Print
See related documents
A. Draft
resolution
(open)
Appendix 1 – Activity report
of the ad hoc Sub-Committee on the Functioning of the Parliamentary Monitoring
Procedure
(open)
Report | Doc. 13595 | 15 September 2014
The progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure (October 2013 – September 2014)
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
Summary
In its annual progress report, the Monitoring Committee takes stock of its activities since October 2013 and assesses the progress made by the 10 countries under the Assembly’s full monitoring procedure, and in the four countries engaged in a post monitoring dialogue, in honouring their obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe. It welcomes progress made and expresses concerns at setbacks, and addresses specific recommendations to the countries concerned.
In this reporting period, the Committee reflected extensively on ways to enhance the efficiency and impact of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure with regard to all Council of Europe member States, and made a series of concrete recommendations in this respect. In particular, it decided to establish a periodic review, on a country-by-country basis, of the honouring of Council of Europe membership obligations by the 33 countries that are not under the full monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue.
A. Draft
resolution 
(open)1. The Parliamentary Assembly acknowledges the work
carried out by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee) in fulfilling its mandate as defined in Resolution (1115) 1997 on the setting up of an Assembly committee on the honouring of
obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe
(Monitoring Committee) (as modified by Resolution 1431(2005), Resolution
1515 (2006), Resolution
1698 (2009), Resolution
1710 (2010) and Resolution
1936 (2013)).
2. In particular, the Assembly commends the Monitoring Committee
on its actions in accompanying the 10 countries under a monitoring
procedure sensu stricto (Albania,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Republic
of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine)
and the four countries engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue (Bulgaria,
Monaco, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey)
in their efforts to fully comply with the obligations and commitments
they entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe.
3. The Assembly takes note that, during the reporting period,
one full report on the Republic of Moldova, as well as two reports
on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine and one
on Bosnia and Herzegovina, were prepared by the committee and debated
by the Assembly. In addition, two reports and draft resolutions,
on Albania and on Georgia, have been adopted by the committee and
are due to be debated during the Assembly’s autumn 2014 part-session.
A preliminary draft report on the honouring of obligations and commitments
by Montenegro was adopted in September and sent to the Montenegrin
authorities for their comments.
4. During the reporting period, the respective co-rapporteurs
carried out fact-finding missions to Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan
(two visits), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Monaco,
Montenegro, Serbia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Turkey and Ukraine (four visits). In addition, the respective co-rapporteurs
participated in the pre-electoral and election observation missions
in Azerbaijan, Georgia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Turkey and Ukraine. The co-rapporteurs produced information notes on
Montenegro and Serbia, which were declassified by the committee,
and made statements with regard to developments in Azerbaijan (two
declarations), Georgia (three statements), Monaco, Montenegro, the
Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine (three declarations). In
addition, the committee itself adopted declarations on “the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine.
5. The Assembly commends the committee for its work in relation
to the developments in Ukraine during the reporting period, including
frequent visits by the co-rapporteurs to the country and the preparation
of two reports on the functioning of democratic institutions for
debate by the Assembly under urgent procedure. The Assembly notes
that, in this context, the committee was also seized for report
on the reconsideration of the previously ratified credentials of
the Russian delegation.
6. With regard to the opinion on the request to open a monitoring
procedure in respect of France, the Assembly notes that the committee
has appointed two rapporteurs who went to Paris on 11 September
2014 for meetings with the authorities and other stakeholders concerned.
7. The Monitoring Committee held an exchange of views with Mr
Štefan Füle, European Commissioner on European Union Enlargement
and Neighbourhood Policy, on European Union enlargement and its neighbourhood
policy, and with Mr Thomas Hammarberg, European Union Special Advisor
on Constitutional and Legal Reform and Human Rights in Georgia,
on his report “Georgia in transition”. In addition, the committee
held an exchange of views with the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe on his report on “Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule
of Law in Europe”.
8. In the framework of the committee’s ongoing work in relation
to the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia, the Chair
of the committee and the co-rapporteurs for Georgia and the Federation
of Russia met, on 6 November 2013, with representatives of the Office
of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
9. The Assembly welcomes the positive developments and the progress
made during the reporting period in a number of countries under
a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue.
In particular:
9.1. in Albania,
the adoption of a number of crucial reforms that have strengthened
the democratic developments of the country;
9.2. in Armenia, the implementation of an alternative military
service that is fully in line with European standards and the start
of a constitutional reform process with a view to strengthening
the balance of powers;
9.3. in Georgia, the conduct of a presidential election that,
in the view of international observers, was transparent, well organised
and took place in an constructive environment, as well as the adoption
of a comprehensive judicial reform package which aims to ensure
genuine independence of the judiciary;
9.4. in Montenegro, the renewed impetus to fight corruption;
9.5. in Serbia, the ongoing reforms of the judiciary with a
view to bringing them fully into line with European standards and
the clear efforts to fight corruption in the country;
9.6. in Ukraine, the holding of a presidential election which
was considered to be genuinely democratic and in line with international
standards and which respected fundamental rights and freedoms despite
the difficult situation in the east of the country;
9.7. in Monaco, the clear willingness of the authorities to
continue the dialogue with the Assembly on fully honouring their
commitments on the basis of a solution that would ensure the consideration
of both the specificities of the Principality of Monaco and the
values of the Council of Europe.
10. At the same time, the Assembly expresses its concern about
developments and remaining shortcomings in a number of countries
under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue,
which undermine the democratic consolidation in those countries
and are at odds with their obligations and accession commitments:
10.1. in Albania, the ongoing polarised
climate between the opposition and the ruling majority, the shortcomings
concerning the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and
the persistent and the endemic corruption at all levels of Albanian
society;
10.2. in Azerbaijan, the high number of reportedly politically
motivated prosecutions of, and pressure exerted on, journalists,
civil society activists and opposition supporters, as well as the
deterioration in the respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms;
10.3. in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the lack of any credible efforts
to reform the constitution as needed to implement the Sejdić and Finci judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights and the growing disrespect for the
rule of law, with high-level officials and party leadership ignoring
and violating legal and constitutional requirements;
10.4. in Georgia, the pressure exerted on opposition activists
and local officials belonging to the opposition, as well as the
allegations of politically motivated prosecution of former government members;
10.5. in the Republic of Moldova, the ongoing tense political
climate and absence of progress with regard to constitutional reform;
10.6. in Montenegro, the highly polarised media climate and
attacks on journalists;
10.7. in the Russian Federation, the deterioration of the respect
for fundamental human rights and freedoms, its illegal annexation
of Crimea, in violation of international law, the Statute of the
Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) and accession commitments, as well
as its interference in, and pressure exerted on, several neighbouring
countries in clear contradiction to its accession commitments;
10.8. in Ukraine, the escalation of violence and the hard-handed
approach of the former authorities in relation to the Euromaidan
protests, as well as the delay in the implementation of crucial
reforms, including constitutional reforms;
10.9. in “the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia”, the law
on lustration and the decision of the main opposition members not
to accept their mandates in the newly elected parliament and not
to recognise the legitimacy of the 2014 presidential election;
10.10. in Turkey, concerns regarding the independence of the
judiciary.
11. Consequently, the Assembly urges all the countries that are
under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue
to step up their efforts to fully honour all membership obligations
and accession commitments to the Council of Europe. In particular
it calls on:
11.1. the political
stakeholders in Albania to enter into a constructive dialogue and
refrain from boycotting the work of the parliament, and the Albanian
authorities to ensure that the many reforms adopted will also be
implemented, especially with regard to the fight against corruption
and the independence of the judiciary;
11.2. the parliament and authorities of Armenia to pursue the
constitutional reforms in a transparent manner and on the basis
of consultation and wide political consensus;
11.3. the parliament and authorities of Azerbaijan to refrain
from exerting pressure on civil society activists and journalists,
to ensure that the justice system is not used for political purposes,
to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights
and to fully respect basic human rights and freedoms, including
freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly;
11.4. the parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina to adopt a substantial
constitutional reform in order to allow the country to become a
fully functional democracy and to implement the judgment of the
Court in the Sejdić and Finci case
by changing the constitution and electoral legislation to remove
the ethnicity-based regulations on standing for office;
11.5. the Georgian authorities to ensure an immediate halt to
any pressure on opposition activists and officials; and to ensure
that the legal proceedings against former government officials take
place transparently, impartially and in full respect of the country’s
obligations under Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights (ETS No. 5);
11.6. the parliament of the Republic of Moldova to adopt the
necessary reforms to the constitution with regard to the election
of the President of the Republic;
11.7. the parliament and authorities of Montenegro to take prompt
action to end and fully investigate the attacks on journalists and
media outlets;
11.8. the parliament and authorities of the Russian Federation
to ensure the respect of the rights of freedom of expression, association
and assembly; to fully honour, including in practice, their accession commitment
“to denounce as wrong the concept of two different categories of
foreign countries, whereby some are treated as a zone of special
influence called ‘the near abroad’ and refrain from promoting the geographical
doctrine of zones of special interests”; to reverse its illegal
annexation of Crimea; and to fully investigate the circumstances
and background of the death of Sergei Magnitsky, and the possible criminal
responsibility of all the officials involved;
11.9. the parliament and authorities of Ukraine to adopt without
further delay a comprehensive reform of the constitution and electoral
legislation and to refrain from any initiatives that could unnecessarily increase
tensions between different regions and groups in the country;
11.10. the authorities and parliament of Monaco to maintain and
foster their dialogue with the Assembly on the implementation of
their remaining accession commitments;
11.11. the political parties and parliament of “the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia” to change the polarised and politicised environment,
and the parliament and authorities to promptly remedy the shortcomings
observed during recent elections and to investigate transparently
and impartially the credible allegations of intimidation and pressure
on voters, as well as of vote buying;
11.12. the parliament and authorities of Turkey to ensure the
independence of the judiciary in law and practice and to pursue
the required reform of the constitution with a view to clarifying
the separation of powers in the country.
12. The Assembly refers to its Resolution 1953 (2013) in which it resolves to pursue a more general reflection
on ways to enhance the efficiency and impact of the Assembly’s monitoring
procedure with regard to all Council of Europe member States, and
commends its Monitoring Committee, and its ad hoc Sub-Committee on
the Functioning of the Parliamentary Monitoring Procedure, for the
work accomplished in this respect. It welcomes in particular the
decision to establish a periodic review, on a country-by-country
basis, on the honouring of membership obligations to the Council
of Europe of the 33 countries that are not under the monitoring
procedure sensu stricto or
engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue.
13. The Assembly reaffirms that the parliamentary monitoring procedure
has played, and continues to play, an important and positive role
in the transformation process of many Council of Europe member States.
It has been highly instrumental in the democratisation and institution-building
processes in these countries.
14. The crucial role of the Monitoring Committee in this respect
has to be recognised. The Assembly commends the committee for the
work it has carried out in fulfilling its mandate since its establishment
in 1997.
15. The Assembly believes that while all member States are subject
to the monitoring of their obligations, those countries which undertook
a number of commitments upon accession should undergo specific monitoring
until all the commitments have been fulfilled. It should be stressed
that the commitments were meant to help to achieve the membership
obligations incumbent on all Council of Europe member States and a
formal fulfilment of commitments should therefore be measured by
their implementation.
16. A more rigorous and homogenous assessment of each country
under monitoring sensu stricto should be
introduced in order to eliminate any feeling of unfairness and increase
the transparency of the process. The Assembly welcomes the initiative
of the Monitoring Committee to establish, for its own internal use,
guidelines for considering the closing or opening of a specific
monitoring procedure, which would consolidate the Council of Europe
standards.
17. The time frame of the post-monitoring dialogue should be subject
to more rigorous rules. The Assembly agrees that a negative report
on a specific country should include deadlines, established in co-operation
with the relevant authorities, for fulfilment of outstanding commitments,
and that if the authorities do not comply with this road map, the
country should be returned to the full monitoring procedure.
18. The Assembly recalls that the present statutory measures introduced
by Resolution 1936 (2013) provide the Monitoring Committee with a simplified
procedure for the monitoring of any Council of Europe member State
whenever concerns arise, and it encourages the members of the Assembly
to make use of this possibility whenever appropriate.
19. With a view to ensuring compliance by all Council of Europe
member States with their obligations, including those which are
not subject to specific monitoring procedures, the Assembly invites
the Monitoring Committee to introduce a periodic overview of groups
of countries in accordance with its internal working methods, and
to launch issue-based, cross-country monitoring in close co-operation
with the relevant Assembly committees as a complementary measure
to the country-by-country monitoring.
20. In the light of the foregoing, the Assembly decides to amend Resolution 1115 (1997) (as modified by Resolution
1431 (2005), Resolution
1515 (2006), Resolution
1698 (2009), Resolution
1710 (2010) and Resolution
1936 (2013)) as follows:
20.1. after
the third sentence of paragraph 8, add the following sentence: “The
political groups are invited to ensure that no more than four members
of the same national delegation of a country not under a monitoring
procedure or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue sit on the Monitoring
Committee”;
20.2. replace paragraph 12.1 by the following paragraph: “The
Monitoring Committee shall appoint two of its members as rapporteurs
on a member State engaged in the post-monitoring dialogue. Co-rapporteurs
on a post-monitoring dialogue shall be appointed according to the
same criteria as those established by the present resolution and
the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly for the appointment of co-rapporteurs
for countries engaged in the monitoring procedure”, and add the
following footnote to the paragraph: “For countries engaged in a
post-monitoring dialogue at the moment of the October 2014 part-session,
this will take place as from the end of the Assembly’s June 2015
part-session, or when the term of the current rapporteur expires,
or when a report on the post-monitoring dialogue for that country has
been debated in the Assembly, whichever occurs first”;
20.3. in paragraph 12.2 and 12.3, replace the word “rapporteur”
by “co-rapporteurs”;
20.4. delete paragraph 15.
21. Furthermore, the Assembly decides to amend the terms of reference
of the Assembly’s Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
(as modified by Resolution
1431 (2005), Resolution
1515 (2006), Resolution
1841 (2011) and Resolution
1936 (2013)) as follows:
21.1. in
paragraph 3.ii, delete the second part of the sentence “; in case
… vice-chairperson of the Monitoring Committee”;
21.2. at the end of paragraph 4, add the following sentence:
“The Monitoring Committee, with an absolute majority of all members
of the committee and subject to confirmation by the Bureau of the Assembly,
can decide not to take further action regarding a request to open
a monitoring procedure originating under paragraph 3.iii of its
terms of reference”;
21.3. in the second sentence of paragraph 5, delete the following
words: “or, in the case of a country involved in a post-monitoring
dialogue, the rapporteur”;
21.4. after paragraph 7, insert two new paragraphs to read as
follows: “In order to ensure compliance with the obligations entered
into by member States which are not subject to specific monitoring procedures,
the committee will carry out periodic overviews of groups of countries,
on a country-by-country basis, in accordance with its internal working
methods.” And: “Furthermore, as a complementary measure to the country-by-country
approach, the committee will carry out issue-based, cross-country monitoring
in close co-operation with the relevant Assembly committees, in
accordance with its internal working methods”;
21.5. replace paragraph 11 by the following paragraph: “A report
to the Assembly on the post-monitoring dialogue carried out with
a member State shall include a draft resolution which either states that
the post-monitoring dialogue should be concluded or establishes
concrete deadlines for the fulfilment of outstanding commitments.
In the latter case, the failure to meet those deadlines, if so stated in
the following report submitted to the Assembly within the statutory
period of three years, would imply the return to the full monitoring
procedure.” And add a footnote to the paragraph “For countries engaged in
a post-monitoring dialogue at the moment of the October 2014 part-session,
the two-report criteria will start at the June 2015 part-session
or after the adoption of the next report on the post-monitoring dialogue
for that country, whichever comes first”.
22. The Assembly invites the Monitoring Committee to pursue its
own reflection on ways to reinforce co-operation with other Council
of Europe monitoring mechanisms.
23. The Assembly invites the Bureau to consider the possibility
of involving in the work of the Monitoring Committee members not
belonging to a political group and countries engaged in the partnership
for democracy.
24. The Assembly welcomes the close co-operation between the committee
and the election observation missions of the Assembly, especially
through the systematic ex officio participation
of the committee’s rapporteurs in the ad hoc committees that observe
the elections as well as in the pre-electoral missions. It takes note
of the intention of the committee to reflect on ways to develop
a more structural and integrated relationship between the Monitoring
Committee and the election observation missions of the Assembly.
B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Schennach, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. The basis for the Parliamentary Assembly’s monitoring
procedure is Resolution
1115 (1997) on the setting up of an Assembly committee on the honouring
of obligations and commitments by member States of the Council of
Europe (Monitoring Committee) (modified by Resolution 1431 (2005), Resolution
1515 (2006), Resolution
1698 (2009), Resolution
1710 (2010) and Resolution
1936 (2013)). This resolution defines the mandate of the Monitoring
Committee, and entrusts it with the task of ensuring “the fulfilment
of the obligations assumed by member States under the terms of the
Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1), the European Convention
on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, ‘the Convention’) and all other Council
of Europe conventions to which they are parties” as well as ensuring
the “honouring of commitments entered into by the authorities of member
States upon their accession to the Council of Europe”.
2. In accordance with Resolution
1115 (1997), as amended, the Monitoring Committee is obliged to
report to the Assembly, on a yearly basis, on the general progress
of the monitoring procedures. In line with established practice,
the committee entrusted me, as its Chairperson, with the task of
being the rapporteur on the committee’s activities.
3. The progress in the monitoring procedure for the 10 countries
that are subject to a monitoring procedure of the Assembly and the
four countries that are engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue will
be discussed in the second section of this report. Following customary
practice I have limited myself to the findings in the relevant texts
adopted by the Assembly as well as the reports, statements and other
public documents prepared by the co-rapporteurs for the respective
countries. In addition, where appropriate, I have made reference
to the reports of the ad hoc committees for the observation of the
elections in the countries concerned.
4. In Resolution 1953
(2013) on the progress of the its monitoring procedure, the
Assembly resolved to pursue a more general reflection on ways to
enhance the efficiency and impact of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure
with regard to all Council of Europe member States. The discussions
on the functioning of the monitoring procedure and the ways to enhance
its efficiency and impact formed a major component of the work of
the committee in the reporting period. A special ad hoc Sub-Committee
on the Functioning of the Parliamentary Monitoring Procedure, chaired
by Mr Pedro Agramunt, was set up to facilitate these discussions and
to make concrete proposals for the improvement of the monitoring
procedure.
5. The report of the ad hoc sub-committee was adopted by the
Monitoring Committee on 26 June 2014. The conclusions and contribution
to the draft resolution on the progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure
are an integral part of this report. I will discuss, and where necessary
elaborate on the conclusions of the committee with regard to the
ways to improve the efficiency and impact of the monitoring procedure
in the third section of this progress report and I will make a number
of proposals to ensure their practical implementation.
6. When discussing the proposals to enhance the effectiveness
and impact of the monitoring procedure, the Monitoring Committee
decided that it would subject the 33 countries that are not subject
to a monitoring procedure sensu stricto,
or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, to a periodic review with
regard to their honouring of the membership obligations to the Council
of Europe. In this report, I will outline a mechanism on how to
structure the periodic reporting on these countries. Pending the
new reporting mechanism, the committee decided not to include in
this report a review of the situation in all 33 countries that are
not subject to a monitoring procedure sensu
stricto, or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue. A
chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe
conventions with a monitoring mechanism is appended to this report.
2. Overview of the committee’s activities
2.1. General remarks
7. Ten countries remain
under the monitoring procedure and an additional four countries are
engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue. During the reporting period,
one full report, on the Republic of Moldova, was prepared and debated
by the Assembly. In addition, a report on the functioning of democratic
institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina was debated by the Assembly.
Two reports and draft resolutions, on Albania (Doc. 13586) and on Georgia (Doc.
13588), have been adopted by the committee and are due to
be debated during the autumn part-session of the Assembly. A preliminary
draft report on the honouring of obligations and commitments of
Montenegro was adopted in September 2014 and sent to the Montenegrin
authorities for their comments.
remain
under the monitoring procedure and an additional four countries are
engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue. During the reporting period,
one full report, on the Republic of Moldova, was prepared and debated
by the Assembly. In addition, a report on the functioning of democratic
institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina was debated by the Assembly.
Two reports and draft resolutions, on Albania (Doc. 13586) and on Georgia (Doc.
13588), have been adopted by the committee and are due to
be debated during the autumn part-session of the Assembly. A preliminary
draft report on the honouring of obligations and commitments of
Montenegro was adopted in September 2014 and sent to the Montenegrin
authorities for their comments. 8. The developments in Ukraine since November 2013 have been
followed closely by, and were an important part of the work of,
the committee. Two reports on the functioning of democratic institutions
were adopted in debates under urgent procedure during the January
and April 2014 part-sessions and the two co-rapporteurs, in addition
to their frequent fact-finding visits, participated in a visit of
the Presidential Committee to Ukraine (Kyiv, Donetsk and Lviv) from
22 to 24 March 2014.
9. On 7 April 2014, the Monitoring Committee was seized, in line
with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, for report on two motions
challenging the ratified credentials of the Russian delegation on substantive
grounds. The report was debated by the Assembly on 10 April 2014
and Resolution 1990 (2014) was adopted.
10. During the reporting period, the respective co-rapporteurs
carried out fact-finding missions to Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan
(two visits), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Monaco,
Montenegro, Serbia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Turkey and Ukraine (four visits). In addition, the respective co-rapporteurs
participated in the pre-electoral and election observation missions
in Azerbaijan, Georgia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”,
Turkey and Ukraine.
11. The co-rapporteurs produced information notes on Montenegro
and Serbia, which were declassified by the committee, and declarations/statements
with regard to developments in Azerbaijan (two declarations), Georgia
(three statements), Monaco, Montenegro, the Russian Federation,
Turkey and Ukraine (three declarations). The committee adopted declarations
on “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey and Ukraine.
12. With regard to the request to open a monitoring procedure
in respect of France, the committee appointed two co-rapporteurs
in December 2013. A first fact-finding visit to Paris is scheduled
to take place on 10 and 11 September 2014.
13. On 13 December 2013, the committee held an exchange of views
with Mr Štefan Füle, European Commissioner on European Union Enlargement
and Neighbourhood Policy, on the European Union enlargement and
its neighbourhood policy. Also on 13 December 2014, the committee
held an exchange of views with Mr Thomas Hammarberg, European Union
Special Advisor on Constitutional and Legal Reform and Human Rights
in Georgia on his report “Georgia in transition”. Furthermore, on
27 February 2014, in Malta, the committee held an exchange of views
with Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, on
his report on Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Europe.
14. In the framework of the committee’s ongoing work in relation
to the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia, the Chair
of the Committee and the co-rapporteurs for Russia and Georgia met,
on 6 November 2014, with representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor
of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
15. On 29 January 2014, the committee organised a public hearing
on the misuse of administrative resources in the electoral process
with the participation of the European Commission for Democracy
through Law (Venice Commission) and the Election Observation Department
of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR).
16. In addition to the committee meetings, the ad hoc Sub-Committee
on the Functioning of the Parliamentary Monitoring Procedure met
four times and presented its report to the committee on 26 June
2014. Following the adoption of its report, the ad hoc sub-committee
was dissolved.
2.2. Overview of monitoring in the reporting period with regard to countries under a monitoring procedure sensu stricto.
2.2.1. Albania
17. The rapporteurs visited Albania on 2 and 3 June 2014,
with a view to discussing their preliminary draft report on the
honouring of obligations and commitments by Albania that was adopted
by the committee on 27 February 2014 and sent to the Albanian authorities
for their comments. The report and draft resolution were unanimously
adopted by the committee on 24 June 2014 and are scheduled to be
debated in plenary during the autumn 2014 part-session of the Assembly.
18. Recently, after a long delay resulting from the political
crisis in the country following the 2009 parliamentary elections,
Albania has made marked progress in honouring its obligations and
commitments to the Council of Europe, but a number of areas of concern
remain. Regrettably the political climate continues to be tense
and polarised as it was during the 2013 parliamentary elections.
Consensus on important reforms is often lacking and the opposition
has occasionally boycotted the work of the parliament on important
reforms such as the administrative territorial reform.
19. Despite numerous reforms, the independence and impartiality
of the judiciary and justice system is not sufficiently ensured
in Albania. The justice system continues to suffer from political
pressure and interference and is undermined by endemic corruption
in the judiciary. Further and far-reaching reforms are necessary, including
of the Supreme Court and High Council of Justice. In this respect,
the committee has welcomed the close co-operation with the Venice
Commission that was established by the authorities with regard to
the reform of the judiciary and justice system.
20. The persistent and endemic corruption at all levels of Albanian
society undermines the county’s democratic and socio-economic development
and is an issue of major concern. Despite a recent increase in prosecutions,
most indicators show that corruption has been increasing, rather
than diminishing, over recent years, which underscores the need
for urgent and far-reaching reforms. Efficiently and effectively
combating the endemic corruption in the judiciary will be crucial
for overall success in this area.
21. The authorities have started an administrative territorial
reform with a view to strengthening local self-government as a key
mechanism to further democratic consolidation of the country. While
timely, there is some concern that the planned reform seems, at
this moment, to be mostly focused on the administrative division
of the country and less on the functional aspects of local self-government
and especially the manner in which local authorities would obtain
the necessary resources to implement the services that the law,
and citizens, are expecting from them. As a result, this reform
is controversial. Regrettably, the work of the special parliamentary ad
hoc committee that was set up to guide this reform was boycotted
by the opposition
2.2.2. Armenia
22. The co-rapporteurs visited Armenia from 16 to 18
June 2014. This was the first fact-finding visit after the cycle
of presidential and parliamentary elections in 2012 and 2013. Following
his re-election, President Sargsyan re-appointed Prime Minister
Tigran Sargsyan and his government with very little changes in its composition.
However, on 3 April 2014, Prime Minister Sargsyan resigned, ostensibly
for personal reasons. On 13 April 2014, President Sargsyan appointed
parliamentary Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan as Prime Minister and Davit
Harutyunyan – who until then was the Chair of the Armenian delegation
to our Assembly – was appointed Head of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet
and Minister for the Co-ordination of the Cabinet of Ministers.
Several important changes took place in the government which seem
to suggest that President Sargsyan wished to install a new government
team in order to revive the faltering reform programme and to counter
the low level of public trust in the government.
23. Armenia and the European Union originally announced that they
would initial an Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement, during the Vilnius Summit. However, on 3 September
2012, in an unexpected U-turn when visiting Moscow, President Sargsyan
announced that Armenia would join the Customs Union of the Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS) as a precursor to a Eurasian Economic
Union. President Sargsyan pointedly admitted that this decision
was based on Armenia’s national security interests and the need
to maintain good relations with Moscow for that purpose. The decision
to join the Customs Union is controversial among a large segment
of Armenian society, which fears a possible deterioration of political
freedoms and human rights as a result of Armenia joining the Customs
Union.
24. In June 2013, President Sargsyan established a Specialised
Commission on Constitutional Reform with the aim of “improving constitutional
mechanisms to ensure fundamental human rights and freedoms, guaranteeing
full balance of power and raising the efficiency of public administration”.
This commission presented its concept paper for constitutional reform
in June 2014. In order to ensure that the discussions on the future
political system in Armenia did not get entangled in speculations
about his own political future, President Sargsyan announced, in
May 2014, that he would neither seek the post of Prime Minister
nor a third term as President even if this were possible.
25. Final amendments to the Law on Alternative Service were adopted
in October 2013. As a result, Armenia has successfully honoured
its accession commitment of implementing a proper system of alternative
military service that is in line with Council of Europe standards.
Following the adoption of the Law on Alternative Service, all persons
that were either convicted or prosecuted for refusing military service
were given the possibility to opt for alternative military service,
with any detention being subtracted from their period of service.
2.2.3. Azerbaijan
26. The co-rapporteurs visited the country from 20 to
24 January 2014 and from 19 to 21 May 2014. In addition, they participated ex officio in the ad hoc committee
of the Assembly to observe the presidential election that took place
on 9 October 2013.
27. The presidential election took place in Azerbaijan on 9 October
2013 and was observed by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly. Regrettably
it was not possible to agree on a joint statement within the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM), as is customary. Instead the ad hoc
committee of the Assembly issued a joint statement with the European
Parliament delegation, and the Election Observation Mission of the
OSCE/ODIHR and the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE issued a separate
one.
28. The presidential election was the first since the constitutional
amendments that removed the two-term limit for the president and
therewith allowed incumbent President Aliyev to stand for a third
consecutive term. In the view of the ad hoc committee of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe, the elections on polling day
were conducted in a free and transparent manner, but improvements
to the electoral framework in the run-up to the elections, were
still desirable, as the electoral process was still far from perfect.
This presidential election was won by incumbent President Aliyev
with 84% of the votes.
29. Several personalities and institutions, including the Council
of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the co-rapporteurs,
expressed their concern about the deteriorating respect for fundamental
human rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association
and freedom of assembly, as well as an increase in possibly politically
motivated prosecutions of journalists and civil society and opposition
activists, since the last presidential election.
30. The number of alleged politically motivated prosecutions is
a point of contention and is being investigated by, inter alia, the co-rapporteurs.
Increasingly, civil society activists and journalists are prosecuted, allegedly
for high treason and spying for Armenia, which carry very long prison
sentences. This has had a chilling effect on the non-governmental
organisation (NGO) and media community. On 22 May 2014, in its judgement
in the case of IlgarMammadov v. Azerbaijan, the European
Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) considered that the charges
against him were not substantiated by the prosecution and that there
was therefore no reasonable suspicion justifying his arrest and
pre-trail detention. Moreover, the Court considered that the courts
had failed to verify the soundness of the claims of the prosecution.
Importantly, the Court found a violation under Article 18, clearly
indicating that other reasons than those allowed by the European
Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) had played a role in the
prosecution and conviction of Mr Mammadov.
2.2.4. Bosnia and Herzegovina
31. The co-rapporteurs visited the country from 7 to
9 July 2014. On 2 October 2013, the Assembly adopted Recommendation 2025 (2013) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
32. In this recommendation, the Assembly expressed its regret
that no credible efforts had been made by the Bosnian authorities
to prepare the comprehensive package of constitutional amendments
needed to implement the Sejdić and Finci judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights that held that the constitutional
framework for elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina was discriminatory
and violates the European Convention on Human Rights. In the view
of the Assembly, “the execution of the Sejdić
and Finci judgment is a first step in the comprehensive
constitutional reform that is needed in order to move away from
the institutional straitjacket created by the Dayton Constitution,
towards a modern, euro-compatible and functional democracy in which
every citizen, regardless of his or her ethnic affiliation, enjoys
the same rights and freedoms”.
33. The Assembly expressed it serious concern about growing disrespect
for the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with State institutions
being attacked by high-level officials and political parties and
their leadership ignoring, and often violating, legal and constitutional
requirements. In the view of the Assembly, the current situation
hampers much-needed reforms in key areas such as democratic institutions,
the rule of law and human rights. In that context, the Assembly
regretted that since 2006 only very limited progress had been achieved
in the implementation of outstanding accession commitments of the
country to the Council of Europe, which, if continued, could affect
the relations between the Assembly and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2.2.5. Georgia
34. The rapporteurs visited Georgia from 13 to 16 January
2014 and participated ex officio in
the pre-electoral mission (24-25 September 2013) and election observation
mission of the ad hoc committee of the Assembly to observe the presidential
election in Georgia, on 27 October 2013. On 24 June 2014, the committee
adopted a report and draft resolution on the functioning of democratic
institutions in Georgia, which is scheduled to be debated in plenary
during the 4th part-session of the Assembly in 2014.
35. On 27 October 2013, the presidential election took place in
Georgia, observed by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly in the
framework of the International Election Observation Mission. In
the view of the IEOM, this election was “efficiently administered,
transparent and took place in an amicable and constructive environment”.
In addition, it concluded that “[f]undamental freedoms of expression,
movement and assembly were respected, and candidates were able to
campaign without restriction”. This election was
won with 61% of the vote by Giorgi Margvelashvili of the Georgian
Dream coalition, former Speaker Davit Bagradze of the United National
Movement came in second. Mr Margvelashvili was inaugurated on 17 November
2014. The local elections that were held in July 2014 heralded the
final phase of the democratic transfer of power in the country.
During these elections, for the first time, all mayors and chiefs
of city executives (gamgebeli)
were directly elected. The Georgian Dream coalition consolidated
its control over the country by winning all mayor and gamgebeli races and by obtaining
a majority in practically every city council in the country.
This election was
won with 61% of the vote by Giorgi Margvelashvili of the Georgian
Dream coalition, former Speaker Davit Bagradze of the United National
Movement came in second. Mr Margvelashvili was inaugurated on 17 November
2014. The local elections that were held in July 2014 heralded the
final phase of the democratic transfer of power in the country.
During these elections, for the first time, all mayors and chiefs
of city executives (gamgebeli)
were directly elected. The Georgian Dream coalition consolidated
its control over the country by winning all mayor and gamgebeli races and by obtaining
a majority in practically every city council in the country.36. The independence of the judiciary and administration of justice
in Georgia have been an issue of concern for the Assembly in previous
years. In that respect, the adoption of a comprehensive reform package
for the judiciary and justice system that aimed to ensure genuine
independence of the judiciary and a truly adversarial justice system
is already showing some positive results and is to be welcomed.
However, there are continuing vulnerabilities and deficiencies in
the justice system that need to be addressed and further reforms
of the judiciary, particularly of the prosecution service, are still
necessary.
37. Following the 2012 parliamentary elections, more than 20 000
complaints were filed with the prosecution service against former
government officials for alleged criminal conduct during their tenure
in office. Following this, the authorities opened a number of criminal
investigations and initiated several prosecutions against former
government officials. These prosecutions were decried as politically
motivated and revanchist justice by the former ruling party, the
United National Movement. The Assembly has stressed that, while
there can be no impunity for ordinary crimes, the government has
to ensure that the investigations and court proceedings are conducted
transparently and impartially and fully respect the principles of
a fair trial as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is especially important in the context of politically sensitive
cases such as those against former government members.
38. The many reports, several of them verified, of pressure on
local officials belonging to the opposition to resign or switch
sides, as well as pressure on opposition candidates in the recent
local elections to withdraw their candidatures, is a point of serious
concern and it hampers the democratic consolidation of the country.
All these reports need to be fully investigated and the perpetrators
brought to justice. A clear and unambiguous signal needs to be given
to their supporters by the leadership of the ruling coalition that
pressure on opposition activists and supporters will not be tolerated.
39. On 27 June 2014, Georgia signed an Association Agreement,
including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA)
with the European Union.
2.2.6. Republic of Moldova
40. No visits by the rapporteurs on the Republic of Moldova
took place during the reporting period. On 2 October 2013, the Assembly
adopted Resolution 1955
(2013) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the
Republic of Moldova.
41. Constitutional amendments to avoid a political deadlock over
the election of the President of the Republic, leading to repeated
parliamentary elections, are still needed as are further reforms
of the electoral legislation and election process. The current potential
for conflict and political instability due to shortcomings in the
constitution and electoral legislation remains of concern.
42. Further reforms are still necessary to ensure the full separation
of powers and to de-politicise judicial institutions. Far-reaching
reforms are needed to combat widespread corruption, especially in
the judiciary, police, and health and education services, which
remains of serious concern.
43. On 27 June 2014, the Republic of Moldova signed an Association
Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement
(DCFTA) with the European Union.
2.2.7. Montenegro
44. The co-rapporteurs visited Montenegro from 14 to
16 April 2014. A preliminary draft report on the honouring of obligations
and commitments by Montenegro was prepared by the rapporteurs and
sent to the Montenegrin authorities after adoption in the committee
on 3 September 2014.
45. Corruption continues to be a point of concern in Montenegro.
While welcoming the progress made to meet Council of Europe standards
in this respect, the co-rapporteurs for Montenegro called on the
Montenegrin authorities to ensure that their declared willingness
to fight corruption would lead to concrete results. In this context,
the consensual appointment of an independent and de-politicised
Supreme State Prosecutor by the Montenegrin Parliament is crucial.
46. The media environment in Montenegro remains highly polarised
and the repeated attacks against journalists and media outlets are
of concern. The establishment of a special commission to investigate assassinations
of, and threats against, journalists was welcomed by the two co-rapporteurs.
2.2.8. Russian Federation
47. No monitoring visits to the Russian Federation took
place during the reporting period. A request of the co-rapporteurs
to make a fact-finding visit in July 2014 was refused by the Russian
authorities.
48. Respect for the fundamental rights of freedom of expression
and freedom of assembly continue to be of concern. On 25 February
2014, the co-rapporteurs for Russia issued a statement expressing
their deep concern at the disproportionate prison sentences given
to the Bolotnaya Square demonstrators. They noted that the procedural
shortcomings during the trial, as well as the long pre-trial detention,
raised justified suspicions of politically motivated justice.
49. Russia’s actions towards its immediate neighbours have been
a source of great concern to the Assembly. In Resolution 1974 (2014) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine,
the Assembly reminded the Russian Federation of its accession commitment
to the Council of Europe “to denounce as wrong the concept of two
different categories of foreign countries, whereby some are treated
as a zone of special influence called ‘the near abroad’ and refrain
from promoting the geographical doctrine of zones of special interests”.
50. In Resolution 1988
(2014) “Recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning
of democratic institutions”, the Assembly strongly condemned the
Russian military aggression against Ukraine and the subsequent annexation
of the Crimea by the Russian Federation in clear violation of international
law, including the United Nations Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Act
and the Statute and basic principles of the Council of Europe.
51. Following the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation,
the already ratified credentials of the Russian delegation to the
Assembly were challenged on substantive grounds by a large number
of members of the Assembly. In Resolution 1990 (2014) on the reconsideration of the previously ratified credentials
of the Russian delegation, the Assembly again considered that Russia’s
actions in Ukraine violated international law, including its obligations
and commitments to the Council of Europe and in this respect regretted
that Russia rejected international mechanisms available to it to
peacefully resolve its conflict with Ukraine. In the view of the
Assembly, with its violation of the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Ukraine, Russia had created a threat to stability and
peace in Europe. The Assembly therefore decided to suspend, until
January 2015, the voting rights of the Russian delegation in the
Assembly as well as its right to be represented on the Bureau of
the Assembly, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee
and its right to participate in election observation missions. However,
underscoring its belief in the privileged position of political
dialogue, the Assembly decided not to annul the credentials of the
Russian delegation.
52. On 26 June 2014, the Monitoring Committee established an ad
hoc Sub-Committee on Russia’s Neighbourhood Policy, also with a
view to fostering an open and frank dialogue with the Russian delegation
on this issue which is of great concern to the Assembly.
53. In Resolution 1996
(2014) on refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei Magnitsky,
based on a report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights,
prepared by one of the two co-rapporteurs, the Assembly urged the
Russian Federation to fully investigate the circumstances and background
of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky’s death, and the possible
criminal responsibility of all officials involved. It recommended
that Council of Europe member States, as a last resort, consider
adopting “targeted sanctions” against the individuals involved in
the death of Mr Magnitsky – such as visa bans and the freezing of
accounts – if the competent authorities in Russia failed to respond
adequately to its demands within a reasonable period of time.
2.2.9. Serbia
54. The co-rapporteurs visited Serbia from 25 to 27 November
2013 and presented an information note that was
declassified by the committee on 30 January 2014.
that was
declassified by the committee on 30 January 2014.55. During the reporting period, Serbia continued to make good
progress in honouring its obligations and commitments to the Council
of Europe. The European Commission agreed to open accession negotiations
in 2014, on the understanding that visible and sustainable progress
in normalisations with Kosovo continued.
56. Key reforms with a view to strengthening the independence
of the judiciary and reintegrating the 600 judges who were unlawfully
dismissed in 2009 continued. While welcoming these reforms, the
co-rapporteurs for Serbia noted that amendments to Serbia’s Constitution
were necessary to address the lack of real independence in the judiciary.
There are no indications that the adoption of such amendments is
foreseen in the foreseeable future.
57. The fight against corruption remained a main priority for
the Serbian authorities. A key role in the anti-corruption strategy
is given to the Anti-Corruption Agency, which is an independent
agency directly accountable to the National Assembly. However, the
modalities for the functioning of this agency are not clear and
its lack of power to impose sanctions undermines the effectiveness
of its work. In a welcome development, a law on whistle-blowers
is being prepared by the authorities. Despite positive developments,
serious obstacles to the fight against corruption remain in place
and State institutions need to be strengthened, and their transparency
increased. This is also true for the media environment, where lack
of transparency of media ownership remains a point of concern.
2.2.10. Ukraine
58. The monitoring of Ukraine’s honouring of obligations
and commitments to the Council of Europe during the reporting period
was dominated by the Euromaidan protests followed by the illegal
annexation of the Crimea and the separatist insurgency in eastern
Ukraine. In the reporting period, the co-rapporteurs visited Ukraine
from 18 to 20 December 2013, 17 to 21 February 2014, 22 to 24 March
2014 (jointly with the Presidential Committee) and from 8 to 11
July 2014. In addition, they participated, ex
officio, in the pre-electoral delegation of the ad hoc
committee of the Assembly for the extraordinary presidential election
on 25 May 2014. On 30 January 2014, the Assembly adopted in a debate
under urgent procedure, requested by the Monitoring Committee, Resolution 1974 (2014) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine.
On 9 April 2014, the Assembly adopted, also in a debate under urgent
procedure requested by the Monitoring Committee, Resolution 1988 (2014) “Recent developments in Ukraine: threats to the functioning
of democratic Institutions”.
59. A political crisis ensued in Ukraine when, on 21 November
2013, the Ukrainian authorities under former President Yanukovich,
decided to suspend the procedure for the signing of an Association
Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement
with the European Union. The authorities claimed that political
pressure by the Russian Federation, including the threat of sanctions
had been the main reason for this decision.
60. This surprise decision led to mass protest on Independence
Square in Kyiv, most commonly refer to as Maidan by the local population.
Attempts by the authorities to break up the protests with the use
of disproportionate force only galvanised the protests and turned
them into a general protest against the governing style of the ruling
majority, including the lack of democratic decision making and endemic
corruption under the country’s leadership. Regrettably, calls by
national and international actors, including the Assembly, on the
Ukrainian authorities to refrain from any action that could further
escalate the situation and not to attempt to break up the protests
by force, were not heeded by the authorities. Their increasingly
hard-handed approach caused an unprecedented escalation of violence,
culminating in the dramatic events on Maidan in Kyiv from 18 to
20 February 2014 that lead to the death of over a hundred protesters
and 17 police officers. As a result of the increasing violence and
brutality in the week of 18 to 20 February, including the use of
snipers against protesters, large numbers of key personalities and
financial interests withdrew their support from the then President
Yanukovich. As a result, on 21 February 2014, the foreign ministers
of Poland, Germany and France, on behalf of the European Union,
managed to broker an agreement between the President and opposition parties.
This agreement foresaw the re-enactment of the 2004 constitutional
amendments followed by constitutional reform, the formation of a
national unity government and an early presidential election. Recognising
that most of his supporters had abandoned and effectively disowned
him, President Yanukovich fled to Russia immediately after the signature
of the agreement. An independent advisory panel was established
by the Council of Europe to assist an impartial investigation into
the violence on both sides that occurred during the Euromaidan protests.
61. A large part of the 21 February agreement continued to be
implemented by the Verkhovna Rada, which, in line with constitutional
provisions, appointed parliamentary Speaker Turchinov as acting
President of Ukraine. An early presidential election was called
for 25 May 2014.
62. The early presidential election on 25 May 2014 was observed
by an ad hoc committee of the Assembly in the framework of an International
Election Observation Mission that also consisted of the OSCE/ODIHR,
the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The two co-rapporteurs
were ex officio members of
this ad hoc committee. The election was won, in the first round,
by Petro Poroshenko with 54.7% of the votes cast. In the view of
the IEOM, the early presidential election was a genuinely democratic
election, largely in line with international standards and respecting fundamental
rights and freedoms, despite the problematic security situation
in the east of the country.
63. Regrettably, the political developments in Ukraine were overshadowed
by the armed intervention and subsequent annexation of the Crimea
by the Russian Federation and the armed insurgency in the Donetsk
and Luhansk regions in the east of Ukraine. The annexation of the
Crimea by the Russian Federation, as well as its interference in
the east of Ukraine, has been condemned by the Assembly, which has
repeatedly expressed its strong support for the territorial integrity
and unity of Ukraine.
64. On 27 June 2014, Ukraine signed an Association Agreement,
including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the
European Union.
2.3. Countries engaged in a post-monitoring procedure
2.3.1. Bulgaria
65. The rapporteur visited Bulgaria on 12 and 13 February
2014. No reports or information documents were adopted during the
reporting period.
66. On 23 July 2014, following a crisis involving two of the main
banks in the country and after a poor result for his party in the
European elections in May 2014, the Prime Minister of Bulgaria,
Mr Plamen Oresharski, resigned. On 6 August 2014, President Plevnelliev
called for early parliamentary elections on 5 October 2014 and appointed
a caretaker Cabinet led by Mr Georgi Bliznashki.
2.3.2. Monaco
67. The rapporteur visited Monaco on 5 and 6 June 2014.
No reports or information notes were published on Monaco during
the reporting period.
68. In November 2013, Monaco ratified the Cybercrime Convention.
In a statement following his visit, the rapporteur also welcomed
the ongoing reform of the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes
and the preparations for a new law on the functioning of the National
Council, which is expected to be adopted in 2015.
69. The non-ratification of Protocols 1 and 12 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, as well as of the European Social Charter
(ETS Nos. 35 and 163), remain of concern. However the rapporteur
noted and welcomed the willingness of the Monegasque authorities
to continue the dialogue with the Assembly about these commitments
with a view to finding a solution that would ensure both the consideration
of the specificities of the Principality of Monaco and the values
of the Council of Europe.
2.3.3. “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
70. The rapporteur visited Macedonia on 2 and 3
December 2013 and participated in the pre-electoral mission and
election observation missions for the presidential and parliamentary
elections that took place on 13 and 27 April and 27 April 2014 respectively.
on 2 and 3
December 2013 and participated in the pre-electoral mission and
election observation missions for the presidential and parliamentary
elections that took place on 13 and 27 April and 27 April 2014 respectively. 71. The ongoing lustration process in Macedonia is controversial,
contentious, and politicised. The law on lustration has been challenged
in the Constitutional Court and a case against the lustration process
has been filed with the European Court of Human Rights by the former
President of the Constitutional Court.
72. In its 2013 progress report, the European Commission recommended
the start of accession negotiations between Macedonia and the European
Union for the fifth time. However, due to lack of progress regarding
the name issue, no such decision was taken by the European Council.
73. The extreme politicisation of public life, both along ethnic
lines and political affiliation, is a point of serious concern.
The relations between the ruling majority and the opposition remain
very difficult and undermine the decision-making process.
74. The politicised and polarised environment also undermines
public trust in the judiciary as the perception of selective justice
is high. This is compounded by the high level of corruption in the
country, including among the judiciary.
75. The media environment also remains an issue of concern. There
are repeated allegations of pressure on journalists and the media
legislation that is under preparation is seen by some stakeholders
as attempting to curb the freedom of the media.
76. On 5 March 2014, the parliament was dissolved on the initiative
of the Democratic Union for Integration, the junior party in the
ruling coalition, following disagreements with the main party in
the ruling coalition, VMRO-DPMNE, over its choice of candidate in
the presidential election. Following the dissolution of the parliament,
it was agreed to organise parliamentary elections at the same time
as the second round for the presidential election, on 27 April 2014.
The first round of the presidential election took place on 13 April
2014.
77. These elections were observed by a delegation of the Assembly
in the framework of an International Election Observation Mission
with the OSCE/ODIHR and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. The IEOM concluded
that the elections were organised efficiently, with freedom of assembly
and association respected during the campaign period. However, the
campaign and media environment were biased in favour of the ruling party,
and allegations of pressure on voters, some of them credible, were
persistent throughout the campaign period.
78. On 16 May 2014, the Monitoring Committee issued a statement
in which it expressed its concern about the decision of the main
opposition party, the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, not
to accept their mandates in the newly elected parliament and not
to recognise the legitimacy of the presidential election. It also deplored
the decision of the Democratic Union for Integration to boycott
the presidential election. At the same time, the committee called
on the authorities to promptly remedy the shortcomings in the election
process, as noted by the IEOM, and to investigate transparently
and impartially the credible allegations of intimidation and pressure
on voters, as well as of vote buying.
2.3.4. Turkey
79. The rapporteur visited Turkey from 26 to 28 May 2014.
The committee issued a declaration with regard to developments in
the country on 29 January 2014. The rapporteur issued statements
on 21 March and 30 May 2014.
80. The independence of the judiciary is a point of concern in
Turkey, especially after the strong reaction of the ruling party
against allegations of high-level corruption in the Turkish Government.
In its declaration, the committee called on the Turkish authorities
to guarantee judicial independence and impartiality and expressed its
expectation that constitutional reform, clarifying the separation
and balance of powers in the country, would soon be adopted. Similarly,
in her declaration, the rapporteur for Turkey called for greater
social and political stability in the country.
81. On 10 August 2014, a presidential election took place in Turkey,
which was observed by a delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly
in the framework of an International Election Observation Mission
with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and OSCE/ODIHR. The observers
concluded that, while candidates were able to campaign freely, the
playing field was skewed in favour of the candidate of the ruling
party.
2.4. Requests to open a monitoring procedure
2.4.1. France
82. On 26 June 2013, 21 members of the Assembly tabled
a motion for a resolution requesting the opening of a monitoring
procedure in respect of France, claiming serious setbacks in the
field of human rights and the rule of law in relation to police
action against protesters against the Taubira Law, as well as in
relation to the compulsory teaching of gender theory as from the
age of six.
83. In line with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, the committee
appointed two co-rapporteurs in December 2013 to prepare a written
opinion on this subject. A first fact-finding visit of the rapporteurs
to Paris is scheduled to take place on 10 and 11 September 2014.
3. Enhancement of the efficiency and impact of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure
84. In Resolution
1953 (2013) on the progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure
the Assembly resolved to pursue a reflection on ways to enhance
the effectiveness and impact of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.
It is important to highlight that the initiative of a reflection
on ways to improve the monitoring procedure originated in the committee
itself, in particular from my predecessors Mr Dick Marty and Mr Andres Herkel.
85. The reflection on the enhancement of the efficiency and impact
of the monitoring procedure with regard to all Council of Europe
member States has been a major component of the work of the Committee
over the reporting period. A special ad hoc sub-committee was set
up by the committee for this purpose and tasked with formulating
concrete proposals in this respect. This sub-committee was constituted
on the basis of a precise formula that would allow for a balanced
and representative composition, including between countries under
a monitoring procedure sensu stricto,
countries engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, countries that
had been under a monitoring procedure sensu
stricto and countries that have never been under a monitoring
procedure sensu stricto.
86. The sub-committee presented its findings and conclusions to
the committee on 26 June 2014, which adopted its conclusions and
endorsed the report. The findings and conclusions are an integral
part of this progress report. The report of the ad hoc sub-committee,
as endorsed by the committee, is in Appendix 1.
87. The committee unanimously agreed that the monitoring procedure
of the Assembly has played, and continuous to play, an important
and positive role in the transformation processes in many countries
which joined the Organisation during and after the 1990s. The monitoring
process, and the work of the Monitoring Committee, is one off the
core activities of the Assembly that needs to be maintain and reinforced.
88. The 10 countries that are currently under the monitoring procedure
for obligations and commitments sensu
stricto should therefore remain under this specific monitoring
as long as the commitments they agreed upon when acceding to the
Council of Europe have not been entirely fulfilled. At the same
time, it was agreed that there can be no dividing lines and that
also the 33 countries that are not under a monitoring procedure sensu stricto should be periodically
reviewed by the Monitoring Committee with regard to the honouring
of membership obligations to the Council of Europe. I was tasked
by the committee with proposing a reporting mechanism for such a
periodical review, which I will do in the section below.
89. With regard to the post-monitoring dialogue, it was agreed
that this dialogue should have a clearly defined timeline. If the
issues delegated to a post-monitoring dialogue were, in the view
of the Assembly, not resolved within such a time frame, the country
in question should automatically return to a monitoring procedure sensu stricto. The report of the
ad hoc sub-committee, as approved by the committee, made a number
of concrete proposals in this respect. I was also tasked with clarifying
some aspects of this procedure, especially with regard to transitional
provisions and the possible return of a country to the monitoring
procedure sensu stricto.
90. The possibility for involvement in the work of the committee
of the countries engaged in the partnership for democracy was raised.
However, the modalities for such involvement are not clear and would
need further reflection by the committee. I propose to come back
to this subject in the context of the 2015 progress report of the
monitoring procedure. In this context, it is also important to highlight
the close relationship and complementarity between the work of the
committee and the election observation missions of the Assembly. Close
co-operation between the committee and the observation missions
exists and has been strengthened by the systematic ex officio participation of our
rapporteurs in the ad hoc committees that observe the elections as
well as in the pre-electoral missions. The input of our rapporteurs
in these observations missions and the contextual reference they
provide are a valuable addition to the election observation exercise.
Therefore, the possibility of developing a more structural and integrated
relationship between the Monitoring Committee and the election observation
missions of the Assembly needs to be investigated. This would also
provide the election observation delegations with a stronger institutional
and less ad hoc basis for their work and reporting. I will formulate
concrete proposals in this respect in the next progress report on
the monitoring procedure.
3.1. Reporting on the 33 countries that are neither under the monitoring procedure sensu stricto nor engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue
91. As already mentioned, on 26 June 2014, the Monitoring
Committee approved the report of the ad hoc Sub-Committee on the
Functioning of the Parliamentary Monitoring Procedure. In this report,
it was agreed, inter alia,
to subject the 33 countries that are not under the monitoring procedure sensu stricto or engaged in a post-monitoring
dialogue, to a periodic review of their honouring of membership
obligations to the Council of Europe. Furthermore, it was agreed
that such reviews would be on a country-by-country basis, complemented, if
need be, by issue-based monitoring. It was agreed that, on the basis
of these principles, a proposal for the reporting on these 33 countries,
taking into account the Assembly’s financial and human resource
constraints, would be included in the 2014 progress report on the
monitoring procedure.
92. Reporting on the countries that are subject to the monitoring
procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue is defined by
the nature of the procedure and the accession commitments made, and will therefore not
substantially change. However, it was agreed that the committee,
for its internal use, would establish a set of guidelines to be
used when considering the opening or the closing of a monitoring
procedure. These guidelines should be presented for discussion in
the committee by December 2014.
and will therefore not
substantially change. However, it was agreed that the committee,
for its internal use, would establish a set of guidelines to be
used when considering the opening or the closing of a monitoring
procedure. These guidelines should be presented for discussion in
the committee by December 2014.93. For the periodic review of the 33 countries, it is proposed
that for the countries selected (see proposal for the selection
process below), a concise preliminary report divided into sections
be compiled for each country. The first section would be an outline
of any major political developments since the last review by the Monitoring
Committee with
respect to the functioning of democratic institutions, the rule
of law and respect for human rights. The second part would be an
assessment of the findings of the different convention-based and
institutional monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe published
during the reference period.
with
respect to the functioning of democratic institutions, the rule
of law and respect for human rights. The second part would be an
assessment of the findings of the different convention-based and
institutional monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe published
during the reference period. 94. As they will be ultimately part of the progress report, the
preliminary reports will be drafted by the Chair or one of the vice-chairpersons,
if appropriate.
95. The preliminary report would be discussed by the committee
and sent to the national delegation of the country in question with
a request for comments by the authorities on its findings. On the
basis of these comments, a draft report would be produced that would
be the subject of an exchange of views in the committee in the presence
of a representative of the majority and opposition of the country
in question. The final report, adopted after this exchange of views,
would be included in the progress report of the Monitoring Committee
for the year in which it was adopted.
96. When, in these reports, a country is found to be globally
honouring its membership obligations to the Council of Europe, no
further action should be necessary until the next reporting cycle.
However, if on the contrary, the committee considers that certain
developments are of serious concern, it can decide on one of the
two following actions.
97. Should the committee conclude that some of the developments
in a given country constitute a serious risk to the proper functioning
of democratic institutions, it can table a motion for a resolution,
in line with paragraph 7 of its terms of reference, on the functioning
of the democratic institutions in that country.
98. If, in the view of the committee, a country is found to be
structurally failing to honour its obligations as a member State
of the Council of Europe, the committee can propose the opening
of a monitoring procedure on the basis of paragraphs 3 and 5 of
the terms of reference of the committee.
99. In practical terms, it is proposed to discuss the preliminary
reports and hold the exchanges of views with representatives of
the parliamentary delegations concerned at each committee meeting
in Paris. These meetings should be extended by
half a day for that purpose. The discussions should be organised
on the basis of groups of three countries. Each meeting would discuss
three preliminary reports and hold three exchanges of views.
These meetings should be extended by
half a day for that purpose. The discussions should be organised
on the basis of groups of three countries. Each meeting would discuss
three preliminary reports and hold three exchanges of views. 100. The exchange of views on the draft reports with the representatives
concerned will take place two meetings after the meeting in which
the preliminary report was adopted. This will allow the authorities
three months to submit their comments on the preliminary draft report,
similar to countries under a monitoring procedure sensu stricto. With this schedule,
the committee could, after an initial phase, properly review 12 countries
each year, allowing it to review all current 33 countries that are
not under a monitoring procedure sensu
stricto or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue within
three years. After the initial year, the procedure should be evaluated,
also taking into account financial and human resource constraints,
to see if this schedule needs to be adjusted.
101. In view of the opposition expressed in the committee to the
geographical grouping of countries, it is proposed that for the
periodical review the countries be grouped by three in (English)
alphabetical order. Thus Andorra, Austria and Belgium will be the
first countries to be reviewed, followed by Croatia, Cyprus and
the Czech Republic.
102. The report of the ad hoc sub-committee states that issue-based
monitoring can complement country-by-country monitoring for the
33 countries that are not under a monitoring procedure sensu stricto or engaged in a post-monitoring
dialogue. As mentioned in the report of the ad hoc sub-committee,
many of the other Assembly committees produce regular reports that
constitute issue-based monitoring on many of the subjects that the
Monitoring Committee is concerned with. It is important that our
committee avoids duplicating their work, with the risk of contradictions,
especially in the context of the current constraints on our resources. However,
the Monitoring Committee could provide a wider country-specific
context that highlights the interrelations with other subjects.
This is one of the key strengths of the Monitoring Committee in
its reporting on the countries under the monitoring procedure sensu stricto. In order to foster
this synergy between the Monitoring Committee and the specialised
committees of the Assembly, it is proposed to organise, on an annual
basis, an exchange of views between the Monitoring Committee and
the chairpersons of the relevant specialised committees of the Assembly.
Possible joint action could be agreed upon, if considered opportune, during
these exchanges of views.
103. The above reporting procedure would allow us to implement
the conclusions of the Sub-Committee on the Functioning of the Parliamentary
Monitoring Procedure, as agreed upon by the committee at its meeting on
26 June 2014, with due consideration to the constraints on the financial
and human resources of the committee.
3.2. Post-monitoring dialogue
104. As mentioned above, the committee proposes to set
a clearly defined time frame with regard to the post-monitoring
dialogue. However, from the discussions in the committee it was
clear that there was a need for a clarification of the procedure
for the post-monitoring dialogue as proposed by the committee.
105. When a monitoring procedure in respect of a given country
is closed, the Assembly can decide to open a post-monitoring dialogue
with that country on a select and well-defined number of issues
that still require specific action by the authorities. When a post-monitoring
dialogue is opened, it is proposed that two rapporteurs be
appointed by the Monitoring Committee on the same basis as the rapporteurs
for a monitoring procedure sensu stricto.
The rapporteurs for the post-monitoring procedure will have up to
three years to produce their first report on the post-monitoring
dialogue. If, at that time, not all subjects have been satisfactorily
addressed by the authorities of the country in question, the rapporteurs
will outline the remaining items together with a concrete proposal,
developed in dialogue with the authorities, on how these questions should
be remedied. If, by the next report, which again needs to be published
within three years after adoption of the first report, these issues
have not been solved satisfactorily, and the Assembly decides on
that basis not to close the post-monitoring dialogue, then the country
will automatically return to the monitoring procedure sensu stricto. It should be clear
that this is always based on a decision of the Assembly in the framework
of a draft resolution proposed by the Monitoring Committee that
contains a decision not to close a post-monitoring dialogue. Also,
the Assembly can decide to close the post-monitoring procedure even
if some, in the view of the Assembly, minor issues have not been
completely resolved.
be
appointed by the Monitoring Committee on the same basis as the rapporteurs
for a monitoring procedure sensu stricto.
The rapporteurs for the post-monitoring procedure will have up to
three years to produce their first report on the post-monitoring
dialogue. If, at that time, not all subjects have been satisfactorily
addressed by the authorities of the country in question, the rapporteurs
will outline the remaining items together with a concrete proposal,
developed in dialogue with the authorities, on how these questions should
be remedied. If, by the next report, which again needs to be published
within three years after adoption of the first report, these issues
have not been solved satisfactorily, and the Assembly decides on
that basis not to close the post-monitoring dialogue, then the country
will automatically return to the monitoring procedure sensu stricto. It should be clear
that this is always based on a decision of the Assembly in the framework
of a draft resolution proposed by the Monitoring Committee that
contains a decision not to close a post-monitoring dialogue. Also,
the Assembly can decide to close the post-monitoring procedure even
if some, in the view of the Assembly, minor issues have not been
completely resolved.106. For the four countries currently engaged in a post-monitoring
dialogue, transitional provisions are necessary with regard to the
limited time frame, as well as the appointment of extra rapporteurs,
which I have been tasked to draft by the committee.
107. With regard to the limited time frame of two reports, the
next report after the adoption of these changes will count as the
first report in the two-report cycle for those countries already
engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue.
108. As far as the appointment of two rapporteurs for the four
countries currently engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue is concerned,
the second rapporteur will be appointed during the second part-session
of the Assembly in 2016, or when the term of the current rapporteur
expires, or when a report on the post-monitoring dialogue for that
country has been debated in the Assembly, whichever of these events
occurs first.
3.3. Miscellaneous provisions
109. With the addition of the new comprehensive periodic
review of the – currently 33 – countries that are not under the
monitoring procedure sensu stricto or
engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, the Assembly will have a
comprehensive overview of the state of honouring of membership obligations
in all member States of the Council of Europe, and would therefore
be in a position to consider prompt action in the event that concerns arise
in this context. This would allow us to address a vulnerability
that exists in the current application procedure for the opening
of a monitoring procedure. Theoretically, 20 members, for narrow
political reasons not related to the honouring of membership obligations,
can request the opening of a monitoring procedure for a given country.
Currently, the Assembly has no possibility to dismiss any frivolous
or politicised request, and the Monitoring Committee is obliged
to start a full-scale investigation by two rapporteurs. It is therefore proposed
that the committee, on a proposal from the Chair, with an absolute
majority of all of its members, and subject to confirmation by the
Bureau, can decide not to take any further action on an application
to initiate a monitoring procedure made under paragraph 3.iii of
the terms of reference of the Monitoring Committee. It should be
clear that this is not applicable for requests originating under
paragraphs 3.i, 3.ii and 3.iv of the terms of reference of the committee.
Appendix 1 – Activity report
of the ad hoc Sub-Committee on the Functioning of the Parliamentary Monitoring
Procedure
(open)(Chairperson: Mr Pedro Agramunt, Spain, Group of the European People’s Party)
1. Background of the reform process
1. In Resolution
1953 (2013), adopted in October 2013 following the debate on the
Monitoring Committee’s progress report, the Parliamentary Assembly
resolved to pursue a more general reflection on ways to enhance the
efficiency and the impact of the Assembly’s monitoring procedures
with regard to all Council of Europe member States, and took note
of the intention of the Monitoring Committee to establish a working
group tasked with the preparation of concrete proposals in this
respect.
2. The initiative to launch a discussion on different aspects
of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure and possible ways to improve
it originated from the Monitoring Committee itself, and more particularly
from its then Chair, Mr Dick Marty, as early as 2011, and was supported
by his successor, Mr Andres Herkel. It was partly prompted by the
growing frustration of some parliamentarians with the situation
in which a number of countries, which had been under a monitoring
procedure sensu stricto for
many years, did not seem to be making any significant progress in
terms of the fulfilment of their obligations and commitments.
3. While some parliamentarians openly expressed their anxiety
about the credibility of the Organisation in the light of its inefficiency
in this respect, others, representing the countries which have been
monitored for the longest, criticised the alleged discriminatory
nature, unfairness and vagueness of the monitoring procedure in its
present form. As a result, it was widely agreed that there should
be reflection on the possible reform of the parliamentary monitoring
procedure.
4. In addition to the internal discussions in the committee,
and in the Assembly on the occasion of the debates on two consecutive
progress reports, in 2012 and 2013, the then President of the Assembly,
Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, supported the reflection by inviting all
national delegations to contribute to the discussions and by organising
a meeting with the heads of delegations in October 2013. The then
Chair of the Monitoring Committee contributed to the exchange of
views.
5. In order to better advance in the reflection process, the
Monitoring Committee established, in January 2014, an ad hoc sub-committee
on the functioning of the parliamentary monitoring procedure composed
of 16 members appointed by the political groups in accordance with
a number of criteria, including the repartition between countries
which are or have been under the monitoring or post-monitoring procedure
and those which have never been subject to specific monitoring.
I was appointed Chair. The ad hoc sub-committee was tasked with
making proposals, in the form of a written report accompanied by
a draft resolution, on possible ways to improve the Assembly’s monitoring
procedure, including its format and working methods, and to submit
them to the full committee during the June 2014 part-session.
6. The ad hoc sub-committee met three times and held exchanges
of views on the basis of two memoranda prepared by the Secretariat
on my instructions and under my responsibility, taking into account
all prior discussions and contributions, with a view to facilitating
the discussions by better structuring them.
7. The members were fully informed of the ongoing process of
reform of the monitoring procedures in the intergovernmental sector
of the Organisation. At their initiative, an exchange of views with
Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe,
took place at the committee’s meeting in February 2014.
8. The present report is the result of a clear consensus on crucial
questions on the scope of the monitoring procedure, which was reached
within the ad hoc sub-committee. I have also taken the liberty of
making some additional concrete proposals aimed at improving the
Monitoring Committee’s working methods.
2. The scope and content of the monitoring procedure
1. There was unanimous agreement that the parliamentary
monitoring procedure has played – and continues to play – an important
and positive role in the transformation process of many of the countries
which joined the Organisation during and after the 1990s. Beyond
any doubt, it contributed in a significant way to the democratisation
and institution building in these countries. All the members of
the ad hoc sub-committee confirmed that the monitoring process is
one of the core activities of the Parliamentary Assembly and should not
only not be abolished or weakened, but, on the contrary, be reinforced.
Furthermore, everybody recognised the important role played by the
Monitoring Committee and stressed that it should be maintained.
2. Similarly, the members agreed that the ten countries which
are currently under the monitoring procedure of obligations and
commitments sensu stricto should
remain subject to this specific monitoring as long as the commitments
entered into by them upon accession have not been entirely fulfilled.
It was pointed out that the list of commitments for each country
had been carefully established in co-operation with the authorities concerned,
which they, of their own free will, undertook to fulfil. The obligation
to fulfil their commitments cannot be perceived as a punishment
or a sign of “unfairness”.
3. It was also underlined that the spirit behind the commitments
had always been clear: they are not limited to the formal accomplishment
of an objective, for example the adoption of a specific law. What
matters is the proper implementation of the law in question and
safeguarding democratic principles. The commitments are clearly
meant to allow countries to achieve the basic democratic standards
of our Organisation, they are not goals in themselves. Therefore,
criticism based on the claim that “new commitments are added to
the list established upon accession” is completely groundless.
4. Having said that, we agreed that more rigorous and homogenous
assessment with regard to each country under monitoring sensu stricto should be applied
in order to eliminate any feeling of “unfairness”. A number of interesting
proposals for more uniform criteria for evaluation were put forward
during the discussions. I will raise them in the next chapter devoted
to our working methods. The question of a more uniform pattern for
the preparation of reports will also be tackled.
5. With regard to the post-monitoring dialogue in which four
countries are currently engaged, there was a consensus that this
procedure should have a clearly defined time frame. A negative report
on a specific country should set a deadline for the authorities
to remedy a number of concerns. These deadlines, which would be
a sort of a road map, should be established in close co-operation
with the authorities. A follow-up negative report would result in
returning the country in question to the monitoring sensu stricto. A positive report
would terminate the post-monitoring procedure. Again, the question
of more uniform criteria is a central point for this exercise. The
question of the introduction of two co-rapporteurs for more political
balance will also be dealt with later.
6. If approved by the Assembly, this modification would, in my
opinion, have a beneficial impact on the efficiency of our political
dialogue by providing the authorities of the countries concerned
with a very concrete prospect of either leaving the procedure or
returning to the category of countries under monitoring sensu stricto.
7. The next major question concerns the way in which the monitoring
procedure should be applied to the 33 countries which are currently
not under the monitoring sensu stricto or
engaged in the post-monitoring dialogue. Before I enter into the
substance of proposals put forward by the members of the ad hoc
sub-committee, I wish to comment on the present situation in this
respect.
8. It is true that our yearly overview of the conclusions of
the different Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms with respect
to the 33 countries in question, which we include in our progress
reports, may not fully address the concerns of those who speak about
“dividing lines” and “double standards”. Over the last few years
consecutive committee chairs have tried to improve the method for
presenting the findings on the 33 countries, notably by attaching
more importance to the analytical dimension of the exercise. We
have to admit, however, that a proper review of the situation in
33 countries is hardly feasible for one rapporteur on a yearly basis.
I think that after having reached the limits of this exercise, we
should abandon it, and find a more practical way of completing this
task.
9. I should stress here that the present statutory measures introduced
by the Assembly following the debate on the report that I presented
on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
in 2013 , provide the committee with unprecedented
possibilities for the monitoring of all Council of Europe member
States. The new terms of reference of the Monitoring Committee allow
for the possibility of preparing a report on the functioning of
democratic institutions in any member State, on the basis of a motion
for a resolution tabled by members of the Assembly. In practical
terms, this means that we no longer need a lengthy procedure to
open monitoring and prepare a report: we can react punctually to
a worrying development in any Council of Europe member State.
, provide the committee with unprecedented
possibilities for the monitoring of all Council of Europe member
States. The new terms of reference of the Monitoring Committee allow
for the possibility of preparing a report on the functioning of
democratic institutions in any member State, on the basis of a motion
for a resolution tabled by members of the Assembly. In practical
terms, this means that we no longer need a lengthy procedure to
open monitoring and prepare a report: we can react punctually to
a worrying development in any Council of Europe member State.10. This new rule has great potential for our future work and
should become a precious tool in addressing the challenges we are
confronted with. It may satisfy all those who insist on subjecting
all Council of Europe member States to some kind of monitoring procedure.
11. It was argued during the discussions in the ad hoc sub-committee
that a grouping, on a geographical basis, of several countries under
the responsibility of two co-rapporteurs tasked with the preparation
of a multiannual report on those countries, taking into account
the findings of the Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms and
completed with possible fact-finding visits to the countries, would
allow for a more thorough and systematic review of the situation
in the member States which are not subject to any specific monitoring procedure.
The question of the establishment of the “list of countries” will
be tackled in the chapter on working methods.
12. The above-mentioned new rule allowing for a simplified procedure
for the preparation of reports in the Monitoring Committee may also
address the calls for the introduction of some kind of issue-based
or thematic monitoring.
13. While the members of the ad hoc sub-committee agreed that
country-by-country monitoring should be continued and cannot be
replaced by issue-based, cross-country monitoring, there was a general
feeling that some kind of targeted issue-based monitoring could
complement country-by-country monitoring.
14. It is true that many other committees of the Parliamentary
Assembly draw up reports which could be considered to be a kind
of issue-based monitoring. It is enough to mention such reports
as: “Freedom of the media” or “Execution of the judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights”. Our intention is not to prevent these
committees from doing their work or to downgrade it. It is also
important to ensure that the work within the Assembly is not duplicated.
15. This problem could be solved by increased co-operation between
the Monitoring Committee and the relevant Assembly committee on
concrete questions which could then be tackled on a cross-country
basis. Such co-operation could include the organisation of a joint
hearing or conference.
16. This inter-committee co-operation could already start by identifying
concerns. The Monitoring Committee could periodically invite the
chairs of other committees to discuss concerns which ought to be
tackled in a cross-country report. A formula of joint debates –
of the Monitoring and relevant committees on different aspects of the
question under discussion – could be envisaged. Thus, the expertise
of a specific committee would bolster the cross-country report by
the Monitoring Committee. As a result, the work of the Monitoring
Committee would not try to replace the work of the other committees
but reinforce it by adding the dimension of high-level political dialogue.
17. If agreed, this new activity could address the concerns of
those who wish to extend monitoring to all the Council of Europe
members States. Indeed, a cross-country, issue-based procedure would
obviously be applied to those countries which are not subject to
another specific procedure.
18. Another positive result would be greater involvement and awareness
of Assembly members from outside the Monitoring Committee in the
monitoring activities. This could in turn contribute to increased
impact of the Assembly’s action in the national parliaments.
19. Finally, it was suggested that the countries engaged in the
Partnership for Democracy should be involved in the work of the
Monitoring Committee and also monitored in accordance with modalities
to be established.
3. Working methods
1. During the discussion in the ad hoc sub-committee,
it was generally agreed that some of the Monitoring Committee’s
present working methods should be improved. The members put forward
a number of ideas which, in their view, should contribute to improving
the committee’s efficiency and increasing its impact.
2. Nobody challenged the method of appointment of committee members
by political groups. The question of a better geographical repartition
was raised. While at present the countries under specific monitoring
can only be represented by two members, there are no limits for
other countries, which may lead – and it has in fact led – to a
striking over-representation of some countries. A special amendment
in the Rules should be introduced to prevent this from happening
in the future.
3. Similarly, the method for the appointment of co-rapporteurs
was not questioned. As mentioned in the previous chapter, it was
agreed that reports on the countries engaged in the post-monitoring
dialogue should also be under the responsibility of two co-rapporteurs
so as to ensure a better political balance. The length of the rapporteurs’
mandate should remain unchanged. Similarly, the frequency of the
presentation of reports does not require any revision.
4. The confidentiality of the committee’s proceedings was not
criticised. However, the committee should have the possibility added
in the Rules of Procedure to lift the confidentiality clause for
a specific event, such as a joint hearing with another committee.
I will propose introducing such an amendment to the Rules.
5. With regard to the establishment of a list of criteria which
would allow for more “objective”, “fair” and “homogenous” assessment
of the state of fulfilment of the commitments undertaken by a country,
there was a general consensus that such a list might contribute
to the transparency of the whole process. It would constitute a
reference – a sort of guidance for the co-rapporteurs and the members
of the committee – for considering closing or opening a monitoring
procedure.
6. It goes without saying that there is no question of “inventing”
or adding new principles. The list would simply consolidate our
standards. As I said before, commitments are meant to lead to democratic
standards, and achievement of these democratic standards constitutes
an obligation undertaken by each country upon accession.
7. This is not, of course, the place to draw up such a list of
criteria for the more uniform preparation of reports. But if the
committee agrees on this principle, the Secretariat could be tasked
with preparation of this document, under the responsibility of the
Chair, for the committee’s approval. This revision of our working methods
does not require any specific amendment to the Rules.
8. The members of the ad hoc committee unanimously stressed the
importance of better co-operation and synergy with the Committee
of Ministers and stakeholders in the Organisation. It was proposed
that the President of the Assembly be systematically accompanied
by the relevant co-rapporteurs on his or her official visits to
the member States.
9. Co-ordination between the different stakeholders is particularly
important in the area of the monitoring of commitments and obligations.
We should therefore aim at improving working relations within the Organisation
by systematically inviting the chair of the Committee of Ministers’
Rapporteur Group on Democracy (GR-DEM) to our meetings for an exchange
of information. We should also seek reciprocity: whenever the monitoring
of specific countries is on the GR-DEM’s agenda, the relevant co-rapporteurs
should be invited.
10. We should also try to identify more efficient modalities for
co-operation with other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms.
Again, it is not my role to enter into the operational details of
such contacts, but I propose that we instruct the Secretariat to
come up with very concrete and consistent proposals. Reinforcement
of co-operation does not require any change in the Rules, it is
a question of mutual political will and practical arrangements.
11. Finally, there were proposals from some members to change
the name of the committee in order to decrease the alleged frustration
of the countries targeted by the procedure. However, the majority
did not support this initiative. I believe that the Monitoring Committee
should not try to disguise its mission. It has made its name over
the years of valuable and appreciated work, and it should continue
to do it in an open, non-dissimulated manner for the benefit of
all those concerned.
4. Proposed modifications to Resolution 1115 (1997)
1. On the basis of the proposals outlined in the previous
two chapters, I have prepared elements for a draft resolution which
puts forward a number of amendments to Resolution 1115 (1997) with regard to the mandate of the Monitoring Committee.
Once agreed by the ad hoc sub-committee, it will be submitted to
the plenary committee, and if adopted, will be debated by the Assembly,
hopefully in October 2014.
2. The revised Resolution
1115 (1997) could enter into force as from January 2015.
5. Conclusions
1. I believe that the reflection process on the development
of the parliamentary monitoring procedure has been useful and fruitful.
The ad hoc sub-committee in its deliberations has addressed all
the concerns formulated on different occasions by the critics of
the monitoring procedure and has come up with some concrete proposals
for improvement and ways to increase in its impact.
2. I find it extremely important that the crucial importance
of the parliamentary monitoring procedure and of the Monitoring
Committee has been confirmed. There was unanimous agreement within
the ad hoc sub-committee that the activities of the Monitoring Committee
belong to the core business of the Assembly and should be reinforced.
3. The members have proposed an excellent and feasible way of
extending the monitoring procedure to those countries which are
not subject to any specific monitoring, by introducing a punctual
overview of groups of countries, and by launching issue-based, cross-country
monitoring in close co-operation with the relevant committees of
the Assembly as a complementary measure to the country-by-country
approach.
4. Finally, the report comes up with a number of proposals by
members for improvement of the committee’s working methods. The
majority of them do not require modification of the terms of reference
but need the committee’s approval.
5. Last but not least, we are aware that the proposals contained
in this report, including the increase in the number of missions
carried out by committee members, will have important financial
implications, while our Organisation as a whole, and the Parliamentary
Assembly as such, have to make budgetary savings and face constraints
in terms of human and budgetary resources. Carrying out the reformed
monitoring and post-monitoring procedures, in line with the proposals
of the ad hoc Sub-committee, will thus require finding the necessary
means to implement this core activity of our Assembly.
6. I am confident that all proposed modifications I have put
forward in this report will largely contribute to increasing the
efficiency and impact of our work.
Appendix 2 – Council of Europe treaties signed and/or ratified between 1 October 2013 and 21 August 2014 by the 33 countries which are not under the monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue
(open)|
Countries |
Treaties signed and/or ratified between 1 October 2013 and 21 August 2014 |
Signature/ratification |
|---|---|---|
|
Andorra |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 201 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection
of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
3. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
4. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
|
1. S: 5/11/2013
2. R: 30/4/2014
3. S: 5/11/2013
4. R: 22/4/2014
|
|
Austria |
1. ETS No. 143 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological
Heritage (Revised)
2. ETS No. 191 Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention
on Corruption
3. CETS No. 199 Council of Europe Framework Convention on
the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society
4. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
|
1. S: 5/6/2014
2. S+R: 13/12/2013
3. S: 5/6/2014
4. R: 14/11/2013
|
|
Belgium |
1. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. S: 7/10/2013
|
|
Croatia |
1. ETS No. 062 European Convention on Information on Foreign
Law
2. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
|
1. R: 6/2/2014
2. R: 28/2/2014
3. R: 28/2/2014
|
|
Cyprus |
1. ETS No. 092 European Agreement on the Transmission of Applications
for Legal Aid
2. ETS No. 106 European Outline Convention on Transfrontier
Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities
3. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
4. ETS No. 159 Additional Protocol to the European Outline
Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities
or Authorities
5. ETS No. 169 Protocol No. 2 to the European Outline Convention
on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities
concerning interterritorial co-operation
6. ETS No. 179 Additional Protocol to the European Agreement
on the Transmission of Applications for Legal Aid
7. CETS No. 206 Protocol No. 3 to the European Outline Convention
on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities
concerning Euroregional Co-operation Groupings (ECGs)
8. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
9. CETS No. 209 Third Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition
|
1. R: 12/2/2014
2. R: 18/12/2013
3. S: 10/7/2014
4. R: 17/4/2014
5. R: 17/4/2014
6. R: 12/2/2014
7. R: 17/4/2014
8. S: 10/7/2014
9. R: 7/2/2014
|
|
Czech Republic |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. ETS No. 189 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning
the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed
through computer systems
3. CETS No. 201 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection
of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
4. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
5. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 11/10/2013
2. R: 7/8/2014
3. S: 17/7/2014
4. R: 11/10/2013
5. S: 5/11/2013
|
|
Denmark |
1. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
|
1. R: 23/4/2014
|
|
Estonia |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
4. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 8/7/2014
2. R: 8/7/2014
3. R: 30/4/2014
4. S: 17/2/2014
|
|
Finland |
1. ETS No. 182 Second Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
2. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 16/4/2014
2. S: 2/10/2013
|
|
France |
1. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
2. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 4/7/2014
2. S: 2/10/2013
|
|
Germany |
1. ETS No. 183 European Convention for the Protection of
the Audiovisual Heritage
2. ETS No. 184 Protocol to the European Convention for the
Protection of the Audiovisual Heritage, on the Protection of Television
Productions
3. CETS No. 202 European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised)
|
1. R: 5/12/2013
2. R: 5/12/2013
3. S: 23/5/2014
|
|
Greece |
1. CETS No. 197 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings
|
1. R: 11/4/2014
|
|
Hungary |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on preventing
and combating violence against women and domestic violence
4. CETS No. 211 Council of Europe Convention on the counterfeiting
of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public
health
|
1. S: 12/11/2013
2. S: 12/11/2013
3. S: 14/3/2014
4. R: 9/1/2014
|
|
Iceland |
No treaty signed and/or ratified between 1 October 2013 and 21 August 2014 |
|
|
Ireland |
No treaty signed and/or ratified between 1 October 2013 and 21 August 2014 |
|
|
Italy |
1. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. S: 2/10/2013
|
|
Latvia |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 201 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection
of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
3. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
4. CETS No. 212 Fourth Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition
|
1. R: 15/7/2014
2. R: 18/8/2014
3. R: 15/7/2014
4. R: 24/2/2014
|
|
Liechtenstein |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. S: 21/11/2013
2. S: 21/11/2013
3. R: 26/11/2013
|
|
Lithuania |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 196 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention
of Terrorism
3. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
4. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
5. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 4/2/2014
2. R: 15/5/2014
3. R: 4/2/2014
4. S: 10/6/2014
5. S: 10/6/2014
|
|
Luxembourg |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
|
1. R: 11/7/2014
2. R: 11/7/2014
|
|
Malta |
1. ETS No. 191 Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention
on Corruption
2. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on preventing
and combating violence against women and domestic violence
|
1. R: 1/7/2014
2. R: 29/7/2014
|
|
Netherlands |
1. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
2. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. S: 22/10/2013
2. S: 7/11/2013
|
|
Norway |
1. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
2. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 17/6/2014
2. S: 27/6/2014
|
|
Poland |
1. ETS No. 187 Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning
the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances
2. ETS No. 191 Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention
on Corruption
3. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 23/5/2014
2. R: 30/4/2014
3. S: 9/4/2014
|
|
Portugal |
1. ETS No. 160 European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights
|
1. R: 31/3/2014
|
|
Romania |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
|
1. R: 11/7/2014
2. R: 11/7/2014
3. S: 27/6/2014
|
|
San Marino |
1. ETS No. 122 European Charter of Local Self-Government
2. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
4. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on Preventing
and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
5. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
6. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 29/10/2013
2. S: 21/11/2013
3. S: 21/11/2013
4. S: 30/4/2014
5. R: 6/11/2013
6. S: 2/10/2013
|
|
Slovak Republic |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
3. CETS No. 213 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
4. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 21/11/2013
2. R: 21/11/2013
3. R: 7/2/2014
4. S: 2/10/2013
|
|
Slovenia |
1. ETS No. 193 European Convention for the Protection of
Animals during International Transport (Revised)
2. CETS No. 209 Third Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition
3. CETS No. 214 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
|
1. R: 12/5/2014
2. R: 11/4/2014
3. S: 2/10/2013
|
|
Spain |
1. ETS No. 153 European Convention relating to questions
on Copyright Law and Neighbouring Rights in the Framework of Transfrontier Broadcasting
by Satellite
2. ETS No. 189 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning
the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed
through computer systems
3. CETS No. 209 Third Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition
4. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on preventing
and combating violence against women and domestic violence
|
1. R: 16/1/2014
2. S: 27/11/2013
3. S: 27/11/2013
4. R: 10/4/2014
|
|
Sweden |
1. ETS No. 182 Second Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
2. CETS No. 198 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering,
Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and
on the Financing of Terrorism
3. CETS No. 210 Council of Europe Convention on preventing
and combating violence against women and domestic violence
|
1. R: 20/1/2014
2. R: 23/6/2014
3. R: 1/7/2014
|
|
Switzerland |
1. ETS No. 127 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance
in Tax Matters
2. CETS No. 201 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection
of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse
3. CETS No. 208 Protocol amending the Convention on Mutual Administrative
Assistance in Tax Matters
|
1. S: 15/10/2013
2. R: 18/3/2014
3. S: 14/10/2013
|
|
United Kingdom |
1. CETS No. 209 Third Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition
2. CETS No. 212 Fourth Additional Protocol to the European
Convention on Extradition
|
1. S: 6/1/2014
2. S: 6/1/2014
|
Appendix 3 – Chart of ratifications and signatures of the main Council of Europe conventions with a monitoring mechanism by the 33 countries which are not under the monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue (situation at 21 August 2014)
(open)|
Table of abbreviations R: Ratified S: Signed but 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 |
|
Member States not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue |
Total number of conventions ratified or signed (out of 214) |
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 |
Protocols ECHR |
ECPT |
Social rights |
Minority rights |
||||||||||
|
Civil Law |
Criminal Law |
6 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
ESC |
Protocol ESC on collective complaints |
FCNM |
ECRML |
||||||||
|
Andorra |
44 R 9 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
– 1961 R rev |
– |
– |
– |
||
|
Austria |
109 R 36 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 R rev |
S |
R |
R |
||
|
Belgium |
130 R 36 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
S |
– |
||
|
Croatia |
92 R 7 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
Cyprus |
130 R 19 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
Czech Republic |
105 R 12 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
Denmark |
134 R 18 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
S |
R |
R |
||
|
Estonia |
86 R 13 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
– 1961 R rev |
– |
R |
– |
||
|
Finland |
111 R 14 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
France |
133 R 37 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
– |
S |
||
|
Germany |
124 R 46 S |
R |
S |
S |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
||
|
Greece |
97 R 55 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
R |
S |
– |
||
|
Hungary |
83 R 22 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
S |
R |
R |
||
|
Iceland |
84 R 37 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
S |
S |
||
|
Ireland |
102 R 16 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
||
|
Italy |
126 R 46 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
||
|
Latvia |
96 R 5 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
– |
R |
– |
||
|
Liechtenstein |
80 R 12 S |
R |
– |
S |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 – rev |
– |
R |
R |
||
|
Lithuania |
96 R 12 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
– 1961 R rev |
– |
R |
– |
||
|
Luxembourg |
130 R 52 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 S rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
S |
R |
||
|
Malta |
86 R 19 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
– |
R |
S |
||
|
Netherlands |
149 R 17 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
Norway |
144 R 13 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
Poland |
89 R 16 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
S |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
||
|
Portugal |
112 R 40 S |
R |
– |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
||
|
Member States not currently under monitoring procedure or post-monitoring dialogue |
Total number of conventions ratified or signed (out of 214) |
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 |
Protocols ECHR |
ECPT |
Social rights |
Minority rights |
||||||||||
|
Civil Law |
Criminal Law |
6 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
ESC |
Protocol ESC on collective complaints |
FCNM |
ECRML |
||||||||
|
Romania |
104 R 15 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 R rev |
– |
R |
R |
||
|
San Marino |
47 R 16 S |
S |
– |
S |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
– 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
– |
||
|
Slovak Republic |
100 R 7 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
S |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
S |
R |
R |
||
|
Slovenia |
108 R 14 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 R rev |
S |
R |
R |
||
|
Spain |
125 R 9 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
||
|
Sweden |
138 R 15 S |
R |
R |
R |
R 1990 R rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R1961 R rev |
R |
R |
R |
||
|
Switzerland |
114 R 15 S |
R |
– |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
S 1961 – rev |
– |
R |
R |
||
|
United Kingdom |
117 R 24 S |
R |
S |
R |
R 1990 – rev |
R |
R |
– |
R |
R |
R |
R 1961 S rev |
– |
R |
R |
||