delay in reaching this decision is that the recommendation to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia will normally be endorsed by the Assembly at its June part-session, on the eve of legislative elections in the country. This is in contradiction with our Committee's practice to try and avoid any interference in the electoral campaigns in the states concerned.

34.       Even more significantly, the procedural questions raised by this case remain unsolved and show that there is a need to provide for clear rules in case the Monitoring Committee and the Bureau of the Assembly reach diverging positions as to whether or when a post-monitoring dialogue should come to an end.

35.       Following the amendments of last year as regards the opening or reopening of a monitoring procedure, in case of diverging positions between the Committee and the Bureau, it is clear that a debate must be held before the Assembly. Would it not be logical that a similar rule is applied when their divergence concerns the conclusion of the post-monitoring dialogue?

36.       Indeed, in case the Bureau does not agree with the Committee's proposal to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with a member state, the Monitoring Committee's memorandum to the Bureau could be transformed, by way of derogation from Rule 49.2 of the Rules of Procedure, into a report containing a draft resolution and the Bureau could be invited to include the item in the agenda and order of business of the next Assembly part-session for debate and adoption of the draft resolution.

37.       Should such a rule be introduced, there would be no "grey zones" of uncertainty and no risk to see the Committee's credibility challenged by any difference of opinions or indefinite postponement of relevant decisions within the Bureau: if the Bureau is not fully satisfied with the Monitoring Committee's memorandum, it may ask additional information form the state concerned; if, in the light of the replies received, the Bureau continues not to be satisfied, the matter should be referred without delay to the Assembly.

38.       At the same time, in case both the Bureau and the Monitoring Committee agree to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue, the usual practice of appending the Committee's memorandum to the Progress Report of the Bureau and recommending to the Assembly to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue by a vote during the discussion of the Progress Report of the Bureau could be transformed into a written rule inserted into the terms of reference of the Committee for reasons of clarity.

39.       There would thus be an analogy between the rules governing the opening of a monitoring procedure and those governing the conclusion of the post-monitoring dialogue making it clear that all major decisions regarding the opening and closure of a monitoring procedure or a post-monitoring dialogue are ultimately taken by the Assembly in full transparency. This can only increase the credibility of the Assembly's monitoring mechanism as a whole and avoid the risk that decisions which carry a particularly important political weight for a country become subject to often shaky compromises reached in a non transparent manner. As in the case of the amendment proposed in section (a) above, clear rules will avoid unnecessary and sterile conflicts between our Committee and the Bureau of the Assembly.

40.       In sum, it is proposed to amend the terms of reference of the Monitoring Committee by introducing in the Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997) the following paragraph after paragraph 7:

4.       INCREASING THE IMPACT OF THE MONITORING PROCEDURE

41.       The key to improving the efficiency, visibility and, consequently, the impact of the monitoring procedure lies in improved co-operation, co-ordination and exchange of information among the various committees of the Assembly, among relevant bodies within the Council of Europe as a whole, as well as between these bodies and relevant outside institutions, particularly the EU and the OSCE.

a.       Co-ordination with other Assembly committees

42.       The question of the division of responsibilities between, and the exact roles of, its Monitoring Committee and the other Assembly committees has been on the table as one of the most problematic issues surrounding the Monitoring Committee's functioning ever since its creation in 1997. Almost all Progress Reports of the Committee refer to this problem.

43.       However, contrary to other issues discussed above, here the rules are clear; it is their application which is erroneous or inconsistent.

44.       More specifically, Order 578 (2001), adopted by the Assembly some five years ago, recalling the principle that 3the Monitoring Committee is the only committee with direct responsibility for issues relating to commitments entered into by states that are being monitored and for assessing how far these countries are abiding by the general obligations arising from their membership of the Organisation", made the point clear that:

45.       Regrettably, recently again, the question of the "freedom of the media in Russia" (Doc. 10781) was initially referred to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, whereas freedom of the media is clearly "a topic included in the monitoring rapporteurs' working programme" and constitutes a considerable part of their biennial progress report on Russia's honouring of obligations and commitments. Finally, upon the request of the Committee, the Bureau modified this reference and referred the question to the Monitoring Committee to be taken into account in the preparation of the monitoring report with respect to the Russian Federation6. Even before this decision was taken by the Bureau, during their fact-finding visit to the Russian Federation from 3 to 5 April 2006, the Monitoring Committee's rapporteurs had of course inquired into issues related to the freedom of the media and referred to this matter in their public statement which was subsequently endorsed by the Committee.

46.       It also remains questionable why the Monitoring Committee was not seized for the "Situation of the Vojvodina Hungarians" (Doc. 10262) or was only seized for opinion "With respect to «the Pasat case»" (Doc. 10839), whereas it was, for instance, referred the motion for a recommendation on the "Violation of the rights of national minorities to use their native tongue in Crimea".

47.       Once again, it must be reiterated that the Monitoring Committee is and should remain the only competent committee to follow country-specific issues on the member states within its mandate. This does not infringe upon the power of the Assembly's general committees to report to the Assembly on any general, cross-sectoral issues, within the strict confines of their respective terms of reference, as well as on their power to deal with any such issues with respect to a country which is not subject of a monitoring procedure. This was for instance the case of the motion of a resolution on the monopolisation of electronic media in Italy which was referred to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education since Italy was not among the countries under monitoring. Any inconsistent application of these rules only creates misunderstanding and undesirable overlap in the committees' work.

b.       Co-ordination within the Council of Europe

48.       As to the situation within the Council of Europe, the Committee has been over the years repeatedly criticising the duplication of efforts, especially between the activities of the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. It has also been calling for greater co-ordination and exchange of information between the Assembly, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the numerous other Council of Europe mechanisms monitoring the compliance with the Organisation's standards in specific areas (the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the European Committee of Social Rights, etc).

49.       In some cases – such as the Venice Commission – the situation is satisfactory, and co-operation is close and regular. The Monitoring Committee has appointed one of its members to participate in the Venice Commission's Council for Democratic Elections and Mr Luc van den Brande (Belgium, EPP/CD) has attended all Council meetings in the period under consideration. In other cases there is still ample space for improvement. It is, however, clear that the main challenge remains the clarification of responsibilities and comparative advantages between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers' ad hoc country-by-country monitoring procedures, especially as regards the four countries currently under a specific and regular country-by-country monitoring procedure of the Committee of Ministers (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro). Unless proper co-ordination is achieved, repeated visits to the same countries by the co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee, on the one hand, and other monitoring bodies, either at secretariat or ambassadorial level, addressing more or less the same issues, create confusion in the countries concerned and undermine the credibility and visibility of the Organisation's monitoring mechanisms as a whole.

50.       In order to maximise the co-ordination of activities, planning of missions and dissemination of information, the Secretariat of the Monitoring Committee has been working closely with their colleagues in other parts of the Council of Europe in an informal manner which in no way undermines the specific mandates of any of the Council of Europe organs involved. Also, the Secretariat ensures that any document issued by another body of the Organisation which refers to issues linked to the obligations and commitments of a country under monitoring is brought to the attention of the rapporteurs on this country or of the whole Committee depending on its importance.

51.       At the same time, in order to improve the knowledge by members of the Monitoring Committee of the country-specific monitoring procedure carried out by the Committee of Ministers and discuss issues of co-ordination at a political level, the Monitoring Committee invited the Chairman of the Rapporteur Group on Democracy (GR-DEM, previously known as GR-EDS) of the Committee of Ministers, Ambassador Stephen Howarth for an exchange of views on 8 March 2006. This exchange has been particularly frank and fruitful and helped to clarify, for instance, that the inter-governmental country-specific monitoring was rather action-oriented, aiming at the elaboration of large scale or ad hoc action plans to assist members states to honour their obligations and commitments, in contrast to the far more political work carried out by the Parliamentary Assembly through its Monitoring Committee. The discussion also served to identify possible ways for further improving co-ordination of activities between the inter-governmental body and the Assembly when it comes to monitoring. Practical modalities, however, have to be further discussed before concrete proposals can be made.

c.       Co-ordination with other European bodies

52.       Throughout the recent wave of EU enlargement the EU Commission has regularly referred to the fulfilment of Council of Europe obligations in its assessments of applicant countries' progress towards EU accession. This trend will certainly continue, even more so in the changing political circumstances in which future enlargements will be taking place.

53.       Additionally, the compliance with Council of Europe obligations is also a very important element in the assessment of the democratic and human rights record of the European participants in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), which are also subject to the Assembly monitoring procedure or in the assessment of OSCE member States.

54.       In its Recommendation 1724 (2005) on "the Council of Europe and the European Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union", adopted in October 2005, the Assembly called the Committee of Ministers to urge the relevant authorities of the EU to establish concrete co-operation with a view to institutionalising the Council of Europe's contribution to the ENP and give it appropriate political recognition, and in particular:

55.       The added value of the Assembly monitoring procedure with regard to countries without imminent prospects of EU accession is the legally binding and voluntarily accepted character of the Council of Europe membership obligations, which may, to some extent, compensate for the absence of the leverage related to EU accession. It must also be noted that over the years, the Monitoring Committee has acquired first hand profound knowledge of the countries concerned, some of which have been under monitoring for over 10 years.

56.       In the period under consideration, there has been an increasing number of meetings at secretariat level with officials from the European Union Commission and the Council of Ministers (office of the special representative for the CSFP Mr. Javier Solana). On several occasions, the secretariat was invited to brief members and staff of the European Parliament or the Commission on the Assembly monitoring of specific countries (Turkey, Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine etc). On all these occasions, the Secretariat suggested to the interlocutors from the EU institutions to hold such meetings on a regular basis and to involve Assembly rapporteurs dealing with the countries in question.

57.       A similar suggestion has been made by the Assembly President van der Linden on the occasion of his meeting with EU Commission President Barroso. It was agreed that there should be a regular contact and exchange of information between the Assembly and relevant Commission services. When an EU document refers to a country's obligations as a Council of Europe member, a reference should also be made to the Assembly's assessment of the country's compliance with these obligations.

58.       On 22 February 2006, MM. Evgeni Kirilov (Bulgaria, SOC) and Adrian Severin (Romania, SOC), members of our Committee, participated at a public hearing on «Promoting Stability and Democratization in Our Neighbourhood: What Role for the European Union in the South Caucasus?» organised by the European Parliament.

59.       The challenge is thus to transform the existing informal ad hoc contacts and general agreements at the political level into a regular, close and meaningful co-operation and co-ordination of activities between the Assembly and its Monitoring Committee on the one side and the relevant services of the three EU institutions on the other.

60.       The report recently prepared by Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, in his personal capacity, on the relations between the Council of Europe and the European Union and presented by Mr Juncker himself to the Assembly on 11 April 2006 adds a new dimension to the challenge facing the Assembly and in particular its Monitoring Committee by clearly recommending such a transformation of existing practice into a rule for EU institutions at all levels.

61.       More specifically, in the section of his report devoted on the "use of the Council of Europe's human rights monitoring machinery" and after listing the various structures devised by the Council of Europe to monitor respect for human rights, including the "verification by the Parliamentary Assembly that undertakings given and obligations accepted by member states on joining the Council have been honoured", Mr. Juncker concludes:

62.       Also, as regards the Fundamental Rights Agency whose creation is planned within the European Union, Mr. Juncker's conclusions go along the same lines as those of the Assembly, i.e. that the Agency should be strictly limited in its mandate to human rights issues that arise within the EU's internal legal order9. In this respect Mr. Juncker in particular underlines:

63.       It remains now to be seen how Mr. Juncker's recommendations will be taken into account within the context of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two institutions which is being prepared following the Third Summit of the Council of Europe in May last year. This memorandum is currently being discussed within the Committee of Ministers. The latter should formally consult the Assembly in time before concluding it11.

64.       In the meantime, the Monitoring Committee, for its part, in the light also of the Juncker report, should enhance its contacts with the European Parliament, as well as the relevant directorates of the European Union Commission and the Council of Ministers and ensure that its findings are explicitly cited in the documents produced by these bodies.

5.       EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF MONITORING TO ALL COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MONITORING COMMITTEE'S MANDATE

65.       A criticism often levelled at the Committee is that there have so far been no monitoring procedures in respect of long-term Council of Europe member states, with the notable exception of Turkey (procedure opened in 1996 and closed in June 2004). All the procedures currently under way concern member states that have joined the Council since 1989.

66.       The Assembly Recommendation 1712 (2005) on the follow up to the Third Summit, adopted on 23 June 2005, states in paragraph 6 that:

67.       The Assembly's stress on the comprehensive and non-discriminatory character of the monitoring procedure is a reaction to its evolution from the creation of the Monitoring Committee in 1997 until today. Conceived as a general assistance and control mechanism, the monitoring procedure is today reduced to a post-accession and time-limited exercise. A quick glance at the Monitoring Committee's founding text – Resolution 1115 (1997) – clearly shows that this development is an anomaly and a departure from the original concept of the monitoring procedure as adopted by the Assembly eight years ago.

68.       Indeed, paragraph 1 of Resolution 1115 (1997), which created the monitoring procedure, states that "… it is important to ensure full compliance with the undertakings made by all its member states, in a spirit of co-operation and non-discrimination". (emphasis added)

69.       Furthermore, paragraph 5 of Resolution 1115 (1997) states that the Monitoring Committee shall be responsible for verifying the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by the member states under the terms of the Council of Europe Statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and all other Council of Europe conventions to which they are parties, as well as the honouring of the commitments entered into by the authorities of member states upon their accession to the Council of Europe.

70.       From the above, it is evident that the Monitoring Committee is currently failing to carry out its full mandate. The main focus is on the monitoring of specific commitments while the monitoring of statutory obligations is even occasionally disputed by some delegations. The responsibility for this situation lies, however, largely with the Assembly which systematically failed to extend the monitoring procedure to any of the pre-1989 member states, with the exception of Turkey. This has created a number of serious and mutually reinforcing negative trends.

71.       Firstly, the argument of double standards – often invoked by some monitored countries – is difficult to dismiss. However, we should be careful in how we try to remedy this situation. The principle of non-discrimination should not be attained by doing less and watering down the existing procedures but by finding ways to react to shortcomings in compliance with Council of Europe obligations also when they occur in pre-1989 member states.

72.       Secondly, the reduction of the mandate to post-accession monitoring has distorted the original concept of the monitoring procedure as primarily an instrument for assistance. It is now perceived, by monitored and non-monitored countries alike, almost as a sanction. Such misconception about the monitoring procedure is increasing the pressure from the monitored countries to have their procedure closed as soon as possible. As to the non-monitored countries, the negative perception of the monitoring is reinforcing their reluctance to the opening or re-opening of any new monitoring procedures.

73.       Such trends are particularly regrettable at a moment when the Assembly's monitoring procedure is clearly producing results as well as gradually gaining broad recognition and respect by its European partners and first of all the EU, as recently reaffirmed in the "Juncker Report". What is even more important, the Juncker report grants the Council of Europe the exclusive role of "mak[ing] regular evaluations in each of its 46 member states, including those in the EU, on a country-by-country basis, and produc[ing] reports on its findings.12"

74.       At its meeting of 7 September 2005 in Antalya, the Committee held an initial exchange of views on the future of the monitoring procedure and, in particular, on possible options for extending the scope of monitoring to all Council of Europe member states, so that the Monitoring Committee could fully carry out its mandate. On 4 October 2005, the Committee held an exchange of views on the role of the monitoring procedure with Mr van der Linden, President of the Parliamentary Assembly. Most recently, at its meeting of 13 April 2006, the Bureau of the Assembly explicitly asked the Monitoring Committee to conclude its reflection on the future of the Assembly's monitoring procedure13.

75.       Both the exchange of views at the Committee's meeting in Antalya and that with the President of the Assembly showed that there was a general consensus on the need to ensure that the Committee fully carries out its mandate. At the same time, no particular option had been chosen. Some of the options discussed raised practical and logistical difficulties, calling for an important increase of the Monitoring Committee's staff and other expenses at a time when budgetary cuts are recommended.

76.       In view also of such practical considerations and in order to avoid duplication with the work of specific monitoring mechanisms within the Council of Europe, the Chairman of the Committee instructed its Secretariat to proceed with one of the most realistic options for the "systematic monitoring of all member states not currently subjected to a monitoring procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue", i.e. at the moment 33 states: this option refers to the possibility of producing periodical reports for these 33 countries, sub-divided into three groups, on the basis of a country grid indicating for each country the record of ratifications or signatures of the main Council of Europe instruments which provide for a specialised monitoring mechanism and summing-up the findings of such Council of Europe mechanisms when applicable.

77.       It is suggested that such periodic reports, with recommendations as to the ratification or implementation of Council of Europe conventions, could be attached to annual Progress Reports of the Committee, with each group of (currently 11) countries reported upon every three years. A country in respect of which post-monitoring dialogue has been concluded would move to the group of countries subjected to a periodic report.

78.       The advantage of this option is that it does not involve any independent inquiry by the Monitoring Committee itself into the situation of democracy, rule of law and human rights in 33 member states but provides for a comprehensive overview of how this situation is assessed by specific monitoring bodies of the Organisation. Hence it does not require additional human and other resources, appointment of rapporteurs, organisation of fact-finding missions etc. and does not carry the political weight of the opening of a monitoring procedure.

79.       At the same time, it would allow the Monitoring Committee and ultimately the Assembly to become aware of the main issues at stake within the countries concerned. The Assembly could invite the authorities of these countries to comply with recommendations made by other monitoring Council of Europe bodies and to improve their record of ratifications of Council of Europe conventions. This option would also provide a mechanism of parliamentary oversight of the activities of the intergovernmental sector of the Council of Europe.

80.       It goes without saying that, should the situation warrant it, the existence of such periodic reports shall not prevent the initiation of a monitoring procedure with respect to one or more of the states concerned in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Appendix to Resolution 1115 (1997).

81.       At the Monitoring Committee's meeting on 8 March 2006, the Committee approved the option proposed by the Chairman and authorised him and the Secretariat, under his instructions, to prepare the first group of country reports on the basis of the agreed country grid (see Appendix II).

82.       Thus, 11 country reports on Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France and Germany, summing-up the findings of Council of Europe specialised monitoring mechanisms on these countries have been prepared and reproduced in an Addendum to the present report. The countries have been chosen on the basis of alphabetical order among those states which are neither subjected to a monitoring procedure nor involved in a post-monitoring dialogue.

83.       The Secretariat has also prepared a charter of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe Conventions whose monitoring is entrusted to a specialised mechanism for the same 11 member states (see Appendix III). A second charter also shows the dates of the latest reports of the Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as of specialised monitoring mechanisms, whose membership is not necessarily linked to the ratification of a given convention, with respect to the same group of 11 member states. Reference is made to ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance), GRECO (Group of States against Corruption) and the MONEYVAL (Select Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures) (see Appendix IV).

84.       All Council of Europe member states should be invited to execute the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe's monitoring body par excellence, and implement recommendations made by the Commissioner for Human Rights and other specialised monitoring bodies within the fixed time-limits.

85.       These country reports will of course be transmitted to the national parliaments concerned and could provide them with a useful basis for debates on their country's record with regard to fulfilment of its statutory obligations as a member State of the Council of Europe. Indeed national parliaments should play a crucial role in promoting compliance with Council of Europe recommendations both in provoking and accelerating necessary legislative initiatives or exercising their role of control of government action.

86.       The country reports presented in the Addendum to the present report show that a number of the member states under consideration are not yet subject to certain specific monitoring mechanisms of the Organisation so that no assessment of the relevant issues is available, since they have not ratified the Council of Europe conventions providing for these mechanisms or have not joined the relevant bodies, such as GRECO and the MONEYVAL.

87.       Therefore, the Assembly could invite the member states concerned to ratify the Council of Europe conventions in question and/or accede to the relevant bodies. Again, a special responsibility is placed on national parliaments to promote such developments. More specifically:

-       Andorra could be invited to sign and ratify and France to ratify the European Charter of Local Self-Government;

-       Andorra, Austria, Belgium, France and Germany could be invited to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption;

-       Andorra, Austria, France and Germany could be invited to also ratify the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption;

-       Andorra, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France and Germany could be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Austria, Belgium, Cyprus and Finland could be invited to ratify the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, noting that all of them have ratified the 1990 Convention on the same subject-matter;

-       Andorra, Denmark and France could be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia and Germany could be invited to ratify Protocol No 12 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

-       France could be invited to ratify Protocol No 13 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

-       Andorra and Belgium should ratify Protocol No 14 to the European Convention of Human Rights;

-       Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Germany could be invited to ratify the Revised European Social Charter, noting that all of them have ratified the 1961 European Social Charter;

-       Andorra, Estonia and Germany could be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Austria, the Czech Republic and Denmark could be invited to ratify the Protocol to the European Social Charter on collective complaints;

-       Andorra and France could be invited to sign and ratify, whereas Belgium could be invited to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;

-       Andorra, Belgium and Estonia could be invited to sign and ratify, whereas the Czech Republic and France could be invited to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

-        Austria could be invited to join the specific monitoring bodies of GRECO and MONEYVAL;

-       Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Germany could be invited to join the MONEYVAL;

-       Belgium could be encouraged to accelerate the legislative reforms required to ensure full execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Čonka against Belgium, delivered on 5 February 2002, in which the Court found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 13 of the Convention taken together with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, on grounds of the means deployed to secure the arrest of the applicants, Slovak nationals of Rom origin seeking asylum, and the conditions of their expulsion in 1999, as well as the haphazard treatment of the appeals they had lodged in this connection.


APPENDIX I

MONITORING PROCEDURES BETWEEN MAY 2005 AND JUNE 2006

1.       During the period covered by this report the Monitoring Committee met fourteen times. It presented nine reports and one opinion to the Parliamentary Assembly.

2.       The rapporteurs made 21 fact-finding visits to the countries being monitored and those concerned by post-monitoring dialogue and 12 other visits as part of the preparation for/or observation of elections in those countries.

a.       Current monitoring procedures

3.       Ten monitoring procedures are currently in progress:

Albania

4.       From 29 May to 2 June 2005, the co-rapporteurs, Mr Leo Platvoet (Netherlands, UEL) and Mr Jerzy Smorawiński (Poland, EPP/CD) made a fact-finding visit to Albania in the framework of the pre-electoral mission of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau to observe the parliamentary elections. They returned the following month to observe the elections on 3 July 2005.

5.       On 25 January 2006, the Committee appointed a new co-rapporteur, Mr David Wilshire (United Kingdom, EDG), to replace Mr Smorawiński.

6.       From 3 to 6 April 2006, the co-rapporteurs made a fact-finding visit to Albania.

Armenia

7.       On 1 June 2005, the Committee heard a statement by the co-rapporteurs, Mr Georges Colombier (France, EPP/CD) and Mr Jerzy Jaskiernia (Poland, SOC), on their fact-finding visit (10-13 May 2005).

8.       On 6 June 2005, the Bureau of the Assembly recommended that the Assembly should hold a debate under urgent procedure on «constitutional reform process in Armenia» and referred this to the Monitoring Committee for report. At the June 2005 part-session the Committee approved a report, amended and adopted a draft resolution for debate under urgent procedure and took position on the amendments presented to the draft resolution. On 23 June 2005 the Assembly adopted Resolution 1458 (see Doc. 10601).

9.       On 15 December 2005, the Committee heard a statement by Mr Colombier following his visit to the country in the framework of the observation of the constitutional referendum of 27 November 2005 and held an exchange of views. On 25 January 2006, the Committee adopted a declaration on the constitutional reform.

10.       On 25 January 2006, the Committee appointed a new co-rapporteur, Mr Mikko Elo (Finland, SOC), to replace Mr Jaskiernia.

Azerbaijan

11.       On 19 May 2005, the Committee heard a declaration by the co-rapporteurs, Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC) and Mr Andres Herkel (Estonia, EPP/CD), on the need to present a report on the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan, decided to consider a preliminary draft resolution at its next meeting on 1 June 2005 and proposed that the report should be presented to the Assembly at the June 2005 part-session. On 22 June 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1456 (2005) (see Doc. 10569).

12.       On 5 July 2005, the Committee met in Baku, where it held an exchange of views with the Azerbaijani authorities and representatives of the civil society.

13.       During its meeting on 7 and 8 September 2005, the Committee heard a statement by Mr Gross on the co-rapporteurs' visit to the regions (6-8 July 2005).

14.       From 11 to 13 October 2005 the co-rapporteurs participated in a pre-electoral mission on the legislative elections. They returned to the country from 4 to 7 November 2005 to observe the elections of 6 November 2005. On 23 November 2005, the Committee held an exchange of views on the observation of the parliamentary elections.

15.       On 15 December 2005, the Committee heard a statement by the co-rapporteurs on their fact-finding visit to Baku (1-3 December 2005).

16.       At the January 2006 part-session, the Committee appointed Mr Tony Lloyd (United Kingdom, SOC) rapporteur on the challenge of still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan on substantial grounds. On 25 January 2006, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1480 (2006) (see Doc. 10807 rev.).

17.       On 8 March 2006, the Committee held an exchange of views with the Azerbaijani delegation on the follow-up given to Resolution 1480 (2006) on the challenge of still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan on substantial grounds.

18.       From 26 to 29 April 2006, a pre-electoral mission took place to Azerbaijan, chaired by Mr Leo Platvoet, member of the Monitoring Committee. Mr Platvoet also chaired the ad hoc committee that observed the partial rerun of the parliamentary elections on 13 May 2006. The co-rapporteurs, Mr Gross and Mr Herkel, carried out a fact-finding visit to the country from 25 to 28 May 2006.

19.       On 6 June 2006, the Committee heard a statement by the co-rapporteurs, Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC) and Mr Andres Herkel (Estonia, EPP/CD), on their fact-finding visit to Baku (25-28 May 2006). It also approved a report, amended and adopted a draft resolution on the "Implementation of Resolution 1480 (2006) on the challenge of credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Azerbaijan".

Bosnia and Herzegovina

20.       On 23 November 2005, the Committee was informed by the co-rapporteur, Mr Kimmo Sasi (Finland, EPP/CD), on his fact-finding visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2005.

21.       On 25 January 2006, the Committee appointed a new co-rapporteur, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu (TurKey, EDG), to replace Mrs Naira Shakhtakhtinskaya (Azerbaijan, EDG).

22.       From 2 to 5 April 2006, the co-rapporteurs made a fact-finding visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina.

23.       The Committee adopted a declaration on the constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 11 April 2006.

Georgia

24.       From 11 to 12 November 2005, Mr Evgeni Kirilov (Bulgaria, SOC), co-rapporteur, went to Georgia for a fact-finding visit.

25.        On 15 December 2005, the Committee approved a report by the co-rapporteurs Mr Mátyás Eörsi (Hungary, ALDE) and Mr Evgeni Kirilov (Bulgaria, SOC), amended and adopted a draft resolution on the implementation of Resolution 1415 (2005) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Georgia. On 24 January 2006, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1477 (see Doc. 10779).

Moldova

26.       On 1 June 2005, la Committee heard a statement by the co-rapporteurs, Mrs Josette Durrieu (France, SOC) and Mr André Kvakkestad (Norway, EDG), on their fact-finding visit to Moldova (24-27 May 2005).

27.       At its meeting on 7 and 8 September 2005, the Committee heard a statement by the co-rapporteurs on their fact-finding visits to Kyiv and Moscow (4-6 September 2005) where they were asked to obtain information on developments in the solution of the question of Transnistria, then approved a report, amended and adopted a draft resolution and a draft recommendation on the functioning of democratic institutions in Moldova. On 4 October 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1465 and Recommendation 1721 (see Doc. 10671). The same day the Committee held an exchange of views with Mr Lupu, President of the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.

28.       On 25 January 2006, the Committee appointed a new co-rapporteur, Mr Egidijus Vareikis (Lithuania, EPP/DC), to replace Mr Kvakkestad.

29.       From 12 to 16 March 2006, the co-rapporteurs carried out a fact-finding visit to Moldova, including Transnistria, and Ukraine.

Monaco

30.       On 15 December 2005, the Committee was informed by the co-rapporteurs, Mr Pedro Agramunt (Spain, EPP/CD) and Mr Leonid Slutsky (Russian Federation, SOC), on their fact-finding visit to Monaco (8-10 December 2005).

31.       The co-rapporteurs carried out a further visit to the Principality from 14 to 16 June 2006.

Russian Federation

32.       On 19 May 2005, the Committee considered a revised preliminary draft report by the co-rapporteurs, Mr David Atkinson (United Kingdom, EDG) and Mr Rudolf Bindig (Germany, SOC), on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation. On 1 June 2005, the Committee amended and adopted a draft resolution and a draft recommendation on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation. On 22 June 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1455 (2005) and Recommendation 1710 (2005).

33.       On 23 November 2005, the Committee was informed by the Chair of his visit to Moscow (15-16 November 2005) concerning the progress made by Russia with a view to ratifying Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the abolition of the death penalty.

34.       From 26 to 28 November 2005, Mr Bindig went to the Chechen Republic to participate in the delegation observing the legislative elections.

35.       On 15 December 2005, the Committee heard a declaration by Mr Bindig on the draft law on non-governmental organisations in Russia.

36.       On 25 January 2006, the Committee appointed two new co-rapporteurs, Mr Luc Van den Brande (Belgium, EPP/CD) and Mr Theodoros Pangalos (Greece, SOC).

37.       On 8 March 2006, the Committee held an exchange of views on procedure, in particular on the question of freedom of the media in Russia.

38.       From 3 to 5 April 2006, the co-rapporteurs carried out a fact-finding visit to Russia and issued a public statement which was endorsed by the Committee on 11 April 2006.

Serbia and Montenegro

39.       On 19 May 2005, the Committee considered an information memorandum by the co-rapporteurs, Mr Milos Budin (Italy, SOC) and Mr Jonas Čekuolis (Lithuania, ALDE), on their fact-finding visit (17-20 April 2005) and decided to ask the Venice Commission to draw up an opinion on the legislation relating to the organisation of referendums in Montenegro.

40.       On 8 March 2006, the Committee appointed a new co-rapporteur, Mr Charles Goerens (Luxembourg, ALDE), to replace Mr Čekuolis.

41.       A fact-finding visit to the country took place from 8 to 11 May 2006.

Ukraine

42.       On 1 June 2005, the Committee considered a preliminary draft report by the co-rapporteurs, Mrs Hanne Severinsen (Denmark, ALDE) and Mrs Renate Wohlwend (Liechtenstein, EPP/CD) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine and decided to transmit it to the Ukrainian delegation for comments and also to the Presidential Committee of the Assembly, with a view to the President's visit to the country in July 2005.

43.       During its meeting on 7 and 8 September 2005, the Committee approved a report, amended and adopted a draft resolution and a draft recommendation on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Ukraine. On 5 October 2005, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1466 and Recommendation 1722 (see Doc. 10676).

44.       On 15 December 2005, the Committee approved a declaration on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

45.       At the January 2006 part-session, the Committee held an exchange of views with Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Minister of Justice, and adopted a declaration on the unacceptable delay for the renewal of the composition of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

46.       On 8 March 2006, the Committee took note of an information memorandum on the visit of the co-rapporteurs to Kyiv (13-16 February 2006) and the comments of the President of the Verkhovna Rada on the declaration by the Committee on the composition of the Constitutional Court.

47.       From 28 February to 2 March 2006, the co-rapporteurs went to Ukraine in the framework of a pre-electoral mission of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau for the observation of the legislative elections and returned to observe the elections on 26 March 2006.

b.       The post-monitoring dialogue

48.       At the moment three countries are engaged in dialogue with the Committee on the changes that have taken place since the closure of the relevant monitoring procedure: Bulgaria, «the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia» and Turkey, the post-monitoring dialogue having been closed for Latvia and Slovakia.

Bulgaria

49.       The 1st Vice-Chairperson, Mrs Hanne Severinsen, carried out a fact-finding visit to Bulgaria from 31 May to 2 June 2006.

Latvia

50.       On 23 November 2005, the Committee examined a memorandum prepared by the Chair following his visit to the country from 17 to 19 October 2005. On 15 December 2005, the Committee took note of the revised memorandum and of the letter by the Committee's Chairman conveying to the Bureau the Committee's proposal to close the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia.

51.       On 9 January 2006, the Bureau of the Assembly took note and declassified the memorandum approved by the Committee; in addition the Bureau of the Assembly asked the President of the Assembly to write to the Chairman of the Latvian parliamentary delegation asking him to inform the Bureau, before the June 2006 part-session at the latest, about actions to be taken by the Latvian authorities on the specific recommendations contained in paragraphs 54 to 57 of the Committee's memorandum; finally the Bureau agreed to return to this matter in the light of this reply.

52.       On 8 March 2006, the Committee held an exchange of views on the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia.

53.       On 13 April 2006, the Bureau of the Assembly decided to recommend to the Assembly to conclude the post-monitoring dialogue with Latvia and to append the memorandum of the Monitoring Committee to the Progress Report of the Bureau.

«the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia»

54.        The Chair should carry out a fact-finding visit to «the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia» in September 2006, after the legislative elections scheduled for early July.

Slovakia

55.       On 23 November 2005, the Committee considered a memorandum prepared by the 1st Vice-Chairperson, Mrs Severinsen (Denmark, ALDE), following her visit to the country from 21 to 24 September 2005. On 15 December 2005, the Committee took note of a revised memorandum and of a letter by the Committee's Chairman conveying to the Bureau the Committee's proposal to close the post-monitoring dialogue with Slovakia.

56.       On 9 January 2006, the Bureau of the Assembly took note and declassified the memorandum approved by the Committee. The Bureau decided to recommend that the Assembly should close the post-monitoring dialogue with Slovakia and appended the memorandum to the Progress Report of the Bureau (see Doc. 10794).

Turkey

57.       The Chair should carry out a fact-finding visit to Turkey in autumn 2006.


APPENDIX II

PERIODIC REPORT ON THE HONOURING OF STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS BY

COUNTRY

CoE member State since

Number of CoE Conventions ratified (as of …): … (out of 199)

Number of CoE Conventions signed (as of …):

I.       PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY

A.       FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

System of government:

Last presidential election:

Next presidential election:

Last general elections:

Next general elections:

B.       LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

Last municipal elections:

Next municipal elections:

European Charter of Local Self-Government (see Section III)

Last Congress of Local and Regional Authorities monitoring report: …

Last report by the Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR): …

II.       RULE OF LAW

A.       VENICE COMMISSION

Opinion …

B.       FUNCTIONNING OF THE JUDICIARY

The first report «European Judicial systems 2002» adopted by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) has been presented to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 19 January 2005.

C.       THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION AND ORGANISED CRIME

Civil law convention on corruption signed on , ratified on

Criminal law Convention on corruption signed on , ratified on , Additional Protocol signed on , ratified on

Summary of the findings and recommendations contained in the last GRECO report adopted in …

A report on the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations should have been submitted before …

D.       THE FIGHT AGAINST MONEY LAUNDERING

Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of 1990 ratified on

Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the financing of terrorism (revised) signed on , ratified on

Summary of the findings and recommendations contained in the last MONEYVAL report published in …

III.       PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

A.       ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Last report on published in …, following a visit to the country in (see CommDH …)

B.       EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ECHR ratified on

Reservations made:

Protocol n° 6 ratified on

Protocol n° 12 signed on …, ratified on

Protocol n° 13 ratified on

Protocol n° 14 signed on …, ratified on

Number of judgments delivered against … in 2005: (out of a total of 1105)

Resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2005:

Resolutions adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2006 (as of …):

C.       EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (CPT)

Convention and additional protocols 1 and 2 ratified on

Last country visit:

Next country visit:

D.       EUROPEAN CHARTER OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

European Charter of Local Self-Government ratified on

E.       FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

Convention signed on, ratified on …, entered into force on

Last opinion by the Advisory Committee adopted in

Last CM resolution on the implementation of the Framework Convention:

Next State report foreseen: …

F.       EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES

Convention signed on …, ratified on

Last biennial report of the Secretary General to the Parliamentary Assembly:

Next report foreseen: …

G.       EUROPEAN COMMISSION AGAINST RACISM AND INTOLERANCE (ECRI)

Last report by ECRI: adopted on … and made public on .

H.       SOCIAL RIGHTS

European Social Charter of 1961 signed on, ratified on, entered into force on

European social Charter (revised) signed on, ratified on

Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints signed on, ratified on

Every year the states parties submit a report indicating how they implement the Charter in law and in practice. Each report concerns some of the accepted provisions of the Charter: in odd years the report concerns the «hard core» provisions (Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19 and 20; States must have accepted at least 6 of these 9 Articles); in even years half of the other provisions.

I.       PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

Adopted texts and motions for resolution or recommendation


APPENDIX III

CHARTER OF RATIFICATIONS AND SIGNATURES

OF THE MAIN COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONVENTIONS

WITH A MONITORING MECHANISM

Table of abbreviations

R:       Ratified

S:       Signed by not yet ratified

–:       neither signed nor ratified

ECHR:        Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

ECPT:       European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

ESC:       European Social Charter (1961 or revised)

FCNM:       Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

ECRML:       European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

ECLS-G:       European Charter of Local Self-Government

CoE member states not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue

Total No of CoE Conventions ratified or signed

(out of 199)

DEMOCRACY

RULE OF LAW

HUMAN RIGHTS

ECLS-G

Convention on Corruption

Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime

(1990 or rev)

ECHR

Prot. ECHR

ECPT

Social rights

Minority rights

Civil Law

Criminal Law

6

12

13

14

ESC

Prot. ESC on collective complaints

FCNM

ECRML

ANDORRA

26       R

9       S

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

S

R

R rev

AUSTRIA

95       R

36       S

R

S

S

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

BELGIUM

116       R

41       S

R

S

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

S

R

S

R

R1961

& rev

R

S

CROATIA

77       R

11       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

R

R

CYRPUS

118       R

19       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

CZECH REP.

97       R

12       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

S

DENMARK

127       R

16       S

R

S

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

R

R

R

R 1961

S rev

S

R

R

ESTONIA

76       R

7       S

R

R

R

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R rev

R

FINLAND

94       R

16       S

R

R

R

R 1990

S rev

R

R

R

R

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

R

R

FRANCE

113       R

46       S

S

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R1961

& rev

R

S

GERMANY

113       R

44       S

R

S

S

R 1990

– rev

R

R

S

R

R

R

R 1961

– rev

R

R


APPENDIX IV

CoE member states not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue

COUNCIL OF EUROPE NON CONVENTIONAL MONITORING MECHANISMS:

DATES OF LATEST REPORTS

COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

ECRI

GRECO

MONEYVAL

ANDORRA

June 2003

15 April 2003

13 December 2002

AUSTRIA

15 February 2005

NOT MEMBER

NOT MEMBER

BELGIUM

27 January 2004

29 November 2004

NOT MEMBER

CROATIA

May 2005

14 June 2005

5 December 2005

4 July 2003

CYPRUS

February 2004

16 May 2006

9 December 2005

28 June 2002

CZECH REP

October 2003

8 June 2004

14 March 2005

28 June 2002

DENMARK

July 2004

16 May 2006

14 March 2005

NOT MEMBER

ESTONIA

February 2004

21 February 2006

28 June 2004

14 May 2004

FINLAND

September 2001

23 July 2002

28 June 2004

NOT MEMBER

FRANCE

February 2006

15 February 2005

29 November 2004

GERMANY

8 June 2004

1 July 2005

NOT MEMBER

* * *

Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).

Reference to committee: Resolution 1115 (1997)

Draft Resolution adopted by the committee with one vote against on 6 June 2006.

Members of the committee: Mr György Frunda (Chairperson), Mrs Hanne Severinsen (1st Vice-Chairperson), Mr Mikko Elo (2nd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Tigran Torosyan (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Aydin Abbasov, Mr Pedro Agramunt, Mr René André, Mr Birgir Ármannsson, Mr Giuseppe Arzilli, Mr Jaume Bartumeu Cassany, Mrs Mertixell Batet, Mrs Gülsün Bilgehan, Mrs Mimount Bousakla, Mr Luc Van den Brande, Mr Patrick Breen, Mrs Beáta Brestensktá, Mr Milos Budin, Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, Mr Doros Christodoulides, Ms Lise Christoffersen, Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Mr Georges Colombier, Mrs Herta Däubler-Gmelin, Mr Joseph Debono Grech, Mr Juris Dobelis, Mrs Josette Durrieu, Mr Mátyás Eörsi, Mr Per-Kristian Foss, Mrs Urszula Gacek, Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, Mr József Gedei, Mr Marcel Glesener, Mr Charles Goerens, Mr Stef Goris, Mr Andreas Gross, Mr Alfred Gusenbauer, Mr Michael Hagberg, Ms Gultakin Hajiyeva, Mr Michael Hancock, Mr Andres Herkel, Mr Elmir Jahić, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mr Evgeni Kirilov, Mr Konstantin Kosachev, Mrs Darja Lavtižar-Bebler, Mrs Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Mr Eduard Lintner, Mr Tony Lloyd, Mr Mikhail Margelov, Mr Bernard Marquet, Mr Frano Matušić, Mr Miloš Melčák, Mrs Nadezhda Mikhailova, Mr Neven Mimica, Mr Paschal Mooney, Mr Joăo Bosco Mota Amaral, Mr Zsolt Németh, Mr İbrahim Özal, Mr Theordoros Pangalos, Mr Leo Platvoet, Ms Maria Postoico, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mr Anatoliy Rakhansky, Mr Johannes Randegger, Mr Dario Rivolta, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mrs Katrin Saks, Mr Rudy Salles, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr Adrian Severin, Mr Samad Seyidov, Mr Vitaliy Shybko, Mr Leonid Slutsky, Mr Michael Spindelegger, Mrs Elene Tevdoradze, Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Mr José Vera Jardim, Mrs Birutė Vėsaitė, Mr Oldřich Vojíř, Mr David Wilshire, Mrs Renate Wohlwend, Mr Emanuelis Zingeris.

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

Secretariat of the committee: Mrs Ravaud, Mrs Chatzivassiliou, Mrs Theophilova-Permaul, Mrs Odrats


1 Doc. 8057, Resolution 1155 and Recommendation 1366 (April 1998), Doc. 8359 (April 1999), Doc. 8734 (May 2000), Doc. 9198, Resolution 1260, Recommendation 1536 and Order 578 (September 2001), Doc. 9651 and Order 585 (January 2003), Doc. 10250 and Resolution 1412 (November 2004) and Doc. 10541 (May 2005).

2 See Appendix I for more details.

3 See "Decision of the Parliament of Moldova to approve the Schedule of the Legislative Actions in accordance with the Resolution and Recommendations of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by the Member States of the Council of Europe" of 11 November 2005 and the "Decree by the President of Ukraine on the Action Plan for the Honouring by Ukraine of its Obligations and Commitments to the Council of Europe" of 20 January 2006.

4 Community life means the relations between individuals, between individuals and groups, between groups and between individuals and/or groups and the authorities.

5 See the synopsis of the Bureau's meeting of 13 April 2006, Appendix 1, section C.

6 See the synopsis of the Bureau's meeting of 13 April 2006, Appendix 1, section C.

7 See Recommendation 1724(2005), paragraph 17.1.2. See also the Opinion presented by the Monitoring Committee (Rapporteur: Mr Zingeris), doc. 10708.

8 See "Council of Europe – European Union: 'A sole ambition for the European continent'", Report by Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg for the attention of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the Council of Europe, Doc. 10897 of 11 April 2006, pp. 6, and final recommendation No 2, p. 30.

9 See Recommendation 1744 (2006) on the "Follow-up to the Third Summit: the Council of Europe and the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union" and Doc. 10894.

10 See the Juncker Report, op.cit. pp. 7-8, and final recommendation No 4, p. 30. see also the chapter on inter-parliamentary co-operation, pp. 26-27.

11 See Recommendation 1743 (2006) on the "Memorandum of understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union" and doc. 10892.

12 See above Chapter III, c.

13 See the synopsis of the Bureau's meeting of 13 April 2006, Appendix 1, section C.