1. Introduction
1. On 19 May 2009, Mr Marty and 19 other Assembly members
tabled a motion for a resolution requesting the annulment of the
ratified credentials of the Ukrainian delegation on substantive
grounds, in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure (
Doc. 11921).
2. At its meeting on 28 May 2009, the Bureau decided to refer
the matter to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for
report and to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs for opinion in accordance with Rule 9.2 of
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. This decision was ratified by
the Standing Committee on 29 May.
3. It is striking that the Assembly should have received for
the third time, in less than a year, a motion for the annulment
of the credentials of a delegation, when the procedure provided
for in Rule 9 had previously been unused since its introduction
in 1996.
4. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs expressly recalls its previous opinions, which mention the
criteria to be applied when the Assembly considers such requests.
In particular the committee considered that “as the procedure in
question [was] of major political importance and [needed] to be
conducted with rigour because of its implications, it [could not]
be used as a mere means of exerting pressure for purely tactical
reasons”.
It
is for this reason that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs pays particular attention to the reasons
behind a request for reconsideration of a delegation's credentials,
and that it intends to consider the request's conformity with the
Assembly's Rules of Procedure.
5. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs will also consider in this opinion whether the proposal
put forward by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in
its report (see
Doc.
11963) complies with the Rules of Procedure, in particular
Rule 9, and with the Statute of the Council of Europe.
2. Compliance of the motion calling for reconsideration
of credentials with the Rules of Procedure
6. Firstly, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs considers it useful to consider the preliminary
request in the motion for a resolution for reconsideration of the
ratified credentials of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation under
Rule 9 in the light of the Rules of Procedure.
2.1. On the formal admissibility of the motion
7. Rule 9.2 states: “A motion for a resolution to annul
ratification shall be tabled by at least twenty members, belonging
to at least two political groups and five national delegations ….”.
The motion is admissible, having been tabled by 20 members, belonging
to four political groups and 11 national delegations.
8. The deadline provided for in Rule 9.2 (“A motion for a resolution
to annul ratification shall … be distributed at least two weeks
before the opening of a part-session (...)”) was also met, as the
motion was received and distributed on 19 May 2009.
2.2. On the grounds of the motion
9. Rule 9.1.a states
that “The Assembly may reconsider ratified credentials of a national
delegation as a whole … on a motion for a resolution to annul ratification
based on the grounds set out in Rule 8.2 …”.
10. Rule 8.2, meanwhile, stipulates that:
“The substantive grounds on which credentials may be challenged
are:
a. serious violation of the basic principles of the Council
of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of, and the Preamble
to, the Statute; or
b. persistent failure to honour obligations and commitments
and lack of co-operation in the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.”
11. The motion contesting the credentials which is before the
Assembly alleges “a serious violation of the basic principles of
the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of … the Organisation’s
Statute” related to the persistent refusal, by the Government of
Ukraine, to provide the Assembly with the name of a third candidate for
the list of candidates for the election of a judge to the European
Court of Human Rights, and to the appointment of an ad hoc judge,
who is actually sitting in the Court, “which undermines the credibility
of the Court and is contrary to Ukraine’s basic obligations as a
High Contracting Party to the European Court of Human Rights”. The
signatories of the motion then conclude on the need for the Assembly
“to annul the ratification of the credentials of the Ukrainian delegation
to the Parliamentary Assembly, on substantial grounds, in accordance
with Rule 9.1.a of the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure”.
12. In these previous opinions on the reconsideration of a delegation's
credentials, the committee drew the Assembly's attention to its
desire not to see the procedure provided for in Rule 9 become trivialised
through misuse. The Rule 9 procedure was established concurrently
with the consolidation of the procedure for monitoring member states’
obligations and commitments, in keeping with the Assembly’s wish
to be able to “challenge ratified credentials when urgent action
is deemed necessary”.
13. In the same previous opinions, the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs recommended that any motion
to challenge a delegation’s credentials on the basis of Rule 9 should
be properly substantiated and that the authors should cite evidence
for the serious violation mentioned in Rule 8.2. The Committee on
Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs observes
that the motion for the annulment of the credentials of the Ukrainian
parliamentary delegation is supported by detailed arguments setting
out the grounds for the request.
3. Consideration of the proposal made by the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
14. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs examined the report adopted by the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and discussed whether the draft
resolution it contained complied with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
15. Rule 9.4 states that: “a report submitted to the Assembly
or the Standing Committee under paragraphs 2 and 3 shall contain
a draft resolution proposing in its operative part:
a. confirmation of the ratification
of the credentials;
b. annulment of
the ratification of the credentials;
c. confirmation
of the ratification of the credentials together with depriving or
suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or
representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities
of the Assembly and its bodies”.
16. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights proposes,
“for the time being, not to annul and therefore to confirm the credentials
of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation, on the understanding
that disregard – by Ukraine – of its basic obligations under the
Convention and the Organisation's Statute must be resolved without
further delay”.
17. The Committee on Rules of Procedure notes that the report
submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights contains
a detailed statement of the ins and outs of the problem of the election
of a judge to the Court in respect of Ukraine, which has lasted
for over two years. The committee concludes that there has been
“disregard – by Ukraine – of its basic obligations under the Convention
and the Organisation's Statute”. Whereas the Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights claims that this constitutes “a serious violation
of basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article
3 of, and the Preamble to, the Organisation’s Statute”, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs wonders whether
the arguments put forward would in fact have been sufficient to
substantiate and justify a call for a penalty – if it had been called
for by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, which is
not the case – proportional to the seriousness of the grounds.
18. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs notes that the Assembly can be seized again of the matter
at any moment since a new motion under Rule 9.1 may be tabled if
the problem is not resolved “without further delay”. Furthermore,
in January 2010, the credentials of the Ukrainian parliamentary
delegation will need to be ratified and, if appropriate, may be
challenged under Rules 7 and 8.
19. Moreover, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
notes that the existing situation – the dilatory attitude of the
Ukrainian authorities in putting forward a third candidate and the
appointment of ad hoc judges – is likely to undermine the credibility
of the Court.
20. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs shares the concern of the Committee on Legal Affairs and
Human Rights at seeing the normal procedures foreseen by the European Convention
on Human Rights and the existing regulations “circumvented for an
indefinite period” (see paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum)
by the Ukrainian authorities simply because they have blocked the
procedure for the election of a judge by refusing to forward a complete
list and have appointed ad hoc judges – with no democratic legitimacy
– to occupy, for a prolonged period of time, the post normally assigned to
a judge elected by the Parliamentary Assembly. However, the committee
takes note of the appointment by the Ukrainian Government of a new
ad hoc judge for a three-month fixed term as from 1 September 2009.
21. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs takes the view that the Assembly could therefore consider
the implications of the failure to nominate a third candidate and
the fact that an ad hoc judge is taking the place of a judge duly
elected by the Assembly in respect of Ukraine in the light not of
the functioning of the Court but of the failure to respect its own
competence in this regard. To allow such an abusive situation, whereby
recourse to ad hoc judges is favoured to the detriment of judges
who are fully fledged because they have been elected by the Assembly,
to occur and tolerate its persistence is tantamount to denying the
competence of the Assembly to elect judges, as provided for in the
European Convention on Human Rights.
22. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs therefore considers that the Assembly, in particular its
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, should examine more
closely the question of ad hoc judges and their prerogatives. It
will be remembered that in April 2010 the Assembly will have to
elect 21 judges (unless Protocol 14, having been ratified at last
by all the member states, comes into force before then). Could the
Assembly, on that occasion, allow one or more of these 21 member
states to resort to the same dilatory attitude as the Ukrainian
Government, at the risk of seeing the election timetable completely
disorganised and the Court's functioning disrupted? As the Committee
on Legal Affairs and Human Rights points out in its report, not
only do such arrangements “threaten to undermine the credibility
of the Court” and its proper functioning, but they also seriously
call into question the competence of the Assembly itself.
4. Amendment to the draft resolution presented by
the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
23. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs wishes to table one amendment to the draft
resolution, worded as follows:
“After
paragraph 5 of the draft resolution, add the following new paragraph:
‘Moreover, the Assembly considers that the blocking by
the Ukrainian authorities of the election of a judge in respect
of Ukraine, the failure to communicate the name of a third candidate
and the appointment of ad hoc, unelected judges who have been performing
the duties of judge in the Court in respect of Ukraine since January
2009 in lieu and place of a judge duly elected by the Assembly seriously
calls into question the Assembly's electoral competence as provided
for in the European Convention on Human Rights.’”
5. Concluding remarks
24. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs considers that the draft resolution contained
in the report submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights (
Doc. 11963) meets
the requirements of Rule 9 and complies with the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
25. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs considers, however, that the Assembly should examine in
greater detail the question of ad hoc judges and their prerogatives
in the light, in particular, of the potential consequences of other
member states’ dilatory attitude for the timetable for elections to
the Court – given that in April 2010 the Assembly will have to elect
21 judges – and the Court's functioning.
Reporting committee:
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Committee seized for opinion:
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.
Reference to committee:
Reference 3573 of 29 May 2009.
Opinion unanimously
approved by the committee on 23 June 2009.
Secretariat of the committee: Mr Heinrich, Mrs Clamer.