Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698136366545.pdf (Malta)
RAPPORT LILL-ISPEAKER DWAR PARTEĊIPAZZJONI F’KONFERENZA/LAQGĦA/ŻJARA TA’ NATURA PARLAMENTARI BARRA MINN MALTA 1.

TITLU TAL-KONFERENZA/LAQGĦA: IT-TIELET SESSJONI TAL-2011 TAL-ASSEMBLEA PARLAMENTARI TAL-KUNSILL TAL-EWROPA 2.

POST U DATA: STRASBURGU 20–24 TA’ ĠUNJUL 2011 3.


ISEM IL-MEMBRI LI PPARTEĊIPAW: L-Onor Francis Agius MP, Kap tad-Delegazzjoni L-Onor Joseph Debono Grech MP; Membru L-Onor Joseph Falzon MP, Membru Sostitut L-Onor Beppe Fenech Adami MP, Membru Sostitut Is-Sur Ray Scicluna, Segretarju tad-Delegazzjoni 4.
SUĠĠETTI FUQ L-AĠENDA: Anness J huwa kompost minn kopji tal-Aġenda tal- : Assemblea Parlamentari, kif riveduta mill-Bureau tal-istess Assemblea fl-20 ta’ Ġunju 2011; Kumitat dwar l-Affarijiet Politiċi; Kumitat dwar l-Affarijiet Soċjali, is-Saħħa u l-Familja; Kumitat dwar l-Ugwaljanza bejn is-Sessi; Kumitat dwar l-Affarijiet Legali u d-Drittijiet Umani; Kumitat dwar l-Ambjent, l-Agrikoltura u Affarijiet Lokali u Reġjonali; Kumitat dwar l-Affarijiet Ekonomiċi u Żvilupp; Kumitat dwar il-Kultura, ix-Xjenza u l-Edukazzjoni: Kumitat dwar il-Migrazzjoni, ir-Refuġjati u l-Popolazzjoni; u tal- Kumitat ta’ Moniteraġġ dwar ir-rispett ta’ l-Obbligi u l-Impenji mill-Istati Membri.
5.

KONKLUŻJONIJIET TAL-LAQGĦA Ir-Riżoluzzjonijiet u Rakkmandazzjonijiet adottati mill-Assemblea huma dawk elenkati f’Anness K. 6.
INTERVENTI MAGĦMULA MILL-MEMBRI Nhar it-Tlieta 21 ta’ Ġunju 2011 fis-sessjoni plenarja tal-Assemblea saru interventi mill-Onor Beppe Fenech Adami dwar “Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe Doc 12630” (Anness C) u mill-Onor Joseph Falzon dwar “The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Doc 12628” (Anness D).
Fid-diskors tiegħu l-Onor Fenech Adami semma li f’Malta, l-influs tal-immigranti irregolari f’ammonti sinifikanti ra l-bidu tiegħu fl-2002.

Fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom dawn ma jkunux immigranti ekonomiċi imma persuni li ġenwinament ikunu qiegħdin ifittxu asil politiku.

Mal-wasla tagħhom f’Malta, kważi kollha japplikaw għall-istatus ta’ refuġjat, liema talba tintlaqa’ f’iktar minn 50 fil-mija tal-każi.
Huwa fakkar lil dawk preżenti li f’dan ir-rigward l- awtoritajiet Maltin altru milli qdew l-obbligazzjonijet internazzjonali tagħhom u hekk se jibqgħu jagħmlu mhux biss f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam ma’ rikonoxximent għall-protezzjoni internazzjonali imma wkoll fir-rigward ta’ intergrazzjoni fit-tul ta’ dawn il-persuni fis-soċjetà.
L-Onor Fenech Adami emfasizza li dan kollu Malta qiegħda tagħmlu minkejja limitazzjonijiet insormontabbli, fosthom territorju ta’ 318 kilometru kwadru, densità ta’ popolazzjoni ta’ 1300 għal kull kilometru kwadu u suq tax- xogħol kważi saturat.

Il-problemi li qiegħda tiffaċċja Malta jeskalaw li kieku, kif qed jissuġġerixxu xi osservaturi barranin, iċ-ċentri miftuħa ma jibqgħux joperaw, speċjalment wara l-mewġa ta’ immigranti li ġew kawża tas- sitwazzjoni xejn sabiħa fil-Libja.
Huwa għalhekk importanti li dan il-piż jinqasam bejn iktar pajjiżi.

Huwa rringrazzja lil dawk il-pajjiżi li għenu lil Malta tilqa’ għal din il-problema u rrefera għad-dibattitu li għaddej bħalissa fl-UE dwar politika komuni dwar l-immigrazzjoni.

L-Onor Fenech Adami għalaq id-diskors tiegħu billi saħaq li l- Kunsill tal-Ewropa jista’ jaħdem aktar biex jippromwovi l-prinċipju tar-responsabbiltà komuni.
Kopja tad-diskors qiegħda tiġi riprodotta f’Anness E. Fl-indirizz tiegħu, l-Onor Joseph Falzon għamel emfasi fuq li Malta ilha tiġi ffaċċjata b’dan il-fenomenu ta’ numru kbir ta’ immigranti li qed jersqu lejn pajjiżna, fenomenu fiċ-ċentru fil-Mediterran li laqat lil Malta b’mod sproporzjonat ħafna minħabba ċ-ċokon ta’ pajjiżna.
Filwaqt li ghamel referenza għal-liġijiet internazzjonali u l- ġurisdizzjoni taż-żoni kostali huwa informa lill-membri preżenti li fejn jidħol is-salvataġġ tan-nies, Malta investit bil- kbir f’dak li huwa staff mediku, l-armata, pulizija, strutturi amministrattivi u organizzattivi kif ukoll numru ta’ binjiet għall-akkomodazzjoni.

Barra minn hekk Malta bħalissa qiegħda tipprovdi taħriġ anke għal persuni barranin sabiex dawn ikunu f’pożizzjoni aħjar li jassistu f’operazzjonijiet ta’ salvataġġ.
L-Onor Falzon saħaq li meta tkun qed tipprovdi assistenza f’każi ta’ salvataġġ mill-baħar, Malta ma taghmilx distinzjoni dwar nazzjonalità, kulur jew razza.

L-għan ewlieni huwa li jiġu salvati l-ħajjiet tan-nies u li wara jingħataw kura medika bl-iżjed mod spedit u effiċjenti.

Ma rridux ninsew li dawn il-persuni ġeneralment ikunu fi stat ħazin ħafna ta’ saħħa u għal din ir-raġuni Malta tinsisti fuq id-distanza ġeografika mill-eqreb post tas-salvataġġ.
L-Onor Falzon temm id-diskors tiegħu billi informa lill-Assemblea li minn Jannar sa Ġunju Malta salvat ‘il fuq minn 1500 persuna u li dawn kollha inghataw assistenza medika u umanitarja f’Malta.

Meta wieħed iqis li dan l-influss iqarreb ir-rata ta’ twelid annwali f’pajjiżna għall-istess perjodu u meta wieħed ukoll jieħu in konsiderazzjoni l- popolazzjoni ta’ 400,000, joħroġ ċar il-bżonn li din ir-responsabbiltà tinqasam bejn il-pajjiżi tal-Ewropa.
Kopja tad- diskors qiegħda tiġi riprodotta f’Anness F. Qabel ġew imressqa fl-Assemblea, dawn iż-żewġ dokumenti ġew konsidrati fil-Kumitat dwar il- Migrazzjoni, ir-Refuġjati u l-Popolazzjoni fejn ħadu sehem l-Onor Joe Debono Grech kif ukoll l-Onor Beppe Fenech Adami.

Il-Minuti ta’ din il-laqgħa jinsabu f’Anness L. Sussegwentement ir-riżoluzzjonijiet u r- rakkomandazzjonijiet relatati ma’ dawn ir-rapporti ġew adottati mill-Assemblea b’xi emendi.
Id-dokumenti jifformaw parti minn Anness K. Nhar il-Ħamis 23 ta’ Ġunju 2011 l-Onor Francis Agius iltaqa’ maċ-Chairperson tal-Kumitat dwar l- Immigrazzjoni Irregolari, Refuġjati u l-Popolazzjoni tal-Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa, l-Onor Christopher Chope.

Il-laqgħa saret fuq talba tal-istess Onor Chope li kien akkompanjat mill-Onor Tineke Strik u mill-Kap tas-Segretarjat tal-istess Kumitat is-Sur Mark Neville.
Kemm l-Onor Chope kif ukoll l-Onor Strik jiffurmaw parti minn kumitat ad-hoc imwaqqaf mill-istess Kumitat dwar l-Immigrazzjoni.

(Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on the Large scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe's Southern shores) (Anness M).

L-Onor Tineke Strik kienet għada kif ġiet appuntata mill-istess Kumitat biex tinvestiga l-allegat mewt ta’ aktar minn 1,000 ruħ fil-Mediterran li kienu fi triqithom mit-tramuntana tal-Afrika lejn il-kosta Ewropea.
(Anness G) Min-naħa tiegħu l-Onor Agius talab u kien assistit mill-ET Joseph Licari, Rappreżentant Permanenti ta’ Malta fil- Kunsill tal-Ewropa u minn Dr Mark Pace, Deputat Rappreżentant Permanenti.

Id-diskussjoni ffokat fuq l-immigrazzjoni irregolari b’emfasi partikolari fuq is-Search and Rescue Area (SRA) ta’ Malta, ripatrijazzjoni u re-settlement definit ta’ immigranti.
Wara numru ta’ interventi li l-Membri Parlamentari Maltin għamlu fl-Assemblea fejn ġew emfasizzati l-problemi li qiegħda tiffaċċja Malta fuq dan il-front, l-Onor Chope staqsa x’tista tagħmel l-Assemblea biex ittaffi jew tkun ta’ sostenn għal Malta.

Dan anke fid-dawl ta’ żjara fil-gżira ta’ Lampedusa li saret riċentement meta l-Onor Chope mexxa l-kumitat ad-hoc hawn fuq imsemmi, liema żjara seħħet fuq stedina ta’ Membru Parlamentari Taljan, l-Onor Giacomo Santini.
Waqt id-diskussjoni ħareġ ċar u saret emfasi kbira min-naħa Maltija li Malta teħtieġ immedjatament għajnuna konkreta u prattika aktar milli fact finding missions u rapporti dwar fatti ġa magħrufa u dokumentati.
Matul din is-sessjoni l-Onor Joseph Debono Grech iltaqa’ mas-Sur Fuad Hasanov, Direttur ta’ Democracy Monitor, mas-Sur Emin Huseynov, Chairperson tal-Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety u mas-Sur Rasul Jafarov, Chair Coordinator tal-Human Rights Club, it-tlieta rappreżentanti ta’ tliet organizzazzjonijiet non- governattivi mill-Azerbaijan.
Huma ppreżentawlu żewġ rapporti (Anness H) dwar is-sitwazzjoni tad-drittijiet umani fl-Azerbaijan u kellmuh dwar numru ta’ persuni indikati fl-istess rapporti li ntbagħtu l-ħabs jew li sofrew xi forma ta’ intimidazzjoni minħabba li esprimew il-fehma politika tagħhom fil-miftuħ.

Qajmu wkoll il-każ tal-Onor Christoph Strasser, Membru tal-istess Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa, li ġie miċħud minn VISA biex iżur l-Azerbaijan bħala rapporteur dwar il-priġunieri politiċi.
L-Onor Debono Grech informahom li bħala co- rapporteur se jkun qed jerġa’ jżur il-pajjiż f’Settembru u tahom il-kelma li wara li jkun sema ż-żewġ naħat, jagħmel li jista’ biex iqajjem il-każi tal-individwi msemmija fir-rapporti li ppreżentawlu.
L-Onor Debono Grech ma naqasx li jesprimi s-sodisfazzjoni tiegħu għall-maħfra presidenzjali li ngħatat lis-Sur Eynulla Fatullayev, editur u ġurnalista, wara li kien ilu miżmum ġo ħabs fl-Ażerbaijan mill-2007 u dan minkejja li f’sentenza li ngħatat f l-2010 il-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem kienet qalet li s-Sur Fatullayev kien ġie miċħud lilu d-dritt għal smiegħ xieraq kif ukoll id-dritt tal-libertà tal-espressjoni.
Il-ħelsien seħħ biss f’Mejju tal- 2011 wara diversi tentattivi u diskussjonijiet ukoll mill-Onor Debono Grech li dejjem ħa l-opportunità jqajjem dan il- każ, flimkien mal-każi ta’ pesuni oħrajn, kull meta żar l-Azerbaijan bħala co-rapporteur għall-Kumitat dwar il- Moniteraġġ.
Kopja ta’ stqarrija għall-istampa li nħarġet wara l-ħelsien tas-Sur Fatullayev u oħrajn qiegħda tiġi riprodotta f’Anness N. L-Onor Debono Grech inħatar co-rapporteur dwar is-sitwazzjoni politika f’dan il-pajjiż fit- 18 ta’ Novembru 2009 mill-Kumitat ta’ Moniteraġġ dwar ir-rispett ta’ l-Obbligi u l-Impenji mill-Istati Membri tal- Kunsill tal-Ewropa.
Fid-dibattitu ta’ nhar il-Ħamis fil-għodu, 23 ta’ Ġunju 2011, meta fl-Assemblea Parlamentari kienet għaddejja d-diskussjoni konġunta fuq is-sitwazzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-bniedem fl-Ewropa, Membru Parlamentari Ingliż l-Onor Roger Gale ġibed l-attenzjoni għal żewġ każi separati, wieħed f’Malta u ieħor fi Franza, ta’ persuni li wara li ġew akkużati b’reat kriminali ilhom 18-il xahar arrestati jistennew biex il-każ tagħhom jinstema’ quddiem Qorti.
Kopja tat-traskrizzjoni tinsab mehmuża bħala Anness O. Dwar dan il-każ inġibdet l-attenzjoni tal-Ministeru tal-Ġustizzja u l-Intern.

Matul din is-sessjoni, il-Membri tad-Delegazzjoni Maltija żaru l-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem fejn ġew milqugħa mill-Prim Imħallef Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano.

L-Imħallef De Gaetano kien ġie magħżul biex iservi bħala Imħallef fuq din il-Qorti wara vot fl-Assemblea Parlamentari f’Ġunju 2010.

L-Imħallef De Gaetano spjega li l-Qorti taħdem f’erba’ forom.
Applikazzjonijiet li manifestament ma jkunux aċċettabbli jeżaminhom u jiddeciedi dwarhom Imħallef wieħed filwaqt li kumitat ta’ tliet Imħallfin jistgħu, b’mod unanimu, jiddeċiedu fuq l- ammissibilità u l-mertu ta’ applikazzjoni meta tali każ ikun kopert sew b'ġurisprudenza stabbilita tal-istess Qorti.

Il- maġġoranza tal-applikazzjonijiet li ma jkunux manifestament inammissbbli jigu deċiżi minn seba’ imħallfin (Chamber) li jiddeċiedu b'maġġoranza ta' voti fuq l-ammissibilità u l-mertu.
Fl-aħħarnett hemm il-Grand Chamber li jkun kompost minn 17 imħallef, 3 supplenti u 3 riżerva li quddiemu, din il-ġimgħa stess, instema’ l-każ ta’ (Hirsi vs Italja) (Anness I) li kien jitratta incident li seħħ fl-2009 meta grupp ta’ immigranti irregolari kienu ġew eskortati lura lejn il-Libja mill-forzi Taljani.
B’medja ta’ 50,000 applikazzjoni fis-sena, li fil-parti kbira tagħhom ġejjin minn ċittadini privati, l-Imħallef De Gaetano qal li l-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem huwa wieħed mill-aktar organi importanti tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa u li jagħti lill-istess Kunsill ċertu rilevanza fid-dinja tal-lum.
L-ET Joseph Licari, fil-kapaċità tiegħu ta’ President tar-Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) tal-Kumitat tal-Ministri kellu skambji ta’ veduti u rrisponda domandi dwar materji konnessi ma’ oqsma soċjali u ta’ saħħa.
Kopja tal-minuti ta’ din il-laqgħa jinsabu mehmuża bħala Anness P. Qabel ma l-President għalaq din it-tielet sessjoni tal-Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa, huwa irringrazzja lill-Membri preżenti u bħala ġest ta’ rikonoxximent, erba’ Membri tal-Assemblea ngħataw tifkira talli pparteċipaw fil-voti kollha (97 vot) li ttieħdu matul din l-istess sessjoni.

Fost dawn il-Membri kien hemm l-Onor Joseph Falzon.

7.
7.

STQARRIJA GĦALL-ISTAMPA Nhar il-Ġimgħa 24 ta’ Ġunju 2011, hekk kif spiċċat it-Tielet Sessjoni tal-2011 tal-Assemblea Parlamentari tal- Kunsill tal-Ewropa, il-Membri tad-Delegazzjoni Maltija li attendew għal din is-sessjoni ħarġu l-Istqarrija għall- Istampa li tinsab mehmuża ma’ dan ir-rapport.

_________________________ Onor.

F. Agius MP Kap tad-Delegazzjoni ________________________ Onor.

J. Debono Grech MP Membru _________________________ Onor.
J. Falzon MP Membru sostitut ________________________ Onor.

B. Fenech Adami MP Membru sostitut _________________________ Ray Scicluna Segretarju tad-Delegazzjoni STQARRIJA GĦALL-ISTAMPA DELEGAZZJONI MALTIJA TATTENDI GĦAT-TIELET SESSJONI TAL-2011 TAL-ASSEMBLEA PARLAMENTARI TAL-KUNSILL TAL-EWROPA.

L-Onor Francis Agius MP mexxa delegazzjoni parlamentari li attendiet għat-tielet sessjoni tal-Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa li ltaqgħet fi Strasburgu bejn l-20 u l-24 ta’ Ġunju 2011.
Il-bqija tad- delegazzjoni Maltija kienet komposta mill-: Onor Joseph Debono Grech; Membru Onor Joseph Falzon MP, Membru Sostitut u Onor Beppe Fenech Adami MP, Membru Sostitut Is-Sur Ray Scicluna, Segretarju tad-Delegazzjoni Il-konsegwenzi politiċi u umanitarji tas-sitwazzjoni kurrenti fis-Sirja u l-Libja kien wieħed mis-suġġetti li l- Assemblea Parlamentari ddeċidiet li għandha tiddiskuti taħt il-kappa ta’ ġrajjiet kurrenti.
Din hija proċedura li tagħti lill-Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa s-saħħa li temenda l-aġenda tagħha stess bil-għan li d-diskussjoni tkun kemm jista’ jkun waħda attwali.

Suġġett ieħor li ntgħażel kien jittratta l-bżonn li iktar nisa ikunu preżenti fi strutturi ekonomiċi u soċjali fejn jittieħdu d-deċiżjonijiet1.
L-Assemblea kellha wkoll l-opportunità tiddiskuti s- sitwazzjoni fit-Tuneżija.2 Kif ġie miftiehem fl-aħħar laqgħa tal-Assemblea li saret f’April, il-fenomenu tal-immigrazzjoni irregolari ġie imtella’ kemm fuq l-Aġenda tal-Kumitat dwar Immigrazzjoni, Refuġjati u l-Popolazzjoni, kif ukoll fil-Plenarju tal-Assemblea Parlamentari.

Ġew imressqa żewġ dokumenti.


L-ewwel wieħed kien jitkellem dwar il-qsim tal-piż li jiffaċċaw pajjiżi li qiegħdin jilqgħu għandhom immigranti irregolari3, liema dokument irrikonoxxa l-piż relattivament kbir li Malta qiegħda tiffaċċja f’dan il-qasam.
It-tieni dokument kien dwar l-interċettazzjoni u s-salvataġġ fuq il-baħar ta' persuni li jistgħu jkunu fil-bżonn ta' protezzjoni internazzjonali4 liema dokument tratta l-prinċipju tan-non refoulment jiġifieri d-dritt ta’ persuna li ma tiġix mibgħuta lura f’pajjiżha jekk f’dak il-pajjiż tkun teżisti sitwazzjoni ta’ persekuzzjoni.

L-Onor Joe Debono Grech kif ukoll l-Onor Beppe Fenech Adami kienu preżenti fil-Kumitat dwar l-Immigrazzjoni meta ġew diskussi dawn iż-żewġ dokumenti.
Ta’ min wieħed jinnota li waqt id-diskussjoni dwar l-emendi li tressqu għall-ewwel dokument, saret emfasi fuq il-kundizzjonijiet inaċċettabli fiċ-ċentri ta’ detenzjoni fil-Greċja.

L-Onor Beppe Fenech Adami u l-Onor Joseph Falzon indirizzaw l-Assemblea waqt diskussjoni konġunta fuq dawn l- istess żewġ dokumenti u flimkien mal-Onor Joe Debono Grech ħadu sehem fil-votazzjonijiet li ttieħdu mal-għeluq tad-dibattitu.
Fid-diskors tiegħu l-Onor Fenech Adami semma li f’Malta, l-influs tal-immigranti irregolari f’ammonti sinifikanti ra l-bidu tiegħu fl-2002.

Fil-parti l-kbira tagħhom dawn ma jkunux immigranti ekonomiċi imma persuni li ġenwinament ikunu qiegħdin ifittxu asil politiku.

Mal-wasla tagħhom f’Malta, kważi kollha japplikaw għall-istatus ta’ refuġjat, liema talba tintlaqa’ f’iktar minn 50 fil-mija tal-każi.
Huwa fakkar lil dawk preżenti li f’dan ir-rigward l- awtoritajiet Maltin altru milli qdew l-obbligazzjonijet internazzjonali tagħhom u hekk se jibqgħu jagħmlu mhux biss f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam ma’ rikonoxximent għall-protezzjoni internazzjonali imma wkoll fir-rigward ta’ intergrazzjoni fit-tul ta’ dawn il-persuni fis-soċjetà.
L-Onor Fenech Adami emfasizza li dan kollu Malta qiegħda tagħmlu minkejja limitazzjonijiet insormontabbli, fosthom territorju ta’ 318 kilometru kwadru, densità ta’ popolazzjoni ta’ 1300 għal kull kilometru kwadu u suq tax- xogħol kważi saturat.

Il-problemi li qiegħda tiffaċċja Malta jeskalaw li kieku, kif qed jissuġġerixxu xi osservaturi barranin, iċ-ċentri miftuħa ma jibqgħux joperaw, speċjalment wara l-mewġa ta’ immigranti li ġew kawża tas- sitwazzjoni xejn sabiħa fil-Libja.
Huwa għalhekk importanti li dan il-piż jinqasam bejn iktar pajjiżi.

Huwa rringrazzja lil dawk il-pajjiżi li għenu lil Malta tilqa’ għal din il-problema u rrefera għad-dibattitu li għaddej bħalissa fl-UE dwar politika komuni dwar l-immigrazzjoni.

L-Onor Fenech Adami għalaq id-diskors tiegħu billi saħaq li l- Kunsill tal-Ewropa jista’ jaħdem aktar biex jippromwovi l-prinċipju tar-responsabbiltà komuni.5 1 Anness A - More women in economic and social decision-making bodies (Doc.
12540) http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12540.htm 2 Anness B - The situation in Tunisia (Doc.

12624) http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12624.htm 3 Anness C - Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe (Doc.

12630) http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12630.htm 4 Anness D - The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants (Doc.
12628) http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12628.htm 5 Anness E - Kopja tad-diskors tal-Onor B Fenech Adami Fl-indirizz tiegħu, l-Onor Joseph Falzon għamel emfasi fuq li Malta ilha tiġi ffaċċjata b’dan il-fenomenu ta’ numru kbir ta’ immigranti li qed jersqu lejn pajjiżna, fenomenu fiċ-ċentru fil-Mediterran li laqat lil Malta b’mod sproporzjonat ħafna minħabba ċ-ċokon ta’ pajjiżna.
Filwaqt li ghamel referenza għal-liġijiet internazzjonali u l- ġurisdizzjoni taż-żoni kostali huwa informa lill-membri preżenti li fejn jidħol is-salvataġġ tan-nies, Malta investit bil- kbir f’dak li huwa staff mediku, l-armata, pulizija, strutturi amministrattivi u organizzattivi kif ukoll numru ta’ binjiet għall-akkomodazzjoni.

Barra minn hekk Malta bħalissa qiegħda tipprovdi taħriġ anke għal persuni barranin sabiex dawn ikunu f’pożizzjoni aħjar li jassistu f’operazzjonijiet ta’ salvataġġ.
L-Onor Falzon saħaq li meta tkun qed tipprovdi assistenza f’każi ta’ salvataġġ mill-baħar, Malta ma taghmilx distinzjoni dwar nazzjonalità, kulur jew razza.

L-għan ewlieni huwa li jiġu salvati l-ħajjiet tan-nies u li wara jingħataw kura medika bl-iżjed mod spedit u effiċjenti.

Ma rridux ninsew li dawn il-persuni ġeneralment ikunu fi stat ħazin ħafna ta’ saħħa u għal din ir-raġuni Malta tinsisti fuq id-distanza ġeografika mill-eqreb post tas-salvataġġ.
L-Onor Falzon temm id-diskors tiegħu billi informa lill-Assemblea li minn Jannar sa Ġunju Malta salvat ‘il fuq minn 1500 persuna u li dawn kollha inghataw assistenza medika u umanitarja f’Malta.
Meta wieħed iqis li dan l-influss iqarreb ir-rata ta’ twelid annwali f’pajjiżna għall-istess perjodu u meta wieħed ukoll jieħu in konsiderazzjoni l- popolazzjoni ta’ 400,000, joħroġ ċar il-bżonn li din ir-responsabbiltà tinqasam bejn il-pajjiżi tal-Ewropa.6 L-immigrazzjoni irregolari kien ukoll is-suġġett li ġie diskuss f’laqgħa li kellu l-Onor Francis Agius maċ- Chairperson tal-Kumitat dwar Immigrazzjoni, Refuġjati u l-Popolazzjoni tal-Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal- Ewropa, l-Onor Christopher Chope.
Il-laqgħa saret fuq talba tal-istess Onor Chope.

Huwa kien akkompanjat mill- Onor Tineke Strik li kienet għada kif ġiet appuntata mill-istess Kumitat biex tinvestiga l-allegat mewt ta’ aktar minn 1000 ruħ fil-Mediterran li kienu fi triqithom mit-tramuntana tal-Afrika lejn il-kosta Ewropea.7 Kemm l-Onor Chope kif ukoll l-Onor Strik jiffurmaw parti minn kumitat ad-hoc imwaqqaf mill-istess Kumitat dwar l-Immigrazzjoni.
(Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on the Large scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe's Southern shores).

Min-naħa tiegħu l-Onor Agius kien assistit mill-ET Joseph Licari, Rappreżentant Permanenti ta’ Malta fil-Kunsill tal-Ewropa u minn Dr Mark Pace, Deputat Rappreżentant Permanenti.
Fuq talba ta’ tliet organizzazzjonijiet non-governattivi mill-Azerbaijan, l-Onor Joseph Debono Grech iltaqa’ mad- direttur ta’ Democracy Monitor, maċ-Chairperson tal-Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety u maċ-Chair Coordinator tal-Human Rights Club.
Huma ppreżentawlu żewġ rapporti8 dwar is-sitwazzjoni tad-drittijiet umani fl- Azerbaijan u kellmuh dwar numru ta’ persuni indikati fl-istess rapporti li ntbagħtu l-ħabs jew li sofrew xi forma ta’ intimidazzjoni minħabba li esprimew il-fehma politika tagħhom fil-miftuħ.

Qajmu wkoll il-kaz tal-Onor Christoph Strasser li ġie miċħud milli tinħariġlu VISA biex iżur l-Azerbaijan bħala rapporteur dwar il-priġunieri politiċi.
L- Onor Debono Grech informahom li bħala co-rapporteur se jkun qed jerġa’ jżur il-pajjiż f’Settembru u tahom il- kelma li wara li jkun sema ż-żewġ naħat, jagħmel li jista’ biex iqajjem il-każi tal-individwi msemmija fir-rapporti li ppreżentawlu.9 Matul din is-sessjoni, membri tad-Delegazzjoni Maltija żaru l-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem fejn ġew milqugħa mill-Prim Imħallef Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano.
L-Imħallef De Gaetano kien ġie magħżul biex iservi bħala Imħallef fuq din il-Qorti wara vot fl-Assemblea Parlamentari f’Ġunju 2010.

L-Imħallef De Gaetano spjega li l- Qorti taħdem f’erba’ forom.

Applikazzjonijiet li manifestament ma jkunux aċċettabbli jeżaminhom u jiddeciedi dwarhom Imħallef wieħed filwaqt li kumitat ta’ tliet Imħallfin jistgħu, b’mod unanimu, jiddeċiedu fuq l- ammissibilità u l-mertu ta’ applikazzjoni meta tali każ ikun kopert sew b'ġurisprudenza stabbilita tal-istess Qorti.
Il- maġġoranza tal-applikazzjonijiet li ma jkunux manifestament inammissbbli jigu deċiżi minn seba’ imħallfin (Chamber) li jiddeċiedu b'maġġoranza ta' voti fuq l-ammissibilità u l-mertu.

Fl-aħħarnett hemm il-Grand Chamber li jkun kompost minn 17 imħallef, 3 supplenti u 3 riżerva li quddiemu, din il-ġimgħa stess, instema’ l-każ ta’ (Hirsi vs Italja)10 li kien jitratta incident li seħħ fl-2009 meta grupp ta’ immigranti irregolari kienu ġew eskortati lura lejn il- Libja mill-forzi Taljani.
B’medja ta’ 50,000 applikazzjoni fis-sena, li fil-parti kbira tagħhom ġejjin minn ċittadini privati, l-Imħallef De Gaetano qal li l-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem huwa wieħed mill-aktar organi importanti tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa u li jagħti lill-istess Kunsill ċertu rilevanza fid-dinja tal-lum.
Qabel ma l-President għalaq din it-tielet sessjoni tal-Assemblea Parlamentari tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa, huwa irringrazzja lill-Membri preżenti u bħala ġest ta’ rikonoxximent, numru ta’ Membri ingħataw tifkira talli pparteċipaw fil-voti kollha li ttieħdu matul din l-istess sessjoni.

Fost dawn il-Membri kien hemm l-Onor Joseph Falzon.

6 Anness F - Kopja tad-diskors tal-Onor J Falzon 7 Anness G - Lives lost in the Mediterranean sea: who is responsible?

(Doc.
12617) http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc11/EDOC12617.pdf 8 Anness H - Brief Analysis on Human Rights Situation in Azerbaijan Anaylysis on Freedom of Speech and Media Freedom in Azerbaijan 9 L-Onor Debono Grech inħatar co-rapporteur dwar is-sitwazzjoni politika f’dan il-pajjiż fit-18 ta’ Novembru 2009 mill- Kumitat ta’ Moniteraġġ dwar ir-rispett ta’ l-Obbligi u l-Impenji mill-Istati Membri tal-Kunsill tal-Ewropa 10 Anness I – Stqarrija għall-Istampa maħruġa mill-Qorti Ewropea tad-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem dwar il-każ Hirsi vs Italja Page 1 of 9 Doc.
12540 17 March 2011 More women in economic and social decision-making bodies Report1 Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Rapporteur: Ms Gisèle GAUTIER, France, Group of the European People’s Party Summary Although women in Europe represent an increasingly high proportion of the labour market, they remain considerably under- represented in top management, including in economic and social decision-making bodies.
In order to redress this situation, which is the result of multiple forms of discrimination, radical changes in society should be promoted, to eradicate the mentality which precludes women access to certain key sectors which are erroneously considered to be men’s strongholds.

Furthermore, progressive measures should be introduced to enable women to reconcile family and professional responsibilities without having to choose between them.
Finally, positive measures should be envisaged to help women break through the "glass ceiling" which holds them back in the area of professional competition, including the obligation for large companies to have at least 40% of women on their governing boards.

A.

Draft resolution2 1.

Although women in Europe represent an increasingly higher proportion of the labour market they remain considerably under-represented in top management.
There are still too few women in the governing and supervisory boards of major companies, both in the private and the public sector, as well as in the governing structures of trade unions, professional and trade associations and administrations.

2.

The Parliamentary Assembly considers that a balanced representation of women and men at all hierarchical levels, including top management, is a matter of justice, respect for human rights and good governance.
Furthermore, it notes from recognised studies that the companies in which equal opportunities are both taken into account and implemented not only provide women with better career and self-development prospects, but also achieve better productivity and business profitability.

3.

Women’s limited access to top management and decision-making posts is the result of multiple forms of discrimination to which they are exposed throughout their lives.
In order to redress this state of affairs, radical changes in society should be promoted, in order to eradicate the tendency to conceive stereotyped gender roles, which confine women to subordinate posts and preclude them from accessing sectors which are erroneously considered as men’s strongholds.

4.
4.

To achieve equal opportunities and treatment between women and men in employment, it is not only necessary to set up and effectively implement far-reaching and comprehensive anti-discrimination policies, but also to introduce progressive measures to enable women to reconcile family and professional responsibilities without having to choose between them.
In addition, positive measures should be envisaged to help women break through the glass ceiling which holds them back in the area of professional competition.

5.
5.

The Assembly has on several occasions advocated the adoption of positive measures, including quotas geared to promoting access by women in the political arena, for example in its Resolution 1706 (2010) and Recommendation 1899 (2010) on increasing women’s representation in politics through the electoral system and its Resolution 1641 (2008) and Recommendation 1853 (2008) on involving men in achieving gender equality.
In the Assembly's view, gender quotas are a transitional but necessary exception to allow positive discrimination with a view to bringing about a change in attitudes and achieving de jure and de facto gender equality.

6.

The Assembly believes that the experience of quotas could be advantageously transposed to the private and socio- economic sectors.
In this context, it notes that a number of Council of Europe member states have already introduced, or are considering introducing, quotas to improve the representation of women on the governing boards of major firms.

In some cases, in the absence of legal obligations, large companies have taken similar initiatives.

28/06/2011 Page 2 of 9 7.
In view of these considerations, the Assembly calls on member states of the Council of Europe to: 7.1. take strong and resolute action to combat gender discrimination in education and employment; 7.2. introduce progressive measures to ensure reconciliation of private and working life, in particular as regards parental leave, balanced participation of women and men in family life, flexible work arrangements, leave for family reasons, protection of workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, reintegration in the work market for women who left it to take care of family members, including the obligation for the employer to retrain the person concerned, and availability of childcare for working parents; 7.3. take prompt action to encourage employers to tackle the gender salary gap, as recommended in Assembly Resolution 1715 (2010) on the wage gap between women and men; 7.4. encourage action against gender stereotypes in education, at all levels, and at work and promote training on gender equality in schools and public administration; 7.5. support the preparation and implementation of training programmes and databases geared to supporting women in their professional careers and in access to top management and decision-making posts in the public and private sectors; 7.6. encourage women's networking initiatives and exchanges of good practices in this field; 7.7. ensure that the gender dimension is included in all calls for public tender; 7.8. award Equality Labels to actors encouraging recruitment of women and establishing support programmes for women’s careers; 7.9. promote the feminisation of post titles; 7.10. set an example by adopting action plans aimed at improving the representation of women in decision-making bodies in all branches of administration, at local, regional and central levels, as well as in state-owned companies; 7.11. introduce the obligation for state-owned and large private companies to guarantee a minimum 40% of representation of women on their governing and management boards;
 7.12. implement the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality” adopted by the Ministers responsible for Equality between Women and Men at the 7th Council of Europe Ministerial Conference (Baku, 24-25 May 2010).
8.
The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member states to encourage companies, firms and associations operating in the private and voluntary sectors to: 8.1. promote women success models at the different hierarchical levels and decision-making structures; 8.2. promote career plans for women; 8.3. establish far-reaching equal opportunities policies and organise annual gender-equality audits; 8.4. set up effective measures to combat sexual harassment at work; 8.5. introduce rules aimed at ensuring balanced representation of women and men in top management and decision- making bodies, guaranteeing a minimum 40% representation of women on governing and supervisory boards.
B.

Draft recommendation3 1.

The Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the resolve of the Ministers responsible for Equality between Women and Men meeting at the 7th Council of Europe Ministerial Conference (Baku, 24-25 May 2010) and the adoption of the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality”.

2.
Referring to its Resolution ... (2011) "More women in economic and social decision-making bodies", the Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to pursue and develop its efforts to: 2.1. implement the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality”; 2.2. analyse and gather statistics, particularly concerning women’s position in economic and social life; 2.3. highlight best national practices; 2.4. establish qualitative indicators of women’s participation in economic and social decision-making bodies.
28/06/2011 3.

In the context of the implementation of the Baku Action Plan, the Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to address two recommendations to member states, respectively on ensuring equal opportunities for women and men in access to employment and promotions, and on equal opportunities and the reconciliation of private and professional life.

C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Gautier, rapporteur Page 3 of 9 Contents Page 1.

Introduction 5 2.

Role of women on the labour market 6 3.


Situation in various sectors 6 3.1.

Too few women in the highest posts in politics 6 3.2.

Too few women leaders in the public service 6 3.3.

Too few women in decision-making posts in major companies 7 3.4.

Too few women leaders in political parties and trade unions 7 4.

Measures to ensure balanced representation of women in top management 8 4.1.

Gender quotas 8 4.2.

Promoting exemplarity 9 4.3.

Enabling women to reconcile family and professional life 10 4.4.
Influencing attitudes 10 5.

Conclusions 11 1.

Introduction 1.

Over the last few years, the Parliamentary Assembly has on several occasions addressed the issue of women’s representation in top-level political bodies, adopting a number of reference texts.4 However, the need to promote the presence of women in decision-making bodies does not only concern the political sphere.
It also applies to the economic and social sectors, where women are still under-represented, even though they play an ever greater part in the world of work.

2.

It is unfair that the governing and supervisory boards of both private and public-sector firms, the governing bodies of trade union and professional organisations, diplomatic and consular services and major trade associations, as well as industrial tribunals, all still include too few women.
This situation is due to multiple types of discrimination faced by women when trying to have access to certain careers, and to get promoted to management jobs.

This situation undermines good economic governance; balanced participation of women in decision-making in the socio-economic field would increase business profitability, improve productivity and create more jobs.

It would also offer women more motivating careers and enhance their economic independence and their empowerment.

3.
Under my terms of reference as rapporteur, I proposed that the committee organise a parliamentary hearing on 10 September 2010, to which the following participants were invited: – Ms Beatrice Castellane, lawyer of the Paris Bar Association, international arbitrator and President for the international activities of the French Association of Female Lawyers, who took stock of the requisite strategies for promoting access by women to economic and social decision-making posts; – Ms Veronica Nilsson, administrative officer responsible for gender equality at the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), who described the place of women in social dialogue and outlined the ideas which her organisation is exploring with a view to improving the situation of women in decision-making bodies; – Ms Leena Linnainmaa, Director of the Finnish Central Chamber of Commerce and former President of the European Women Lawyers Association, who reported on the experience in her country, which has succeeded, without resorting to legislation, in considerably improving the presence of women in company governing boards.
4.

After these presentations, a productive exchange of views with committee members highlighted the enormous range of different situations in Europe and facilitated discussion of many ideas which are reflected in this report.

28/06/2011 Page 4 of 9 5.

De facto equality between women and men is far from being a reality, also in so far as access to employment and promotion are concerned.
This objective, which is a matter not only of democracy, social justice and respect for fundamental rights but also of sound economic governance, cannot be achieved without a political impetus and resolve which have so far been conspicuous by their absence.

6.
The Council of Europe has recently taken a step in the right direction: the Ministers responsible for Equality between Women and Men, meeting at the 7th Council of Europe Ministerial Conference in Baku, adopted the Action Plan on “Taking up the challenge of the achievement of de jure and de facto gender equality”.5 This plan promotes the implementation of common standards in the member states and measures to encourage women and men to share equitably the responsibilities and advantages of paid and unpaid work, particularly domestic and family responsibilities.
7.

Achieving equal opportunities requires a radical reworking of attitudes.

It is also up to women to change in order to break through the glass ceiling which prevents them from reaching the higher levels in some hierarchies.

As Ms Castellane pointed out, women have the glass ceiling in their heads.

The aim is to facilitate the identification of competences and promote training courses, networking and exemplarity.
It is mainly up to women to make themselves visible and not to worry about competing with men in male-dominated areas.

2.

Role of women on the labour market 8.

According to Eurostat, in recent years the female employment rate has increased steadily in Europe and moved closer to the male rate.

In 2009, the highest rate was in Iceland (76.5% for women, as against 80% for men), while the lowest was in Turkey (24.2% for women, as against 64.5% for men).
The average employment rate in the European Union was 64.6% (women: 58.6%; men: 70.7%).

9.

This increased access by women to the labour market, coupled with improved results at secondary school and university level, has not altered the male domination of decision-making bodies.
It has, however, fundamentally changed the labour market: more women are entering professions where men were previously in the majority, thereby paving the way for a more balanced distribution of roles and decision-making in the future.

3.

Situation in various sectors 3.1.

Too few women in the highest posts in politics 10.


The critical threshold for the representation of each sex in order to achieve balanced representation in a decision-making body in the political or public sphere is 40%, according to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.6 This threshold should not apply only to political decision-making bodies but is a valid criterion for ensuring a balanced representation of women and men in the economic and social sectors.

11.
11.

While the quota system has resulted in better representation of women in national parliaments, the quantitative improvement is not reflected in a qualitative improvement.

Women in politics still fail to reach certain key posts, they are excluded from some networks and find it hard to advance beyond junior positions.

Unfortunately, there are not enough statistical tools to assess the actual proportion of women in key posts more accurately.
As an example of good practice, Norway publishes a detailed annual report on the progress made in its equality policy.7 12.

This exclusion of women can also be seen in the composition of ministerial cabinets and in terms of appointments to high- level public posts, where men still tend to co-opt one another all too often.

13.

Governments and parliaments must set an example for the whole of society to follow.
Norway already has a government which comprises as many women as men, and four of the seven members of the Swiss Federal Council are women.

It is by incorporating this exemplarity principle at the highest level that a radical change can be effected in society.

3.2.

Too few women leaders in the public service 14.

While women are now well represented in public service employment in Europe, the same does not apply to managerial positions.
In most European countries, men outnumber women in all senior public service posts.8 15.

The situation in the education sector – where most teachers and staff are women, but management remains predominantly male – speaks volumes.

In France, there is a particular over-representation of men among rectors, university presidents and deans, whereas most of the teachers are women.

16.
16.

The same phenomenon occurs in local and regional authorities, whereas they should be setting an example by increasing the number of women in management posts, as advocated by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, in order to guarantee implementation of a positive equality and integration policy.9 17.

In the judiciary and legal services, there are too few women in senior positions.
In this connection, the European Union has gathered much data concerning the distribution of roles in the management of national and European courts and legal services (supreme, administrative and constitutional courts, as well as public prosecutors).10 Having long been backward here, this profession now has to become more female, thanks to population trends that are favourable to women.

Nevertheless, there is a lack of accurate data to explain why women are still under-represented in the leading courts.
18.

Access by women to decision-making posts in diplomatic services is not progressing either.

No member state has 28/06/2011 Page 5 of 9 achieved the figure of 40% of women ambassadors.11 Nor has the European Union shown the way, since there are only six women among the 28 ambassadors recently appointed to the European Union External Service.

3.3.

Too few women in decision-making posts in major companies 19.
In Europe, achieving diversity and equality on the governing boards of the largest publicly listed companies is a distant target.

Within the European Union nearly 97% of board chairpersons and 88% of board members are male.

The representation of women is rising, but painfully slowly (around half a percentage point per year).

If progress continues at this pace it will be at least another fifty years before corporate boardrooms have at least 40% of each gender.12 20.
In addition, women in the private sector are frequently confined to less important management posts: when they do reach senior management level, they are often appointed to positions in communication or human resources.13 21.

The European Union is very active in the promotion of equal opportunities at work also at managerial and decision-making level.
It “support[s] and complement[s] the activities of the Member States … [in promoting] equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and treatment at work”.14 In 2010, the European Commission reviewed the roadmap for gender equality for 2010-2015, while maintaining the promotion of gender equality in decision-making as a priority.15 In 2008, it established the “European Network of Women in Decision-making in Politics and the Economy” and has collected data on the breakdown of women and men in decision-making processes in 34 countries since 2003.16 22.
Similarly, the International Labour Organization (ILO) collects regular data on this matter and has produced a number of in-depth studies and publications.17 The ILO also promotes the signature and ratification of international conventions such as the ILO Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981 (No.

156) and the ILO Maternity Protection Convention, 2000 (No.

183).

3.4.

Too few women leaders in political parties and trade unions 23.
While more and more political parties in Europe have appointed women leaders, party management bodies are still dominated by men.

The Assembly has shown its commitment here by encouraging political parties to foster equality internally, including in their management bodies, through the Parliamentary Assembly Gender Equality Prize launched in 2009.18 24.
The situation in trade unions is unsatisfactory.19 Of the 80 trade union organisations affiliated to the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), only five are headed by women.

And yet by adopting the Framework for action on gender equality in 2005 (ETUC, BusinessEurope, UEAPME and CEEP), social partners in Europe did show that they were aware of the parlous state of female representation.

This Action Plan was finalised and implemented at the end of 2009.

25.
25.

Some trade union organisations have endeavoured to improve the access of women to executive positions.

In Italy, for instance, the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL) carried out voluntary reforms to bring female representation up from 21% in 1991, to 33% in 1996 and 40% in 2006.

The organisation is currently on the verge of achieving parity.

26.

In Europe, while 44% of the members of ETUC organisations are women, the latter are under-represented at all their hierarchical levels.
The issue of the access of women to decision-making posts will be prioritised at the forthcoming ETUC Congress in May 2011.
Ten proposals will be discussed: – making the arguments for gender balance a main priority; – actively promoting gender equality at all levels of the organisation through gender mainstreaming; – introducing statutory rule changes on gender balance (quotas for example); – preparing women for decision-making and leadership roles; – engaging men to build a consensus for balanced gender representation; – addressing the organisation’s image and culture; – supporting women’s activism and involvement in decision-making roles at all levels; – promoting gender diversity in internal human resources; – providing gender-disaggregated data; – developing concrete action plans to improve gender balance.
4.

Measures to ensure balanced representation of women in top management 4.1.

Gender quotas 28/06/2011 Page 6 of 9 27.


In Finland, a study published by the employers’ organisation has shown that companies which implement equal opportunities increase their productivity.20 In this country, acknowledgement of the qualities of female entrepreneurship has led to a rapid improvement in women’s representation on governing boards, without any need for legal measures, because the corporate governance code itself requires that “both genders shall be represented on the boards”.21 28.
According to Ms Linnainmaa, whereas employers had rejected the mandatory positive measures, women’s representation was gradually improved thanks to the commitment of the then Prime Minister, the active involvement of Ms Mari Kiviniemi, the current Prime Minister, at the various stages in negotiations, and the media support from Mr Jorma Olilla, chairperson of Nokia and Shell.
The implementation of this voluntary approach, supported by the economic media, has made Finland one of the countries in which women are best represented on company governing boards.

29.

Unlike Finland, Norway has resorted to legislative measures to introduce quotas ensuring that more women accede to economic decision-making posts in the private sector.

30.
30.

Rather than requiring the feminisation of managerial posts, the law imposed a 40% threshold of women on the governing boards of public enterprises and certain categories of private companies, setting them a deadline to comply with this obligation.

In order to guarantee the implementation of the reform, a number of increasingly heavy sanctions can be applied, going as far as the winding-up of any company which fails to observe the quota.22 31.
This law, which initially caused controversy, was supported by several political parties from both the majority and the opposition.

The overall assessment is positive: from 2003 to 2010 female participation on the governing boards of almost 400 state-owned and listed companies increased from 7 to 40%.

32.
32.

The risk of sanctions had a successful deterrent effect, because the number of companies complying with the new quota requirement considerably increased from 2008 onwards, which was the deadline for compliance with legislation.
Moreover, the implementation of the reform met with no criticism or problems.23 On the contrary, it led to an open public debate on issues of equal opportunities and equal results between women and men, including in the economic field.24 Furthermore, it prompted the creation of databases of CVs of women with the requisite profiles for joining governing boards, as well as the organisation of training courses to improve their skills.

33.
33.

Norway is not the only country to have introduced quotas: in 2007, Spain followed suit by introducing the legal obligation for state-owned companies to have 40% female membership of their governing boards within eight years; and in March 2010, Iceland introduced a quota for public and private companies.

In Belgium, Sweden and the United Kingdom, similar proposals are being discussed.25 34.

Since 1972, my own country, France, has adopted six successive laws on gender equality.
Positive measures have been adopted, but the situation has not substantially changed because no effective sanctioning mechanism has been forthcoming.

35.

In January 2011, the law on balanced representation of women and men on governing and supervisory boards and on occupational equality was adopted.
It sets out the progressive introduction of quotas to promote women’s representation in the governing structures of large companies, in particular on governing and supervisory boards of companies listed on the stock market and public companies.

Two stages are foreseen: within three years from the adoption of the law, the bodies concerned should include at least 20% of women; within six years from the adoption of the law, the quota of women on governing bodies should reach 40%.
Non-compliance with these quotas will result in the appointments (but not the deliberations) being null and void.

36.
Irrespective of the existence of legal obligations, some companies have unilaterally decided to introduce gender quotas: Deutsche Telekom has a target of women holding 30% of senior posts by 2015; Deutsche Post and KPN (the leading telecommunications firm in the Netherlands) are pursuing similar objectives; in 2008, the AREVA group launched ODEO (Open Dialogue through Equal Opportunities), a scheme designed to raise awareness of equality issues, including gender equality, among the group’s human resources officers, managers and staff representatives in 12 countries in Europe.
4.2.

Promoting exemplarity 37.

Women’s limited access to managerial posts stems from discrimination, amounts to discrimination and perpetuates it.

In order to break this vicious circle, all stakeholders must be mobilised at the highest level to value women’s competences and bring forward radical changes.

38.

Women throughout Europe have shown their professionalism by acceding to the highest responsibilities in competition with men.
To mention just a few: Ms Anne Lauvergeon, Chief Executive Officer of AREVA (energy) in France, Ms Simone Bagel- Trah, chairperson of the supervisory board of Henkel group (chemicals) in Germany, Ms Cynthia Carroll, Chief Executive Officer of Anglo-American PLC (mining sector) in the United Kingdom, Ms Guler Sabanci, chairperson of Sabanci Holding in Turkey, Ms Nancy McKinstry, CEO and chairperson of the executive board of Wolters Kluwer (publishing) in the Netherlands, Ms Ana Patricia Botin, chairperson of the Banesto group (banking) in Spain, Ms Hilde Myrberg, executive vice-president of Orkla in Norway, etc.
These women constitute role models for others wishing to accede to top responsibilities.

39.

Their stories, and the careers of other less prominent businesswomen, open the door to new generations of women leaders.

These women have a highly symbolic responsibility and should encourage other women to follow in their footsteps by sponsoring them.

40.
40.

As Ms Castellane explained during the hearing organised by the committee, in addition to promoting these models, it is useful to “reshuffle the cards” wherever possible, that is to say, to break with old customs and replace them with new 28/06/2011 Page 7 of 9 approaches, by refounding a new structure in which a number of places are set aside for women.

In endeavouring to enhance the status of women, it is easier to impose a gender conception on a new organisation than on an older body.

4.3.
4.3.

Enabling women to reconcile family and professional life 41.

The traditional distribution of roles in society has had its day.

In Europe, we have a whole battery of texts to promote de jure gender equality.

In reality, however, women still have the primary responsibility for managing family life, which often prevents them from launching or continuing their careers.

In 2009, 4 000 Spanish women had to give up their careers to look after their children, whereas only 200 men did the same.

42.
42.

It is a fact that more and more women work, and some of them also manage to reach top management posts.

But often the cost of this professional success is that they choose not to have children.

43.

It is proven that pregnancy and maternity have a negative impact on women’s careers.
The European Working Conditions Observatory (a European Commission agency) has highlighted the findings of the “Génération 98” study conducted in France in 2005 by the CEREQ research centre on the first seven years in employment of young workers of all levels.26 The pay of women who had children failed to keep pace with that of their male colleagues or women who did not have children.

Yet maternity is the foundation of any society’s dynamism, ensuring the future financing of pensions.
44 Moreover, in our societies, the distribution of household tasks is highly unfavourable to women, which limits the time they have available and their ability to adapt to some working hour arrangements designed by men for men.

The culture of “presenteeism” limits the role of women, who often seek better reconciliation of work and family life.
Nevertheless, new approaches such as teleworking can help reconcile private and working life, and are conducive to employment, for example in the dynamic personal homecare sector.

45.

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (a European Commission agency) provides governments, employers, trade unions and the European Commission with data and good practices based on independent and comparative research in this area.27 46.
Encouraging access by women to decision-making bodies first of all helps enhance the career plans of women who really wish to succeed, by encouraging the various organisations to recruit and promote talented women, organise training courses to learn how to speak in public in order to demythologise such responsibilities and help women to realise their own potential.

47.
47.

Some examples of best practice, such as mentoring and coaching of women wishing to accede to higher responsibilities by a woman or man in a senior position, have proved effective.

4.4.

Influencing attitudes 48.

Women are much less well represented than men in prestigious training programmes that lead to careers in decision- making bodies, and tend not come forward for positions of this kind.

They are often held back by psychological barriers.
Unfortunately, women frequently also give up their ambitions voluntarily.

Researchers have referred to this kind of self- demotivation as the "emotional ceiling".28 49.

The traditional separation of cognitive fields between girls and boys at school (unruly boys like mathematics while docile girls prefer literature) certainly helps make girls more likely to avoid rivalry and belittle their own qualities.
Schools must work more on managing emotions and on the issue of self-esteem so that girls can compete with boys on an equal footing.29 50.

Staff (both women and men) must be alerted to this issue via training in the gender perspective, in order to promote the values of respect which are necessary in working life, in society and at home.

Employers must be firm about combating sexist and discriminatory behaviour and sexual harassment.30 51.
Promoting the feminisation of post titles and gender precaution in communications help prepare people for access by women to new responsibilities.

Society must get used to the fact that women can occupy executive posts.

52.

In order to support strategies to promote women to decision-making posts, gender research should be used to help reveal inertias that curb the advancement of women and to spotlight new decision-making bodies which exclude women.

53.
53.

Women must show female solidarity in order to cope with conflicts and day-to-day resistance.

Women wishing to accede to decision-making bodies are in a conquering mood on the same basis as their male competitors.

54.

Various women’s associations active in several European countries seek to help women to overcome these difficulties and boost their presence in decision-making posts, through sponsorship and advocacy.
They include: – at European level: Association of Organisations of Mediterranean Businesswomen, Business and Professional Women, European Professional Women’s Network, European Women Lawyers’ Association (EWLA), Femmes 3000, Gender-IT Project, Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society; – in Germany: Deutsche Juristinnenbund; FidAR – die Initiative für mehr Frauen in die Aufsichtsräte; – in France: Association française des femmes juristes; Force femmes; Femmes 3000; Grandes Ecoles au Féminin (GEF); 28/06/2011 Page 8 of 9 Women Corporate Directors; – in Sweden: All Bright; – in Switzerland: CEO Generation.
55.

While female entrepreneurship has shown its dynamism, according to Ernst & Young it often comes up against the problem of funding.

It would be wise to encourage the initiatives of certain investment funds in growth enterprises directed by women or evincing an exemplary gender balance in their governing bodies.31 5.

Conclusions 56.
Conclusions 56.

It would be difficult to impose one single method of achieving the objective of balanced representation of women and men in economic and social decision-making bodies and top management given the wide variety of situations; some countries have only just set changes in motion, others have undertaken radical reforms or are about to achieve the objective.

57.
57.

The key to success is a new collective awareness which would enable a strong political will to firmly support a change of attitudes in both women and men.

Balanced access of women to managerial and decision-making posts, including in the socio- economic field, would be a genuine qualitative leap forward towards achieving de facto equality between women and men in society.

58.
58.

The member states of the Council of Europe should take forceful positive action to improve women’s access to decision- making bodies, including economic and social ones.

Introducing a legal obligation on large companies to have a minimum 40% quota of women on their governing or management boards – drawing on the Norwegian model – could be an appropriate measure to ensure that we can take this qualitative leap.

59.
59.

Moreover, it is interesting to note that the organisers of the World Economic Forum in Davos have for the first time asked that at least one woman should be included among the five representatives of each company belonging to the group of strategic partners.32 60.

Furthermore, with an eye to efficiency, the introduction of quotas should be accompanied by sanctions, going as far as the winding-up of companies which fail to comply with this obligation.

61.
61.

The Council of Europe member states should also set an example by applying a gender dimension to their internal operations and relations with their partners in the private and voluntary sector, with a view to improving the representation of women in decision-making bodies.

62.
62.

Lastly, they should back the implementation of measures to support women willing and able to accede to decision-making bodies, as well as the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality” adopted in Baku on 25 May 2010.

1 Reference to committee: Doc.

12144, Reference 3650 of 12 March 2010.

2 Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 17 February 2011.

3 Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 17 February 2011.
4 See, for example, Resolution 1706 (2010) and Recommendation 1899 (2010) on increasing women’s representation in politics through the electoral system.

5 Action Plan adopted in Baku on 25 May 2010, www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/equality/05conferences/ministerial- conferences/7th-Ministerial%20Conference/MEG-7%282010%292_ActionPlan_en.pdf.
6 See Appendix to Recommendation Rec(2003)3 on balanced participation of women and men in political and public decision making, https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2003)3.

7 www.ldo.no/Global/SaLDO%202009/SaLDO_2009_hele.pdf.

8 European Commission, Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Database: women & men in decision making, http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=764&langId=en.
9 Equality and diversity in local authority employment and service provision, report by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, 5 March 2009: Resolution 281 (2009) and Recommendation 262 (2009) on equality and diversity in local authority employment and service provision.

28/06/2011 10 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=776&langId=en.

11 "Council of Europe, Parity democracy – A far cry from reality", analysis prepared by Ms Regina Tavares da Silva, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 2010.
12 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=762&newsId=965&furtherNews=yes.

Page 9 of 9 13 http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2878&langId=en.

14 See Article 153i TFEU of the Lisbon Treaty.

15 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=422&langId=en.

16 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=764&langId=en.

17 ILO, Breaking through the glass ceiling – Women in Management, Update 2004.

18 http://assembly.coe.int/Communication/Campaign/EqualityPrize/default_EN.asp.
19 Contribution by Ms Nilsson at the hearing on 10 September 2010.

20 Annu Kotiranta, Anna Kovalainen and Petri Rouvinen, Female Leadership and Firm Profitability, EVA Analysis, No.

3, 24 September 2007.

A 2009 study, at the initiative of the Catalan Federation of SME employers (FEPIME), produced similar conclusions, www.afaemme.org/docs/INFORME_FINAL_CATALAN_VERSION_SIMPLE.pdf.

21 Recommendation 9: Number, composition and competence of managers, from the Corporate Governance Code (adopted in 2008).
22 Written contribution by Mr Haugli at the hearing on 10 September 2010.

23 Spiegel online international, "Women on board: Norway’s experience shows compulsory quotas work".

24 Aagoth Storvik and Mari Teigen, Women on Board: the Norwegian Experience, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2010.
25 Business publications, "'There is no denying the effectiveness of quotas': why Europe will surpass the U.S. in changing the face of the corporate board", http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2446/is_5_34/ai_n56248109/.

26 Centre d'études et de recherches sur les qualifications, www.cereq.fr/ (in French).

27 www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/gender/index.htm.


28 See article by Flore Thomasset published (in French) on 24 June 2010: www.slate.fr/story/23437/education-filles-garcons- emotions-reussite-ecole.

29 Capital émotionnel filles-garçons: quelles différences à l’école?

Actes du Symposium Genre et Education – Carrières scolaires, Bénédicte Gendron, University of Montpellier III, www.congresintaref.org/actes_pdf/AREF2007_Benedicte_GENDRON_211.pdf.
30 See the report by Ms Doris Stump on combating sexist stereotypes in the media, Assembly Doc.

12267.

31 Such initiatives include that of Dunya Bouhacene, the associate founder of Women Equity for Growth, a European capital management company: www.women-equity.org/women-equity/who.

32 The Guardian, "Davos imposes gender quota" 12 January 2011, www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/12/davos-imposes-gender-quota.

28/06/2011 Page 1 of 12 Doc.


12624 1 June 2011 The situation in Tunisia Report1 Political Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Ms Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Summary In January 2011, two weeks after the “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia launched the wave of democratic transformations in the Arab world, the Parliamentary Assembly adopted Resolution 1791 (2011) on the situation in Tunisia.
It resolved, inter alia, to follow closely the political developments in the country and to find appropriate ways for assisting it in its progression towards democracy.

The present report takes stock of developments in Tunisia since January 2011 and welcomes positive changes and reforms initiated by the transitional authorities in order to meet the democratic expectations of Tunisians.

At the same time, the report points to the challenges faced by Tunisia.
Finally, the Political Affairs Committee calls on the Council of Europe (Parliamentary Assembly, Committee of Ministers and Secretary General) to further support and assist Tunisia on its path towards democracy and suggests a series of concrete measures to this effect.

A.

Draft resolution2 1.


The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 1791 (2011) on the situation in Tunisia, adopted in January 2011 at the end of a debate held under the urgent procedure only two weeks after the Jasmine Revolution that put an end to the Ben Ali regime.
It again pays tribute to the courage and determination of the Tunisian people who, despite violent repression, have clearly shown the will to put an end to authoritarian rule and to transform Tunisia into a free, open and democratic country.

2.
2.

Five months after the revolution, the Assembly notes with satisfaction that the process of democratic transition in Tunisia is well under way and steps have already been taken to dismantle the structures of the former regime and put in place elements of a democratic political system.

3.

The Assembly pays tribute to the courage, competence and determination of the members of the interim government, the newly established authorities and the representatives of civil society.

4.
4.

The Assembly reaffirms its readiness to put its experience of accompanying democratic transitions and establishing new institutions in young democracies in Europe at the disposal of Tunisia’s transition institutions, future permanent institutions and civil society.

It has no intention of giving lessons or imposing models, however, and respects the sovereign choices of the Tunisians.

Any support and assistance must be governed by respect for the Tunisian people and their dignity.

5.
5.

The Assembly supports the intention of the transition authorities to organise elections to a National Constituent Assembly as soon as possible in order to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the transformations under way.

It congratulates the authorities on drafting a legal framework for the elections and entrusting their organisation to an independent authority.
It is aware, however, that the material organisation of the elections originally scheduled for 24 July 2011 presents a great many practical problems.

It notes that the Independent High Authority for the Elections, during its meeting of 22 May 2011, adopted the proposal to postpone the polling day to 16 October 2011.

6.
6.

At the same time, the Assembly is concerned about the considerable deterioration of the economic and social situation of the country, including a substantial increase in the unemployment rate.

It takes note of the efforts of the provisional government to stimulate the economy and create jobs, but considers international solidarity is needed to support Tunisia in 28/06/2011 Page 2 of 12 transition.

7.

The revolution created much enthusiasm and high expectations in the Tunisian population.
If there is no concrete economic improvement, support for the revolution may quickly wane and give way to feelings of disillusion and disappointment.

8.

The sudden rise in political tension in early May 2011 showed that the apparent stability of the political situation in Tunisia is still very fragile and that the discontent of a considerable part of the population can easily be exploited to destabilise the country on the eve of the elections.
The Assembly urges all Tunisian political and civil forces to act responsibly and not endanger the transformation process under way.

9.

The authorities must make it a priority to strengthen internal security, which is very fragile.

10.

The Assembly welcomes the fact that the setting of priorities and the development of the reform programme are essentially taking place in an inclusive political climate with the broad participation of civil society players.

11.
11.

It notes with satisfaction that contacts have been established between the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Higher Authority for Realisation of the Objectives of the Revolution, Political Reform and Democratic Transition, and encourages the Higher Authority to avail itself fully of the experience and expertise of the Venice Commission in the preparation of the new constitution.

12.
12.

The Assembly is ready to contribute to the organisation and observation of the elections to the National Constituent Assembly and welcomes the intention of the authorities to invite it to observe those elections.

13.

The Assembly reiterates the importance of taking steps to curb corruption and nepotism and to investigate abuses of power committed by the former ruling elites of Tunisia.
It encourages the Commission of Inquiry into misappropriation of funds and corruption to shed all possible light on the abuses committed by the former rulers of Tunisia and those close to them.

It calls upon the transition authorities and the future Tunisian authorities to put in place an effective anti-corruption mechanism.

14.
The Assembly calls on the Tunisian transition authorities to: 14.1. guarantee, in the framework of the election campaign for the National Constituent Assembly, respect for fundamental political freedoms such as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression and media freedom, as well as individual rights; 14.2. ensure that the essential democratic principle of separation of the temporal and spiritual powers is respected; 14.3 ensure that all state security forces observe strict neutrality and do not interfere in the electoral process; 14.4. create fair and transparent conditions for the election campaign, and in particular guarantee equal access to the media for the different political forces and the citizens’ right to access to information in order to be able to make informed political choices; 14.5. ensure that the funding of political parties and the election campaign is transparent; 14.6. create the conditions for national and foreign observers to follow the electoral process in complete transparency; 14.7. ensure speedy and objective examination of any possible challenge.
15.

The Assembly calls on the Tunisian political and civil forces to: 15.1. conduct the election campaign in an atmosphere of calm and mutual respect; 15.2. refrain from any attempt to provoke or exacerbate political, economic or social tensions, or to disturb public order; 15.3. comply with the electoral legislation and with the decisions of the institutions responsible for organising the elections; 15.4. accept and respect the results of the vote.

16.
16.

The Assembly encourages civil society players to remain actively involved in the organisation and follow-up of the electoral process and, after the elections, in the promotion of democratic principles and values in the framework of the reforms.

17.
After the election of the National Constituent Assembly, the Assembly invites the future Tunisian authorities to: 17.1. ensure that the positive achievements of Tunisian society, in particular the high level of education and the status of women, are safeguarded; 28/06/2011 17.2. put in place conditions enabling Tunisian youth to be actively involved in public life and political action and in this way give effect to its wish to be an active force for change; 17.3. continue the political reform process, taking inspiration from universal principles and values and the experience of democratic transition accumulated in the Council of Europe; 17.4. deepen for this purpose the dialogue with the appropriate bodies, mechanisms and structures of the Council of Europe.
To this end, the Assembly reiterates the elements contained in paragraph 13 of Resolution 1791 (2011), and again invites the future Tunisian authorities to: Page 3 of 12 17.4.1. accede to those Council of Europe legal instruments which are open to non-member states, in particular to those in the fields of democracy, human rights and the rule of law; 17.4.2. avail themselves fully of Tunisia’s membership of the Venice Commission in the future constitutional reform process; 17.4.3. accede to the Council of Europe’s enlarged partial agreements, such as the North-South Centre and the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement; 17.4.4. establish contacts between the Council of Europe and the authorities in Tunisia responsible for questions of justice, sustainable development, culture, education and higher education, youth and sport, gender equality and the rights of the child; 17.4.5. study and use, in their respective activities, the experience of the Council of Europe human rights institutions and monitoring mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights and the Commissioner for Human Rights; 17.4.6. foster contacts between Tunisian and European parliamentary and civil society representatives; 17.4.7. consider the prospects for parliamentary dialogue offered by the Partner for Democracy status recently established by the Assembly.
18.
The Assembly invites the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to: 18.1. strengthen contacts and consider support measures for Tunisian civil society; 18.2. examine the extent to which Tunisia could benefit from the experience of the Council of Europe Schools of Political Studies; 18.3. examine ways of involving representatives of Tunisian youth in the activities of the Council of Europe in the youth field; 18.4. examine the possibility of inviting Tunisian representatives to the Summer University for Democracy; 18.5. raise, in his contacts with the Council of Europe’s international partners, above all the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the need for effective co- ordination of efforts to assist the democratic transition in Tunisia.
19.

The Assembly invites the European Commission to reconsider its decision to withdraw its financial support for the existing network of Council of Europe Schools of Political Studies.

20.

The Assembly calls on the main international partners of Tunisia, in particular the European Union, to demonstrate genuine solidarity towards this country in transition, and speedily provide real support to stimulate the economy and tourism and improve the social situation.

21.
21.

It considers it entirely inappropriate to tarnish the image of Tunisia, a country that has just freed itself from an authoritarian regime and chosen democracy, to that of a country that is a source of irregular migrants.

22.

The Assembly confirms its determination, already expressed in Resolution 1791 (2011), to follow political developments in Tunisia closely and strengthen its dialogue with the country’s political forces and civil society players.
It is ready to establish contacts with the future National Constituent Assembly, and to invite its representatives to be present in Strasbourg during its plenary sessions, on the basis on its Resolution 1598 (2008) "Strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries".

23.

The Assembly decides to invite representatives of the future National Constituent Assembly and of the future Tunisian Parliament to participate in the Forum for the Future of Democracy.

24.
24.

The Assembly asks national parliaments of Council of Europe member and observer states and parliamentary supported foundations to foster contacts with Tunisian parliamentary bodies.

28/06/2011 Page 4 of 12 B.

Draft recommendation 1.

The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution ... (2011) on the situation in Tunisia.
It also refers to the efforts of the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to contribute to the changes taking place in Tunisia.

2.

The success of the reforms embarked upon in Tunisia, where the people have been at the forefront of the “Arab Spring”, is of particular importance for the future of the transition to democracy and progress towards the universal values of the whole Mediterranean and Middle East region.
Europe, built on those same values, should do all it can to contribute to the success of the transition in Tunisia.

3.

The Council of Europe is able to put at the disposal of Tunisia its unique experience and expertise in accompanying democratic transitions and establishing new institutions in young democracies in Europe.

It should deploy its resources to offer practical and effective assistance in the implementation of democratic reforms in Tunisia.

4.
Accordingly, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 4.1. step up co-operation with the Tunisian Higher Authority for Realisation of the Objectives of the Revolution, Political Reform and Democratic Transition and provide it with relevant information on practical experiences of constitutional processes in Europe; 4.2. draw up, in liaison with the transitional Tunisian authorities and in co-operation with other institutional partners, especially the European Union, a programme to assist with the institutional and political reforms in Tunisia, and call on member states and other partners to ensure the funding of such a programme; 4.3. give priority to assistance in electoral matters, including the training of staff to administer the elections and local observers from Tunisian civil society; 4.4. involve Tunisian representatives, including those of civil society, in the activities of the Council of Europe in the field of democracy, and in particular in the Forum for the Future of Democracy, the Summer University for Democracy and the future Strasbourg International Forum for Democracy 4.5. examine the conditions of a possible accession by Tunisia to a certain number of European conventions, notably in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
5.

In addition, the Assembly recalls its Resolution 1805 (2011) and Recommendation 1967 (2011) on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores.

It invites the Committee of Ministers to examine the measures to take in order that the Council of Europe can fully play its role as the main European organisation for the protection of human rights in this matter.

6.
The Assembly refers to the conclusions of the report of the Group of eminent persons of the Council of Europe “Living Together – combining diversity and freedom in the 21st Century Europe” to move the Organisation closer to its neighbours and recommends that the Committee of Ministers examine the possibility of creating, in consultation with the Assembly, a special status with the Council of Europe for the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean which would ensure a closer relationship than the one provided by the observer status.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Brasseur, rapporteur Contents Page 1.

Introduction............................................................................................................. .

6 2.

Main political developments 7 3.

Challenges of political transition 8 4.

Economic and social challenges 10 5.

Problem of irregular migration and Tunisia’s international image 11 6.

Co-operation with the Council of Europe 12 7.

Conclusions 14 1.

Introduction 1.


On 27 January 2011, two weeks after the “Jasmine Revolution” which put an end to the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia and 28/06/2011 Page 5 of 12 probably opened a new chapter in history now known as “the Arab Spring”, the Parliamentary Assembly held an emergency debate on the situation in Tunisia.

2.
2.

In Resolution 1791 (2011), adopted on that occasion, it paid tribute to the courage and determination of the Tunisian people who had clearly shown the will to put an end to authoritarian rule and to transform Tunisia into a free, open and democratic country.

3.
3.

The Assembly welcomed the first steps taken by the provisional authorities with a view to liberalising the political life of the country, and called on them to embark on far-reaching political reforms in order to respond to the aspirations of the Tunisian people.

4.

It resolved to follow political developments in Tunisia closely, strengthen its dialogue with the new institutions following the forthcoming elections and find appropriate ways to assist it in its progression towards democracy.

5.
5.

The aim of this report is therefore to take stock of the political developments in Tunisia in the months that followed the Jasmine Revolution and examine how the emerging Tunisian democracy can benefit from the Council of Europe’s experience of democratic transition.

6.

I wish to emphasise that there is no question of giving the Tunisians “lessons in democracy” or of imposing “Council of Europe solutions”.
It is entirely understandable that the Tunisians, for too long deprived of their political sovereignty, should be determined to build a Tunisian democracy, based on universal values certainly, but tailor-made to respond to the country’s specific needs and conditions.

7.

Nevertheless, during the democratic transition, Tunisia will certainly have to confront challenges and solve problems that other countries in democratic transition have experienced.
The Council of Europe’s experience in this field, which contributed to the establishment of democracy in the countries of Europe, may be of great practical use to them.

8.

While a revolution may take place in one day, a great deal more time is needed in order for it to bring the expected results.

Democratic transition is a process that may take several years.
The Assembly should therefore continue to follow political developments in Tunisia and strengthen dialogue with the main political forces and the civil society of this emerging democracy.

9.

In the framework of the preparation of this report, the Political Affairs Committee organised a hearing with representatives of Tunisian civil society and the President of the Venice Commission.
The hearing, which took place in Paris on 9 March 2011, was very useful and enabled the committee to hear the points of view of players directly involved in developing the reform agenda in Tunisia, and gave the members of the committee the opportunity to have a better understanding of the nature of the political processes at work in the country.
The hearing also allowed a degree of mutual trust to be established, which helped to create a constructive atmosphere and facilitated subsequent contacts at the level both of the Assembly and of the Venice Commission.

10.

From 20 to 22 April 2011, as Chairperson of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I participated in a visit to Tunisia by the Presidential Committee of the Assembly.

In my capacity as rapporteur, I had a series of additional contacts the day before.
Nonetheless, the programme of my visit focused on the city of Tunis and gave me no opportunity to observe the situation in the interior of the country.

According to some reports, the situation there differs considerably, both socio- economically and politically, from that in the capital.

I therefore consider it necessary for the Assembly’s rapporteur to find out about the situation in the provinces.
Contacts should also be established with representatives of the judicial authorities, the economic sector and the media.

11.

I should also like to refer to my participation on 5 and 6 May 2011 in a conference entitled “Sofia Platform: Central and Eastern Europe’s Experience and Change in North Africa and the Middle East”.
This meeting, which was jointly organised by the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the European Council on Foreign Relations, a research foundation, brought together a large number of politicians, researchers and representatives of civil society from Europe and the countries of North Africa and the Middle East.

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe presented our Organisation’s vision of the transformations currently taking place in that part of the world.
The Conference was an important opportunity to think together about what Europe could offer our partners in the countries in transition in order to contribute to the success of the reforms under way.

2.

Main political developments 12.

For several weeks after the revolution of 14 January 2011, the political situation in Tunisia remained very unstable.
The first provisional government, formed by the former Prime Minister Ghannouchi on 17 January with the participation of representatives of the “legal” opposition parties (the few political formations that existed under the former regime) and independents, succeeded in making a number of decisions tending towards democratisation.

But that government soon found itself under pressure from the demonstrators, who demanded the resignation of ministers who had served under Ben Ali.

13.
13.

At the same time, the political forces close to the former regime, from Ben Ali’s RCD party (Constitutional Democratic Rally) and the security services, tried to stir up trouble in the country in order to shift the transition process towards a new authoritarianism under the guise of “controlled” political liberalisation.

14.
14.

Faced with these attempts, the elements in favour of democratic change, particularly the unions and the active members of civil society, continued to exert pressure on the provisional government through demonstrations.

They also began to form a National Council to Defend the Revolution, which demanded the calling of a constituent assembly and the dissolution of all institutions inherited from the Ben Ali era, namely Parliament, the RCD and the political police.

28/06/2011 Page 6 of 12 15.


At the beginning of February, the two Chambers of Parliament passed a law allowing the Interim President, Fouad Mebazaa, to govern by legislative decree.

Parliament was then suspended and dissolved.

Moreover, on 19 February the Interim President issued a legislative decree declaring an amnesty for all political prisoners.

16.
16.

Among the main decisions of the Ghannouchi government should be noted the banning of the old ruling party, the RCD, as well as the establishment of a commission to reform texts and institutions which was supposed to prepare the democratic transformation of the country.

17.

Mention should also be made of the dissolution of the Ministry of Communication (which it would be more accurate to call the ministry of propaganda and censorship) and a degree of liberalisation of the media.
Reform of the press still remains to be carried out, however.

Indeed, we have been informed that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) encounter problems if they want to obtain radio frequencies.

18.

On 27 February, the second government presided over by former Prime Minister Ghannouchi was forced to resign as a result of pressure from the protesters.
The new transition government, headed by Mr Beji Caïd Essebsi, had no members who had been close to the Ben Ali regime and positioned itself as a cabinet of technocrats whose objective was to guarantee calm and stability during the transition period.

19.

On 3 March, the Interim President set 24 July 20113 as the date for elections to a Constituent Assembly by direct universal suffrage according to a new electoral code.
A specific body called the Higher Authority for Realisation of the Objectives of the Revolution, Political Reform and Democratic Transition was set up to prepare the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

Mr Yadh Ben Achour, former Dean of the Tunis Faculty of Legal, Political and Social Sciences, who had resigned from the Constitutional Council in 1992 and was an opponent of the Ben Ali regime, was appointed president of the new body.

20.
20.

The Higher Authority, which is composed of 161 members, many of whom are representatives of the political world and civil society, as well as professional lawyers, prepared and submitted to the government in mid-April draft laws on the organisation of the elections and on the electoral commission.

21.
21.

In addition, two other independent commissions of inquiry were set up in order to shed light on corruption, the misappropriation of funds by the former regime and abuses committed by the security forces during the events of December 2010-January 2011.

22.

On 7 March 2011, the Minister for the Interior announced the dissolution of the State Security Service and the political police.

23.
23.

There now seems to be relative, if fragile, political and institutional stability in Tunisia, enabling the provisional authorities to be fairly optimistic about the possibility of preparing the elections.

The authorities have, however, let it be known that they may be postponed if all the conditions for a ballot that complies with democratic standards are not met.

24.
24.

The fragile nature of the stability was demonstrated by the events of 5 May, which were provoked by statements by the former Tunisian Minister of the Interior, Farhat Rajhi, who announced a “military coup d’Etat” was being prepared in the event of the Islamists’ winning the elections.

The government condemned these statements, calling them “an attack on public order”.
The demonstrations that followed this incident turned into a riot, with young Tunisians demanding the resignation of the transitional government and “a new revolution”.

The police had to use teargas and then weapons in order to quell the riot.

Several shops and houses were looted.

On 7 May, the authorities introduced a curfew in Tunis.

Some 600 people were arrested.

The curfew was lifted on 18 May 2011.

3.

Challenges of political transition 25.


In the four months since the revolution Tunisian, society has undergone a remarkable transformation.

Tunisians are proud of the democratic advances and political freedoms that they have obtained.

26.

Nevertheless, the victory of the revolution does not mean the advent of democracy – far from it.
There are huge challenges to be met, if one takes into account the lack of democratic institutions, structures and traditions in a country ruled for decades by an authoritarian regime.

27.

At present, the transition authorities are not at all representative and are not based on any form of legitimacy except that resulting from the revolution.
Their first objective is therefore to organise democratic, open, fair and transparent elections which enshrine the democratic choices of the Tunisian people and give legitimacy to the government that results from those elections.

The government of Mr Beji Caïd Essebsi declared that it would not be involved in organising the elections and that none of its members would stand as a candidate for the Assembly.

28.
28.

The Higher Authority chaired by Mr Ben Achour has done a remarkable job in preparing the legal framework for the elections to the Constituent Assembly.

It has drafted, adopted by vote on 11 April 2011 and transmitted to the government two draft legislative decrees on the election of the National Constituent Assembly and the election of the Independent High Authority for the Elections.

29.
29.

The draft electoral legislative decree seeks to guarantee pluralistic, transparent, credible, democratic elections.

The system proposed is the single-round proportional ballot with closed lists, by constituency, with distribution of the largest remainder.

28/06/2011 Page 7 of 12 30.

The draft guarantees the right of every Tunisian, including those living abroad, to participate in the elections with their national identity card.
The establishment of electoral registers is to take place under the supervision of the Independent High Authority for Elections; the Ministry of the Interior, which was in charge of election administration under the former regime, is excluded from electoral operations.

31.

As regards the election campaign, the draft contains fundamental principles guaranteeing the impartiality of the administration, not using places of worship, and transparency of election campaign funding.

32.
32.

Two provisions of the draft legislative decree are particularly sensitive and have provoked much discussion in Tunisia: male-female parity in electoral lists and the disqualification of former officials of the former ruling party, the RCD.

33.

With regard to parity, the draft requires electoral lists to contain an equal number of male and female candidates listed alternately (a “zebra list”).

Any list that does not comply with this requirement will be declared invalid.

34.
34.

This provision has given rise to much controversy.

Some fear that it will penalise new parties, which are not yet well organised and do not have enough candidates, and favour parties which are well-established throughout the country and which would try to improve their results by getting female candidates with no experience elected.

35.
35.

The question of barring former RCD officials from standing as candidates has caused even more debate, both on the principle of depriving a category of persons of their right to be elected without any form of legal procedure, and the extent of such a measure.

36.

Nonetheless, the political argument, according to which the officials of the former regime who bear responsibility for its misdeeds should not be involved in drafting the new constitution, seems to have prevailed.
At the same time, this prohibition should name the persons concerned, concern only elections to the Constituent Assembly (and not subsequent elections) and be challengeable in court.

37.

According to the estimates of our Tunisian interlocutors, this prohibition would affect 2 000 to 2 500 people who occupied posts of responsibility in the central organs of the RCD party (Political Bureau and Central Committee), as well as in the territorial organisations at governorate level.

38.
38.

The type of ballot proposed in the draft legislative decree has also been criticised: according to some, it penalises small parties and cannot therefore guarantee that the Constituent Assembly – a chamber from which consensus should arise – is as representative as possible.

39.
39.

The second draft legislative decree concerns the Independent High Authority for Elections, which is elected by the Higher Authority and composed of 15 members: three judges, three lawyers, an accountant, a journalist, two representatives of non- governmental organisations (all pre-selected by the associations), as well as three academics, a computer scientist and a representative of Tunisians abroad.

On 9 May, 13 members were appointed, as the judges had not put up any candidates.
Of the 161 members of the Higher Authority, 126 took part in the vote.

40.

Its mission is to prepare, manage and supervise the election operations as a whole and to declare the preliminary results of the elections, before challenges are heard by another authority, the “higher electoral disputes authority”, which will be set up by legislative decree for that purpose.

41.

The elections were originally set for 24 July 2011.
The Tunisian authorities have emphasised the importance of keeping to that date, first and foremost for reasons of credibility of the democratic process, but also in order to avoid their being postponed to the period after the month of Ramadan.

42.

Nonetheless, with regard to the material organisation of the elections, everything remains to be done: compiling the lists of voters (electoral registers), defining the constituencies, training the staff of local electoral commissions, etc.
The plan is not to use voter registration cards but instead to use identity cards in order to be able to vote.

At this stage, many voters do not have such a document.
After having noted that it was not possible to ensure the best preparation of the elections, the Independent High Authority for the elections, during its meeting of 22 May 2011, adopted the proposal to postpone polling day to the 16 October 2011, but the transitional government decided, at the Council of Ministers held on 24 May 2011, to maintain the originally announced date of 24 July 2011 in order to keep the commitment taken in March.

43.

The Tunisian political scene is now seething.


Following the liberalisation of procedures for forming parties, there are now more than 60, and new ones are formed every week.

Some of them existed under the Ben Ali regime (the so-called “legal opposition”4) and are fairly well organised and have quite clearly defined political positions.

44.

Most of the new parties are little known to the general public.
Some of them can be termed “single-issue parties” on the basis of the subjects they propose to develop and defend.

Some of the parties of this type will certainly find it difficult to become established throughout the country and will have to try to forge alliances or risk disappearing.

45.

There have also been attempts by members of the former regime to form political parties.
There is a danger that these elements, which are referred to as “shadowy forces”, will try to exploit the deteriorating social and economic conditions to return to power.

46.

Among the best organised parties, mention should be made of the Islamist party Ennahda, which was legalised in early February after years of prohibition and persecution.
Although its emergence worries some people, who see it as a threat to the 28/06/2011 Page 8 of 12 principles of a secular society, Ennahda has been trying to reassure them by opening up dialogue with other political forces and taking part in the current political and institutional process.

The party is taking part in the work of the Higher Authority along with a dozen other political formations.

Ennahda will without any doubt occupy a considerable place on the emerging Tunisian political scene.

47.
47.

In the absence of established political players easily recognisable by all, civil society and voluntary sector organisations, unions and professional organisations now have a considerable role, benefiting from being fairly well known and well reputed.

As an example, at least 15 such organisations now sit on the Higher Authority chaired by Mr Ben Achour.

48.
48.

In view of the present state of political life in Tunisia, which is characterised by a high degree of diversity and fluidity, there is a risk that voters, faced with a multitude of parties or alliances with vague political objectives and represented by little- known candidates, will be confused and find it difficult to make informed choices.

49.

This problem is compounded by Tunisian political players’ lack of practical experience of electoral campaigns.
There can thus be no certainty as to the success of the election operations, despite the optimism and good will of the transition authorities.

50.

While the election of the Constituent Assembly is the Tunisians’ absolute priority, there are questions as to what will happen after that election.

51.
51.

On the one hand, the Interim President and the transitional government in place have let it be known that they will hand over power to the Constituent Assembly, which will embody the sovereign choice of the people and have legitimacy.

It is clear, however, that it will not be easy for a newly formed elective body to take on all the responsibilities of government immediately after the election.
There will probably have to be some continuity of the executive power under the authority of the elected Assembly.

52.

On the other hand, while the main task of the Constituent Assembly will by definition be to prepare and adopt the new constitution, its prerogatives will probably not be limited to the fundamental law and will include some elements of legislative work.

53.
53.

Democratic transition in Tunisia will place the need for reform in many areas on the agenda, including the organisation of the judicial system and the police, taxation, etc.

Questions concerning the constitutional or legislative safeguarding of positive Tunisian achievements, including the status of women and secularism, will also have to be settled.

54.
54.

Tunisia, which will have more time to put these various reforms in place, could avoid many mistakes by taking inspiration from, without necessarily copying, the experiences of the young (and not so young) European democracies.

The Council of Europe is a forum particularly suited to such sharing and pooling of experiences of democratic transition.

4.

Economic and social challenges 55.


The precarious economic and social situation, including massive unemployment among young people with qualifications, was one of the main causes of the popular movement that finally resulted in the fall of the Ben Ali regime.

The people, particularly the young people who massively took part in the demonstrations against the former regime, therefore have high expectations of seeing a speedy and substantial improvement in their situation.

56.
56.

Unfortunately, the revolution has so far had disastrous consequences for the country’s economy.

The television pictures of a mass movement facing violent repression have been seen worldwide and been a serious blow to Tunisia’s image as a safe destination.

57.

The first sector to suffer from this has been tourism, one of the pillars of the Tunisian economy which employs over 11% of the working population.
At the climax of the revolution several European countries evacuated their nationals from Tunisia and advised people not to go there.

Several months after the events of January 2011, the confidence of European holidaymakers has still not returned.

This is illustrated by the figures for non-resident entries, of which there were 1 098 200 during the first quarter of 2010, compared with 614 000 in the first three months of 2011, namely a 44% drop.

58.
58.

Similarly, the political instability and institutional uncertainty that followed the revolution made foreign investors cautious, and this has slowed down a number of investment projects.

59.

The political freedom that has become a new reality in Tunisia has enabled and even stimulated a considerable mobilisation of social movements and action in pursuit of demands.
There have been numerous strikes, occupations of industrial premises and much blocking of businesses and roads, resulting in significant economic losses.

60.

The civil war and international military intervention in Tunisia’s neighbour, Libya, is also having harmful effects on the Tunisian economy and social situation.
The authorities have to deal with the mass influx of tens – or even hundreds – of thousands of Libyan refugees, and the return of thousands of Tunisians who had been working in Libya and had to abandon everything in order to flee the hostilities.

The conflict in Libya has also seriously affected the regions of the centre and south of Tunisia where the local economy is very dependent on trade with Libya.

61.
61.

According to Tunisian Central Bank estimates, in the first quarter of 2011 industrial production fell by 13% and industrial investment intentions by 36%.

Unemployment, which was one of the triggers of the social movement in December 2010, was estimated at 500 000 in January, but may be over 700 000 by July.

28/06/2011 Page 9 of 12 62.


The deterioration in the economic situation and the significant increase in the unemployment rate are leading to fears of renewed unrest which might disturb the fragile political stability the authorities have achieved with such difficulty, distort the results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly and weigh heavily on its work.
In the medium term, the poor economic and social situation may cause feelings of frustration and disillusionment, weaken popular support for the reforms, strengthen the position of populist and radical parties and even the partisans of the former regime.

63.

The transition authorities are aware of these dangers and are working to relieve the crisis and reassure the population.
They also understand that political and social stability is essential for restoring investor confidence and stimulating the economy.

The government has therefore put in place programmes to stimulate the economy, create civil service jobs and assist young people with qualifications who are unemployed, as well as programmes for regional readjustment.

It is planned to inject income into the economy in order to stimulate consumption and foster investment in infrastructure.
The means at their disposal are very limited, however.

64.

The Tunisian revolution therefore urgently requires real solidarity and support from the international community.

The main international players (such as the European Union, the United States and more recently France) have announced their intentions to provide support but, according to our contacts in the transitional government, that aid is taking time to materialise.

65.
65.

At the same time, the Tunisian authorities have made it very clear that they do not want Tunisia to become an assisted economy.

Their priority is to restart the income- and job-generating sectors of the Tunisian economy, revive tourism, restore foreign investor confidence in order to activate the country’s significant investment potential, and bring back to the country the money embezzled by the former regime.

5.

Problem of irregular migration and Tunisia’s international image 66.
It has to be observed that the Jasmine Revolution and the image of a new Tunisia resolutely turned towards the future, which won the admiration of international public opinion, was very soon eclipsed by the events in Egypt and other Arab countries, including more recently in Libya.

67.

At the same time, Tunisia’s image is now associated in the European media and the perception of political leaders with the arrival of irregular Tunisian migrants in Europe via the Italian island of Lampedusa.

68.
68.

It is estimated that some 25 000 young Tunisians have left their country since January 2011 in the hope of joining their friends and relatives in France and other European countries.

Whatever the reasons that lead these young people to seek their fortune in Europe at a time when their country needs them in order to advance, this is illegal immigration.

69.
69.

The phenomenon is probably caused not only by a relaxation of control by the Tunisian authorities and a steep rise in the activities of people smugglers, but also by the feeling of sudden freedom after the fall of the former regime and the lack of immediate prospects within the country.

70.
70.

In Europe, where questions connected with immigration are at the heart of the political debate in many countries, the arrival of thousands of Tunisians has caused tension between Italy and a number of its partners, particularly France, which even stopped trains running between Italy and France for a time.

The European Union is now considering reviewing the operation of the Schengen system.

Tunisian immigrants are systematically arrested in France and deported to Italy or Tunisia.

71.
71.

As a consequence, the problem of irregular immigration from Tunisia has completely obscured the democratic transformations taking place in the country and now dominates European political discourse about Tunisians.

This is causing uneasiness among representatives of the Tunisian transition authorities, who do not appreciate European support for reforms being conditional upon effective control of emigration.

72.
72.

In this regard, European public opinion is ignoring the fact that Tunisia is itself confronting a much larger influx of refugees from Libya.

Since the beginning of the Libyan crisis, the authorities estimate at more than 250 000 the number of Libyans and nationals of other countries who have fled the conflict and arrived in Tunisia.

Added to that number are some 40 000 Tunisians who had been living and working in Libya and had to return to Tunisia.

73.
73.

These tens of thousands of refugees, who have to be provided with shelter, food, repatriation assistance in the case of nationals of third countries, or help with resettlement if they are returning Tunisians, are placing extremely heavy pressure on Tunisia’s economy and weakened social structures.

74.

In this connection, it also has to be recalled that the conflicts between the forces loyal to Ghaddafi and the Libyan insurgents do not always stop at the borders of Libya.
Incursions into Tunisian territory by belligerent forces of both sides have taken place several times.

The Tunisian Army has been forced to respond.

There have also been incidents of shells falling on Tunisian soil.

75.

In addition, rivalries between those who are pro- and anti-Ghaddafi have arisen in the Tunisian population itself in the southern regions of the country, a cause of grave concern to the authorities.

76.
76.

The humanitarian and security situation in southern Tunisia is therefore very tense and requires constant attention from the authorities, despite the limited means at their disposal.

77.

In these circumstances, Tunisia’s European partners should show more understanding and consistency and offer the country more real support and solidarity for the transformation it is undergoing, instead of exploiting Tunisian migration to Europe for internal political reasons.

28/06/2011 Page 10 of 12 78.


A comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach should take precedence over measures dictated by security considerations.

If it does not, Europe’s image, already affected by the years of “fruitful co-operation” with the Ben Ali regime, may be tarnished for a long time to come.

6.

Co-operation with the Council of Europe 79.

Tunisia was involved in certain forms of co-operation with the Council of Europe long before the events of January 2011.
At Parliamentary Assembly level, Tunisian delegations have regularly been invited to Strasbourg since 2008 following the adoption of Resolution 1598 (2008) on strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries.

The President of the Assembly visited Tunis only a few days before the revolution.

Tunisia became a member of the Venice Commission in 2010.

80.
80.

However, it is since the Jasmine Revolution, when the Tunisians expressed their desire for democracy and political freedom, that this co-operation has become so important.

81.

The Assembly, through Resolution 1791 (2011), adopted on 27 January 2011, was one of the first international authorities to welcome the victory of the revolution and the democratic choice of Tunisian society, and to offer Tunisia in transition the political support and assistance of the Council of Europe.
We saw that the Tunisians very much appreciated this.

82.

On 21 February 2011, Mr Ahmet Davutoğlu, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Turkey and President of the Committee of Ministers, and Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, went to Tunis and offered the assistance of the Council of Europe in connection with the preparation of the new constitution.

83.
83.

On 9 March 2011, the Political Affairs Committee organised a hearing with the participation of representatives of Tunisian civil society, as well as of the President of the Venice Commission, Mr Gianni Buquicchio.

This hearing was particularly useful in enabling representatives of Tunisian NGOs to learn of the capacities and experience of the Council of Europe in accompanying transition.
They were also reassured that the Council of Europe approach is to propose and not to impose solutions or models, respecting the Tunisians’ wish to maintain control of their revolution.

84.

A delegation from the Venice Commission went to Tunis from 16 to 18 March 2011 to discuss possible forms of co- operation.
It was agreed to assign liaison persons to ensure close contact between the Venice Commission and the Higher Authority in order to achieve the objectives of the revolution, political reform and democratic transition.

There was also an agreement between the Higher Authority and the Venice Commission to organise the training of some 300 trainers of electoral staff.

85.
85.

Mr Radhouane Noucier, State Secretary to the Tunisian Minister for Foreign Affairs, attended the meeting of the Venice Commission on 25 March 2011 and received a particularly warm welcome.

It gave him the opportunity to note the added value of taking part in the work of that advisory body.

In addition, Tunisia appointed Professor Rafaâ Ben Achour, currently Minister- Delegate attached to the Prime Minister, as an acting member of the Venice Commission.

86.
86.

We have also been informed, in a letter from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe dated 10 May 2011, that Tunisian representatives have already been invited to take part in certain programmes in the fields of democracy training, education and youth.
There have also been contacts with the European Commission in order to conclude a new financial “facility” that would make it possible to extend co-operation with Tunisia and the other countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean undergoing democratic transition.

87.

On 20-21 April 2011, the Presidential Committee of the Assembly, including myself, went to Tunis.
We met the key figures in the transition authorities (the President, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs), as well as the President of the Higher Authority, Mr Yadh Ben Achour, and Mr Toufik Bouderbala, who chairs the Commission of Inquiry into abuses committed by the security forces during the events of December 2010 – January 2011.

88.

During our visit, the President of the Assembly invited the Prime Minister, Mr Beji Caïd Essebsi, to the Assembly session of June 2011.
We were informed that Mr Mouldi El Kefi, Minister for Foreign Affairs, would come to the June session of our Assembly, when this report will be presented.

89.

We can therefore note that a network of contacts between the authorities of the Council of Europe and the Tunisian partners has been established in recent months.

These contacts now need to be transformed into practical forms of co-operation and assistance concentrating on what is essential and responding to the priorities of the Tunisians.

90.
90.

During the visit of the Presidential Committee we heard, both from our Tunisian interlocutors and from diplomats serving in Tunis, that in recent months there had been an unprecedented proliferation of visits to Tunisia by representatives of various states and international organisations.
Although each visit is motivated by the best intentions and a sincere wish to help Tunisia in transition, there is no co-ordination between the various offers of co-operation – and in many cases, as the Tunisians recognise, the offers are not followed up.

91.

We must therefore avoid at all costs the Council of Europe being one of these “bearers of empty promises”.

This means really concentrating on what we can genuinely offer and what the Tunisians need at the moment.

92.
92.

Among these priorities, I would particularly emphasise the electoral process, the constitutional process and the functioning of political institutions.

93.

The absolute priority for the Tunisians is the elections; the credibility and establishment of the democratic changes are at stake here.
Although the legislative framework for the elections has been decided, we can note that the contributions of the 28/06/2011 Page 11 of 12 Assembly and above all of the Venice Commission have already had a positive influence.

We must continue to offer our Tunisian partners the “soft advice” of the Council of Europe on electoral legislation and practices.

94.

There is strong demand from the Tunisians for assistance in the material organisation of the elections.
The Venice Commission project to train trainers for the administration of the elections is of great importance.

Ways of extending this type of assistance need to be found, including through Tunisian NGOs, which are insistently asking for help in training domestic election observers.

95.

With its experience of observing elections, the Assembly should send a large mission for the 24 July elections, if possible preceded by a pre-election mission.
The Tunisians are very anxious for their first democratic elections to be observed by the international community.

According to our information, an official invitation will shortly be forthcoming.

96.

The constitutional process has not formally started yet, but the Higher Authority is already working towards it.

The results of that work will then be transmitted to the Constituent Assembly.
Here too we must offer our Tunisian partners, in both the Higher Authority and the Constituent Assembly, the constitutional experience and, if they request it, expertise of the Venice Commission.

97.

The Parliamentary Assembly should, for its part, establish contacts with the future Constituent Assembly, which will probably, at least to some extent, have some prerogatives of a parliament.
In order to do so, Resolution 1598 (2008) should be interpreted in such a way as to make it possible to invite representatives of the Constituent Assembly to the sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly.

To begin with, the President of the Constituent Assembly could be invited to address the Parliamentary Assembly in the framework of a specific debate.

98.
98.

The presence in Strasbourg of Tunisian elected representatives could be useful for making contacts at the level of the Assembly’s committees and political groups and for their familiarisation with European parliamentary and political practice.

99.

At the same time, contacts at the level of elected representatives could make it easier to identify the Tunisians’ needs for assistance in legislative reforms in the various fields, and to develop target programmes involving Council of Europe experts.

100.
100.

With regard to Partner for Democracy status, although parliaments need to request and deserve it, preliminary contacts could be made with the Constituent Assembly in order to provide full information on the conditions for granting this status and how to obtain it.

101.

At the level of the Assembly and the Secretariat General, we should also develop contacts and support the activities of Tunisian civil society organisations.

102.
102.

The North-South Centre is the most appropriate platform for enabling the different components of Tunisian society to familiarise themselves with the activities, acquis and potential of the Council of Europe.

Tunisia could be invited to accede to this Partial Agreement.

103.

Thought also needs to be given to the extent to which Tunisia could benefit from the experience of the Council of Europe schools of political studies and be involved in the activities of the Summer University for Democracy.
Tunisian society is young and the youth of the country played an active part in the events of winter 2010-2011.

They will play an essential role in the democratic transition.

It is important for future Tunisian leaders to be made aware of the universal principles and values defended by the Council of Europe.

104.

I do not, however, think it a priority at the moment for Tunisia to accede to the conventions and other instruments of the Council of Europe.
Fully fledged democratically formed institutions should be established in the country first.

7.

Conclusions 105.

The process of democratic transition in Tunisia is well under way.

The Tunisians are proud of the progress they made in terms of political freedoms during the Jasmine Revolution and are determined to pursue democratic reforms.

106.
106.

After a few weeks of uncertainty, the political situation seemed fairly calm and an interim institutional stability is now making it possible to move towards the first democratic elections to the Constituent Assembly.

That this calm is relative and fragile, however, was shown by the riots in Tunis from 5 to 10 May 2011.

107.
107.

In the space of a few weeks, the transition authorities succeeded in preparing the legislative framework for the elections to the Constituent Assembly and deciding on the establishment of a body which will be responsible for the whole electoral process.

Although Tunisian political players are not unanimously in favour of the draft electoral legislative decree, it represents an important step forward in relation to the legal void that obtained after the revolution.
At the same time, the material organisation of the elections is extremely complicated, and the authorities may find it difficult to keep to the date announced for the ballot.

The quality of the preparation of the elections should, in my opinion, take precedence over the timetable.

108.

The economic and social situation has deteriorated, however, and there is a danger that it could be exploited on the eve of the elections, given the impatience of those who fought for freedom.
The conflict in neighbouring Libya and the issue of irregular Tunisian migrants to Europe are further complicating the situation in the country and its relations with Europe.

109.

After the election of the Constituent Assembly, Tunisia will have to draft and implement a vast programme of reforms 28/06/2011 in a great many areas of political, legal and social life.
The experience of democratic transition in Europe could serve as a source of inspiration and prove useful in setting priorities for the reforms.

110.

The Parliamentary Assembly and other Council of Europe authorities should continue to follow political developments in Tunisia and remain available to the Tunisian partners in order to offer them their experience and expertise in European democratic transition, without presuming to impose solutions.
The Tunisians’ wish to maintain control of the construction of Tunisian democracy must be fully respected.

111.

Consultation and co-ordination among international bodies are essential in order to ensure that assistance is effective.

Page 12 of 12 1 Reference to Committee: Reference No.

3750 of 11 March 2011.

2 Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 30 May 2011.
3 The Independent High Authority for the elections, during its meeting on 22 May 2011, adopted the proposal to postpone polling day to 16 October 2011, but the transitional government decided, at the Council of Ministers held on 24 May, to maintain the originally announced date of 24 July 2011 in order to respect the commitment undertaken in March.

4 According to my information, nine parties were recognised under the former regime, six of which supported Ben Ali.

28/06/2011 Page 1 of 14 Doc.


12630 6 June 2011 Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe Report1 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Rapporteur: Mr Christopher CHOPE, United Kingdom, European Democrat Group Summary It is recognised under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that asylum places a heavy burden on certain countries and that solutions cannot be found without international co-operation.
The large-scale arrival of boat people on Europe’s shores over the last decade has brought with it new challenges, not only in terms of reception, but also processing of asylum claims, resettlement, relocation and returns.

The arrivals brought about by recent conflicts in North Africa have once again put the spotlight on the issue of responsibility sharing, in particular in relation to Malta, Italy and Greece.
Paradoxically, the number of asylum claims in Europe is not insurmountable, even if for small countries such as Malta, the strain is much more marked.

The issue is, however, creating tension across Europe with “frontline” states pleading for responsibility sharing.

The so-called “Dublin system”, which supposedly regulates responsibility for dealing with asylum claims in the European Union, is in need of reform.
Member states of the Council of Europe have to show more solidarity with the “front-line” states, and they must encourage the European Union to provide further support to states under pressure, notably through funding, through the border control agency Frontex and also through the newly established European Asylum Support Office.
The European Union should also be ready to share information and give support to European countries, non-member states of the European Union, on issues relevant to managing mixed flows of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.

A.

Draft resolution2 1.


The Parliamentary Assembly believes that further measures are needed to ensure that responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers are shared fairly in Europe and that those seeking international protection have access to fair and efficient systems for the processing of their claims.

2.

The recent conflicts in North Africa have once again put the issue firmly on the agenda.
By 10 May 2011, a new wave of arrivals had brought 34 460 to Italy comprising about 23 000 irregular migrants and 11 000 asylum seekers/refugees, and 1 106 to Malta (almost all asylum seekers or refugees).

Notwithstanding the relatively high numbers in Europe, they should be put in the context of the experience of Libya’s North African neighbouring countries which have received approximately 750 000 refugees.

3.
3.

The Assembly notes that the number of asylum seekers in Europe, and in particular those arriving from the southern Mediterranean, should not pose an insurmountable problem for Europe as a whole, although their concentration in certain regions will pose a much greater problem for those countries or regions in the country concerned.

Malta in particular, because of its size and population, and the tiny island of Lampedusa, risk the greatest strain.

4.
4.

This Assembly believes that it is a paramount responsibility of each member state of the Council of Europe to meet its own international legal and humanitarian obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

5.

The effective protection of asylum seekers and refugees across the world cannot be achieved without countries sharing responsibilities.
One example of this has been the requests from front-line Mediterranean countries for a greater sharing of responsibility in response to large-scale arrivals of asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores.

6.
6.

All member states of the Council of Europe should be participating fully in the programmes of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the resettlement of refugees and should accept that, because of the uneven 28/06/2011 Page 2 of 14 geographical distribution of refugees, fair sharing of responsibility for resettlement is essential.

7.
7.

To encourage such fair sharing of responsibility, more information should be given to national parliamentarians to enable them to put pressure on their governments to meet their moral duties.

For example, in 2010 European countries resettled only 5 824 refugees compared with 54 077 resettled by the United States and 6 732 by Canada.

8.

It is of the utmost importance that the interests of refugees and asylum seekers are kept distinct from those of economic migrants.

9.
9.

Porous external borders facilitate racketeering and international people smuggling.

Therefore, more effective measures must be taken by member states to maintain the integrity of their own national borders.

10.

In order to deter people smugglers from using the high seas for their heinous trade, member states should consider the use of coastguard vessels.
These vessels should be sufficiently equipped to enable them to identify anyone with potential international protection needs, something that has been done effectively by the United States Coast Guard.

11.

The Assembly notes that within the 27 member states of the European Union, there is a vigorous debate about what each one should be doing by way of sharing responsibility.
The Dublin II Regulation system, which was designed to prevent forum shopping and duplicate applications for asylum, is no longer fully effective because of the inability of a number of countries, notably Greece, to meet their obligations to provide fair and efficient systems for processing asylum applications.

It is unacceptable, however, that the situation in Greece continues to be below international standards.
The European Union should have made it a condition of the financial help to Greece that it should comply with its international obligations on the protection of refugees and asylum seekers.

12.

In the view of the Assembly, the current situation and status quo is not sufficient and action has to be taken, primarily for three reasons.
The first is that a number of member states are not coping with the current situation and there exists a real threat of ongoing arrivals creating further pressure and problems.

Secondly, the Dublin System has been shown to be unfair and in need of reform.

The most recent condemnation by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment earlier this year (M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece) attests to this.
The third reason is that the issue of responsibility sharing is beginning to create collateral damage and that further friction within the European Union member states is focused on those countries which are within the Schengen zone.

The actions of some countries in allowing irregular migrants to receive documentation entitling them to travel anywhere within the zone has created tensions which have now reached the level of intergovernmental European Union discussion.

These issues need to be resolved.

13.


From the perspective of the Council of Europe, it is important that countries within the European Union are not regarded as having special status.

The same principles should be applicable in all 47 countries.
It would therefore be inappropriate for the Assembly to give definitive advice about what the European Union should do in respect of each of its current problems relating to Schengen, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex), and aspirations to create a common immigration and asylum policy for the European Union, except in the context of human rights.

14.
14.

The European Union does, however, have financial resources and material resources which should be made more widely available to Council of Europe member states.

For example, Frontex has access to satellite intelligence which should enable it to identify vessels which are leaving North Africa loaded with migrants, so that they can be intercepted in a co-ordinated way.
The European Union also has the ability to help facilitate bilateral and multilateral arrangements to help reduce the pressure on particular points of entry such as the border between Turkey and Greece.

15.
In order to tackle the issue of responsibility sharing in Europe, taking into account the responsibilities which exist at the moment and foreseeing future developments, the Assembly calls on all member states to: 15.1. encourage reform of the Dublin system to achieve more flexibility, where necessary, on the application of the principle of asylum determinations being carried out in the first arrival country; 15.2. provide direct assistance to countries in need, in particular those currently receiving large-scale mixed migration flows in the southern Mediterranean, including by: 15.2.1. assisting with border controls, interception of boats and rescue of people in need; 15.2.2. facilitating reception, including by providing support for infrastructure and its operation; 15.2.3. providing assistance for screening those with possible international protection needs; 15.2.4. helping with asylum determination and fair and efficient asylum procedures; 15.2.5. facilitating returns (both of irregular migrants and of failed asylum seekers); 15.2.6. accepting, as a priority, relocation within Europe from countries under strain, prior to or after the asylum determination process, and resettlement from countries outside of Europe in full co-operation with the UNHCR; 15.2.7. taking steps to tackle the root causes of flows of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants; 28/06/2011 Page 3 of 14 15.3. put greater reliance upon intelligence-led interceptions at sea, so as to co-ordinate their response to people smugglers.
16.
The Assembly recognises that further responsibility sharing cannot be effective without a commitment from the countries at the forefront of the current asylum flows to: 16.1. guarantee access to their territory to any person that might be in need of international protection; 16.2. provide the necessary reception conditions in accordance with relevant human rights and humanitarian standards; 16.3. provide a prompt and fair asylum process and ensure the quality and consistency of decisions; 16.4. ensure the integrity of their borders and control the irregular migration flows.
17.
Recognising the particular responsibility, resources and mandate of the European Union in this matter, the Assembly calls on the European Union to: 17.1. modify, as necessary and as early as possible, the Dublin system, in particular in the light of the judgment in the case of M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece, both to ensure fair treatment and appropriate guarantees for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection and also to assist individual member states to face possible situations of exceptional pressure; 17.2. ensure that its funds are flexible and easy to mobilise, to be able to react quickly in the case of unforeseen events and emergency, and consider the possibility of financing infrastructure in particular to ensure adequate reception facilities; 17.3. ensure that in respect of its members there are accurate and consistent statistics relating to applications for international protection, the granting of refugee status and asylum, detection and return of irregular migrants and realistic estimates of the number of illegal entrants into the European Union; 17.4. rapidly find an agreement on the European Commission’s proposal for the establishment of a European Union joint resettlement programme, to be implemented in close co-operation with the UNHCR; 17.5. in revising the Frontex regulations, ensure that full human rights guarantees are included; 17.6. address the alarming increase in the number of forged travel documents circulating in Europe, the forecasts by Frontex of increased irregular migration and the concerns of Europol as to the security threats resulting therefrom.
18.

Finally, the Assembly commends the work of the UNHCR, congratulates it on its 60th anniversary and calls on all members of the Council of Europe to mark the anniversary by taking greater responsibility for resettling refugees and addressing the challenge of asylum seekers in Europe.

B.

Draft recommendation3 1.


The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution … (2011) "Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe", considers that Europe has to take further measures to ensure that responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers are shared fairly in Europe and that those seeking international protection have access to fair and efficient systems for the processing of their claims.

2.
The Assembly therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to: 2.1. establish a Council of Europe good practice guide in asylum determination practice and procedure, highlighting the relevant Council of Europe human rights standards; 2.2. ensure Council of Europe access and input to any materials developed by the European Union, for example by the European Asylum Support Office, to ensure that the interests of all 47 member states of the Council of Europe (and not just the EU-27) are fully taken into account; 2.3. provide a framework for providing mutual assistance, resettlement and relocation of refugees across the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Chope, rapporteur Contents Page 1.

Introduction 6 28/06/2011 Page 4 of 14 2.

Legal basis of the principle of solidarity and responsibility sharing 7 3.

Collective responsibility in asylum matters: an "international public good" 8 4.

Key figures 8 5.

Current variety and lack of co-ordination of asylum management tools in Europe 10 5.1.

At national level 10 5.2.

European Union scheme of responsibility distribution/allocation 10 6.

Europe’s asylum challenges 11 6.1.


Greece – collapse of the asylum system 11 6.2.

Malta – disproportionate pressure on a very small country 11 6.3.

Exceptional situation – Europe’s southern countries at the forefront of large scale arrivals of refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Libya 12 7.

Past failure in responsibility-sharing initiatives 12 8.

Responsibility-sharing tools: under construction 13 8.1.

Resettlement and relocation 13 8.2.

Frontex operations 14 8.3.


The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 14 8.4.

Funding 15 9.

Way forward: fairness both for member states and for asylum seekers 15 9.1.

Practical means of enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing in Europe 15 9.2.

Resolute efforts needed to guarantee protection of human rights of refugees and asylum- seekers in countries of arrival and of stay 16 10.

Long-term solutions don’t stop at Europe’s borders 16 11.

Conclusions by the rapporteur 17 1.

Introduction 1.
Introduction 1.

The report’s origins are in the motion for a resolution which the rapporteur, together with others, presented on 26 January 2011.4 The motion followed the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights ("the Court") in the case of M.S.S.
v. Belgium and Greece and stated that "The Assembly should consider what measures are needed to ensure that responsibilities in the field of asylum are fairly apportioned in Europe and guarantee refugees and asylum seekers access to an effective asylum procedure and international protection".

2.

The motion preceded the "Arab spring" and the consequential surge in the number of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants seeking to enter Europe from North Africa.
The gravity of the issues which this report addresses is underlined by the disturbing news on 9 May 2011 that 61 people fleeing from Libya on a boat had tragically died of starvation and thirst off the North African coast after drifting in the Mediterranean for 16 days.

3.
When the rapporteur visited Brussels on 3 May and had meetings with representatives from Amnesty International, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council, he was told that one of the difficulties in addressing the problem of illegal smuggling of immigrants from North Africa taking advantage of the political situation was that, after paying for their passage, the refugees, asylum seekers and migrants were put to sea and left to their own devices while the smuggling gangs disembarked.
That is exactly what seems to have happened on 9 May.

4.

It is the intention of this report to address the issue of sharing responsibilities in Europe in the sense of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe rather than the narrow definition of the 27 member states of the European Union in which the 28/06/2011 Page 5 of 14 European Parliament, European Commission and European Council have their focus.

5.
5.

The fundamental point must be made that the first and foremost responsibility of each member state of the Council of Europe is to meet its own international, legal and humanitarian obligations including under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”).

6.
6.

The second point is that if individual countries find it difficult to cope with the administrative burden of processing applications for international protection arising in their own country, they should not refrain from asking other countries to come to their assistance.

They should be encouraged to take responsibility for arranging such bilateral or multilateral arrangements on their own initiative.
For example, Turkey has recently been reported as having drawn up arrangements to ensure that a potential mass influx of refugees from Syria can be avoided by providing a temporary safe haven within the Syrian border until stability returns.

7.

The third point is that countries need to work together to ensure that the scale of irregular migration and smuggling by criminal gangs is addressed.
The reason for this is that the problem is not the volume of asylum seekers but the volume of economic migrants who swell the numbers needing processing.

8.

The fourth point is that all Council of Europe member states should be encouraged to take genuine asylum seekers from those states beyond Europe’s boundaries and within Europe where the numbers are too great for the host nation, proportionate to its population and resources.
But this will only be politically possible when suspicious electorates believe that there is tighter control over irregular migration.

There is also a strong argument for sharing responsibility for those who cannot be returned to their countries of origin because of the rules of non-refoulement.

9.
9.

It is essential, however, that if we are to ensure that responsibilities in the field of asylum are fairly apportioned as the motion seeks, we must have much better information than currently seems to be available about what is actually happening at Europe’s external borders.

2.

Legal basis of the principle of solidarity and responsibility sharing 10.
At international level, paragraph 4 of the Preamble to the Refugee Convention recognises the need for responsibility sharing when it comes to asylum matters by stating that “Considering that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries, and that a satisfactory solution of a problem of which the United Nations has recognized the international scope and nature cannot therefore be achieved without international co-operation”.

11.
11.

While this provision is merely declarative, and while it is clear from international humanitarian law that the primary responsibility for protecting and assisting refugees rests with the country of asylum, numerous “soft law” instruments clearly enshrine the principle of responsibility sharing.

12.
12.

This was done, among others, in the conclusions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee’s Executive Committee, in resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.5 It has also been clearly reaffirmed by the Parliamentary Assembly, including as recently as April 2011.6 13.
For the 27 member states of the European Union, Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides a legal basis for the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in asylum and migration matters.

It reads as follows: “The policies of the Union set out in this Chapter and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States.

…”14 14.
…”14 14.

Article 80 of the TFEU applies to EU institutions and to member states when it comes to the policy area of borders, asylum and immigration.

Article 78 of the TFEU is also relevant insofar as it refers to provisional measures in case of an emergency situation, when a member state is confronted with a sudden inflow of third-country nationals.

15.
15.

The “need for genuine and concrete solidarity towards member states most directly concerned by migratory movements” was clearly reaffirmed by the European Council in its conclusions on the management of migration from the Southern Neighbourhood adopted on 11 and 12 April 2011.7 But the form which the co-operation/solidarity should take was not defined.

3.

Collective responsibility in asylum matters: an "international public good" 16.
From an overall perspective, sharing responsibility is beneficial not only to the countries faced with a high number of arrivals because of their geographical situation in Europe, but also for others.8 17.

Through mutual support, member states that are not currently under great pressure could ensure that they would be eligible for assistance from other member states in the future were their circumstances to change and they found themselves faced with substantial arrivals of refugees and asylum seekers.
Responsibility sharing can also eventually close routes for irregular migration into Europe because traffickers and smugglers will find it more difficult to identify and exploit weaknesses in border controls.

Responsibility sharing is therefore a way to increase collective stability at Europe’s borders.

18.

Without responsibility sharing, those countries that are unable to cope with the migratory pressure might, at worst, just give up.
Indeed, there have been allegations that some countries do not do everything in their power to prevent onward migration from southern Europe to the North.

Furthermore, we know that many of the migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in 28/06/2011 the North of Europe have come in from the South (see, for example, the recent arrival of Tunisians in France from Italy).

There is therefore already a problem which needs to be addressed for the benefit of Europe as a whole.

19.
19.

Reform of Schengen is now firmly on the EU table with active discussion about closure of some EU internal borders, albeit on a temporary basis.

This is the "worst case scenario" as described in a recent European Parliament study.

A co-ordinated approach based on mutual co-operation might have avoided the current tensions between France and Italy.

20.
20.

The sharing of responsibility for asylum has also been described as an "international public good"9 leading to a more enduring resolution of crisis situations.

Asylum reception should be seen as a collective responsibility, and even as an "international public good".10 Page 6 of 14 4.
Key figures11 Claims for asylum Europe / European Union Southern European countries12 2010 2009-2010 2000-2010 269 900 / 87% in EU countries - 6% - 50% 33 600 - 33% na Share of asylum claims worldwide 2005 2009 Europe 60% 45% Claims for asylum France Germany Sweden United Kingdom Belgium Greece Italy Malta 2010 47 800 41 300 31 800 22 100 19 900 10 300 8 200 28 Evolution since 2009 + 13% + 49% + 32% - 28% - 16% - 36% - 53% -94% 21.
Any discussion about the sharing of responsibility has to be based upon accurate data as to the actual situation.

The number of people seeking asylum in one of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe remains significant but the numbers do not appear to be such as to justify shortcomings in processing such as those identified by the European Court of Human Rights in the judgement in the case of M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece.


The most authentic figures for the number of asylum seekers coming into the 27 countries of the European Union and the two Schengen associated countries of Norway and Iceland come from 28/06/2011 Page 7 of 14 Frontex.

The term ‘Frontex’ derives from the French "frontières exterieures".
It is the European Union’s agency for external border security with a legal remit to be the European agency for the management of operational co-operation at the external borders of the member states of the European Union.

It has been operational since 3 October 2005.

Frontex collects data from European Union countries from which it produces an annual risk analysis.

22.
22.

Its most recent analysis, issued on 11 May 2011, shows that in 2010, 104 049 people were detected crossing the European Union external borders illegally.

The number was almost identical to that of 2009.

The report highlights, however, that in 2010 there was a 45% increase in detections of illegal border crossings at the Greek borders with Turkey.
The Greek authorities reported a total of 47 706 such crossings at the land border with Turkey which represents almost half of all such movements into the European Union.

Frontex ascribes the reason for this to a shift in the dominant routes used by migrant smugglers.

The focus of illegal activity is on a 12.5 km section of land border in the Evros river region, mainly around the Greek city of Orestiada.
On Frontex’s evidence alone it is apparent that in 2010 Greece faced a substantially larger problem of irregular migrants than other countries.

So far in 2011 it may well be that the focus has again returned to Italy as indeed it was in 2008 when a peak of 31 300 foreign nationals arrived illegally on Lampedusa.

23.

The Frontex figures can be criticised for not presenting a complete picture.
This is obvious from the fact that the 27 EU member states registered 235 900 claims for asylum in 2010 according to Eurostat.

47 800 of these were in France, 41 300 in Germany, 31 800 in Sweden, 22 100 in the United Kingdom and 19 900 in Belgium.

It appears that very large numbers of those who registered claims for asylum must have entered at an EU external border without detection before travelling to the country where they registered their claim.
This is corroborated by the fact that the actual number of requests for asylum made in Greece fell by 36% in 2010 despite the number of illegal arrivals detected increasing by 45%.

24.

It is also a matter of concern that Frontex’s annual risk analysis states that over the coming year irregular passenger flows across the external borders are expected to rise.
This is due to "increasing mobility globally as well as the possibility of visa liberalisation procedures for the EU’s eastern European partners and new agreements governing local border traffic along the eastern borders".

Frontex also cites the possibility of important changes in the external Schengen and EU borders with the possible entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the Schengen area and Croatia’s possible accession to the European Union.

5.
5.

Current variety and lack of co-ordination of asylum management tools in Europe 5.1.

At national level 25.

Understandably and in compliance with their sovereign right to exercise control over their borders and to take measures to prevent unlawful entry into their territory, all countries have their own approach to the adoption of measures based on the defence of their own interests.

26.

Italy, for instance, had signed a co-operation agreement with Libya.
According to this agreement, now suspended for obvious reasons, Italy had been repatriating to Libya all persons rescued in international waters.

While this individual solution proved its efficiency in stopping arrivals of irregular migrants to Italy, it raised concerns about the denial of access to international protection and about the treatment of those sent back to Libya.

Italy has also reached an agreement with Tunisia in recent weeks, although the precise text has not been seen by the rapporteur.
27.

Several other countries have reached bilateral agreements with third states.

This is for instance the case between Spain and Mauritania.

According to this bilateral agreement Spanish vessels are entitled to patrol the Mauritanian territorial waters.13 Under the auspices of Frontex joint operations conducted off the Mauritanian coast, Spanish vessels intercept flagless vessels and ensure their return to Mauritania.

28.
28.

Malta has a resettlement programme with the United States in the framework of which 500 persons have been relocated so far.

A resettlement pilot project has been developed at EU level.

Such best practice could be extended.

29.

These varied solutions show how different countries respond.

But what happened to any genuine refugees who were among those automatically returned to Libya under the agreement with Italy?
The UNHCR has expressed its concern that under that agreement people in need of international protection were prevented from coming to Europe.

The rapporteur was told by a UNHCR representative that it has recognised 11 000 refugees in Libya, some of whom are now arriving in Malta and Italy.

5.2.

European Union scheme of responsibility distribution/allocation 30.
Following the 1985 Schengen Agreement on the abolition of internal borders,14 the European Union has put in place certain rules of responsibility allocation amongst its member states.

31.

The rules in question are known as the "Dublin Convention",15 which later became the Dublin II Regulation.16 However, while seeking an effective, co-ordinated system, Europe has ended up with a system, the implementation of which has given rise to infringements of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

32.
32.

While the intention was to achieve a fairer division of responsibilities among European countries, the Dublin system has placed a disproportionate burden on countries such as Greece, Malta, Italy, Spain and Cyprus at the external borders of the European Union.17 33.

The European Court of Human Rights, in its M.S.S.


v. Belgium and Greece judgment,18 ruled that Belgium (for having sent an asylum seeker back to Greece) and Greece (because of the dreadful living and detention conditions of asylum seekers in Greece) had violated, inter alia, the non derogable provisions of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Other 28/06/2011 similar cases are currently pending before the Court.

34.
34.

It is clear that a simple mechanism putting the responsibility on the first state of arrival is not a complete solution.

It was based on the assumption that all EU countries were safe and able to cope.

They were not.

There are also wide variations in a person’s chances of being granted asylum in particular countries.

Page 8 of 14 6.

Europe’s asylum challenges 6.1.

Greece – collapse of the asylum system 35.


There are differing views as to the extent to which countries such as Italy, Malta and Greece should be able to take responsibility themselves.

36.
36.

During the committee’s hearing on the Stockholm programme, Ms Cecilia Wikström, MEP and rapporteur on the Dublin system for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament, stated that in the aftermath of the Balkan wars Sweden dealt with 82 000 asylum applications in one year and that this was not an impossible task.
She underlined the readiness of many states, including Sweden, to help out states like Greece facing difficulties to cope with the number of asylum claims.

But she also claimed that those states had to request help: “Just pick up the phone” was her plea.

37.

However, the past situation in Sweden and the current situation in Greece are different.

In the first case, Sweden had to deal with persons with similar profiles with similar protection needs.
Indeed, many applicants refuse to provide any information whatsoever.

This makes the asylum determination process much more complicated.

Furthermore, Greece is in the middle of an economic crisis.

38.

As was stated above, the European Court of Human Rights has condemned the long denounced living and detention conditions of refugees and asylum seekers in Greece for being in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Right.
It has furthermore condemned the major structural deficiencies of the asylum procedure in Greece.

39.

Greece, which is under particular pressure of arrivals of refugees and asylum seekers (but also of irregular migrants) due to its geographical position, is experiencing huge difficulties in dealing with the asylum claims.

In compliance with the Dublin Regulations, other EU member states send back to Greece asylum seekers that first entered the European Union via Greece.

Since the M.S.S.
Since the M.S.S.

judgment, many EU countries have suspended returns of asylum seekers to Greece.

40.

This, however, has not been enough to solve the problems.

Greece has still to deal with a backlog of over 50 000 asylum claims and urgently needs to reform its asylum procedure to ensure its fairness and effectiveness.

While plans for the reform of the Greek asylum system, released in 2010, have been warmly received by the UNHCR, nothing has been implemented despite an avowed political will to do so.
There would seem to be strong arguments for the Greek financial bale out being made conditional upon reform of the asylum system.

41.

European states could also consider the possibility of sharing among themselves part of the Greek backlog.

This would be fair towards the asylum seekers currently waiting for their claims to be dealt with.

It would also encourage Greece in its reform efforts.

A fresh start would also speed up Greece’s capacity to catch up with its European and international obligations.
6.2.

Malta – disproportionate pressure on a very small country 42.

Due to its geographical position, Malta is one of the main entry points into the European Union for boat arrivals, be they refugees, asylum seekers or irregular migrants.

Malta has a huge challenge in dealing with these arrivals.

With 400 000 inhabitants, the country is one of the most densely populated (over 1 250 inhabitants per square kilometre) and has little room to accommodate extra people.
Furthermore, Malta’s territorial waters are extensive, thereby putting additional pressure and responsibility on the country’s stretched resources.

Because it is an island, there is no easy route for persons once they arrive to make their own way northwards into the rest of Europe.

Those who arrive stay until another solution can be found.

There is no “official safety valve” such as has been resorted to by Italy whereby those who arrive can be left to disappear elsewhere.

43.
43.

There are thus particular issues to be addressed in relation to Malta and the need for solidarity and responsibility sharing.
While it is clear that Malta continues to take steps to improve its detention policy and the conditions of detention and reception, the Commissioner for Human Rights says it needs to do more.19 If the flow of boat people continues at the current pace, this is likely to create grave humanitarian problems as well as substantial problems for the Maltese authorities and the general public.
All member states of the Council of Europe need to consider what they can do to help share responsibility with Malta in the event of such a scenario.

Indeed, the Committee of Ministers should already be engaged in contingency planning in case the situation deteriorates further.

6.3.

Exceptional situation – Europe’s southern countries at the forefront of large-scale arrivals of refugees and asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Libya 44.
Given the current turmoil in North Africa, it is clear that the figures mentioned above (see Part 4) will significantly differ in 2011.

45.

According to most recent estimates, over 750 000 persons have fled the violence in Libya, finding refuge mainly in Egypt (260 000) and Tunisia (360 000).20 In addition to migrants not in need of international protection, a number of refugees (for example Somalis, Eritreans, Sudanese) have left Libya.

Some of them have managed to reach Malta and Italy.
Among them, some had already been granted refugee status a number of years ago but had been unable to move on from Libya.

28/06/2011 Page 9 of 14 46.

By 10 May 2011, around 34 500 people (23 000 Tunisians and 11 000 non-Tunisians) had arrived by boat in Lampedusa.

Arrivals from Libya have also reached both Malta (by the early May 2011, over 1 100 persons, mainly of sub-Saharan origin (primarily from Somalia and Eritrea)) and Italy (mainly Lampedusa).21 47.
Earlier this year, amongst those who had already arrived on Lampedusa the majority had come from Tunisia and did not intend to claim asylum.

Italy has since reached an agreement with Tunisia and the arrivals of Tunisian economic migrants have almost stopped.

Now, people fleeing Libya arrive with more compelling international protection needs.

More are, however, likely to come to both Malta and Italy.
On 7 and 8 May 2011, two boats from Libya arrived in Lampedusa with 1 300 persons on board, mostly originating from Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia.

48.

If, as appears likely, these arrivals continue, there will be even greater pressure and necessity for European states to show solidarity with one another.

7.

Past failures in responsibility-sharing initiatives 49.

In the past, some attempts to better share responsibility for refugees in Europe have been aborted.22 50.
The Council Directive on Temporary Protection in the case of Mass Influx,23 while indeed being a proper solidarity and responsibility-sharing tool, has not been invoked once since its adoption in 2001.
However, in the event of a massive inflow of persons in need of international protection in the aftermath of the events in North Africa, the European Commission has recently expressed its readiness to consider proposing the use of the mechanism foreseen under this Directive if the required conditions are met.24 51.
Article 9 of the Dublin Convention provides that “Any Member State, even when it is not responsible under the criteria laid out in this Convention, may, for humanitarian reasons, based in particular on family or cultural grounds, examine an application for asylum at the request of another Member State, provided that the applicant so desires”.
Article 3, paragraph 2, also entitles member states to examine an application for asylum even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in the Dublin Convention.

These existing "humanitarian clause" and "sovereignty clause" provisions which allow a member state to proceed with an asylum claim even though it was not the first state of entry of the asylum seeker show that the Convention has more flexibility than some of its critics admit.
The problem is that the flexibility has not been exercised as it could have been, even, for example, in the M.S.S case.

8.

Responsibility sharing tools: under construction 52.
In a Joint Communiqué, published on 19 April 2011, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain once again called on Europe for more solidarity and responsibility sharing, emphasising that the “possible prolongation of … influxes of illegal migrants and asylum seekers to the Mediterranean Member States cannot be managed without the concrete and substantial support and solidarity from the rest of the EU’s Member States”.25 53.
To answer such calls, the European Union has a range of both financial and operational tools that could be used in a more generalised, efficient, but also long-term manner.

8.1.

Resettlement and relocation 54.

Refugee resettlement consists in the relocation of refugees from one state in which they have sought asylum to another state which has agreed to admit them as refugees and to grant them settlement on its territory.
As stated by the UNCHR, “Resettlement is the concrete expression of a commitment to refugee protection and to the promotion of human rights.

It is also a practical manifestation of international responsibility sharing”.

26 55.
26 55.

With roughly 1 900 places in 2010, Sweden has the largest single resettlement programme in Europe, followed by Norway (1 100), for a total of roughly 6 000 in Europe for 2010.27 Compared with the 50 000 in the United States, 7 000 in Canada and 6 000 in Australia, it is difficult to argue that Europe has exhausted its capacity.

56.
56.

With the prospect of an increase in the flows of refugees in need of international protection coming from Libya, the European Commission has offered financial support to facilitate resettlement.

The European Commission has also encouraged EU member states to offer resettlement places “in a spirit of responsibility-sharing”.
Finally, the European Commission has underlined the need for the European Parliament and the European Council to rapidly find an agreement on the adoption of the Commission’s proposal for the establishment of an EU joint resettlement programme.28 57.

Relocation, a solidarity mechanism between European states, is also a possible way for European states to support other member states under specific and disproportionate pressure.29 58.
In 2008, pilot projects on the relocation of refugees located in Malta were introduced with the aim of helping to ease the disproportionate and exceptional situation in Malta.30 This EU pilot project aims to provide relocation possibilities in other countries for people who have been granted asylum in Malta.

France, Germany, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and the United Kingdom participate in this project.
This is considered a form of good practice in terms of European responsibility sharing, and has been praised by the UNHCR.31 In its conclusions on the management of migration from the Southern Neighbourhood adopted on 11 and 12 April 2011, the European Council welcomed the European Commission’s intention to extend this existing pilot project.32 28/06/2011 Page 10 of 14 59.
On 12 May 2011, after the Pledging Conference on Relocation and Resettlement which was organised by Commissioner Malmström in the margins of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, it was announced that at least ten EU member states as well several non-EU member states had agreed to relocate 323 asylum seekers who are currently in Malta.33 8.2.

Frontex operations 60.


Responding to an official request by the Italian authorities, Frontex has deployed the Joint Operation EPN Hermes Extension 2011 to assist them in managing the influx of arrivals by boat on the island of Lampedusa.
Frontex reports that “In addition to one aircraft and two vessels already financed and co-ordinated by Frontex, one Dutch and one Portuguese plane have now arrived in Pantelleria and Sardinia respectively to assist the Italian authorities in strengthening their border control activities”.34 The European Commission considers this as being a “clear signal of solidarity” between member states.35 On 26 March 2011, the operational area of Joint Operation Poseidon Sea,36 which covers the Greek islands in the Aegean sea, has also been widened to include Crete.
61.
In its conclusions on the management of migration from the Southern Neighbourhood adopted on 11 and 12 April 2011, the European Council has invited Frontex to speed up negotiations with the EU’s Southern neighbouring countries – and in particular Tunisia – with a view to concluding working arrangements and organising joint patrolling operations.37 In order to strengthen the competences of this Agency, it also decided to accelerate negotiations on amending the Frontex agreement with a view to reaching agreement by June 2011.
62.
The way in which Frontex operates is subject to criticism by several observers, notably as regards the lack of appropriate guarantees with respect to human rights.38 These issues are dealt with in a report prepared Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.39 The European Commission proposed changes to the legal framework of the agency in February 2010.40 This proposal is currently being discussed by the European Parliament with a view to its approval by the European Council as a matter of urgency.
While some argue that reform is needed to render Frontex operation more legal and to reinforce its human rights obligations, EU member states also see the reform as an opportunity to strengthen Frontex’s actual powers.

63.

The rapporteur would like to highlight that no matter which direction the reform takes, part of the reform should be to strengthen and clarify Frontex’s legal obligation to identify asylum seekers during its operations and then to refer them to the relevant authorities.

8.3.
8.3.

The European Asylum Support Office 64.

The newly created European Asylum Support Office (EASO) – still in the process of recruiting its staff – is faced with a challenging task from the outset.

65.

Indeed, EASO aims at supporting member states in their efforts to implement a more consistent and fairer asylum policy, for example by helping to identify good practices, organising training at European level and improving access to accurate information on countries of origin.
It will also provide technical and operational support to member states facing "particular pressures" (namely member states receiving large numbers of asylum claims), via the deployment of asylum expert teams, thus contributing to alleviate some of the pressure on their systems.

66.

On 1 April 2011, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ms Cecilia Malmström, announced the signing of the Operating Plan for the deployment to Greece by EASO of an EU Asylum support team.
This team is constituted of experts of several member states.

EASO’s action in Greece aims at supporting Greece in developing a fully functioning asylum system by 2012.

67.

EASO is also likely to have an important role to play in any enhanced intra-EU relocation programme.

EASO could administratively manage the process by carrying an annual assessment of the needs for relocation across the EU and gathering applications for relocation.

8.4.

Funding 68.
8.4.

Funding 68.

The European Commission has set up four migration-related funds: the External Borders Fund (€1 820 million for the period 2007-2013), the Return Fund (€676 million for the period 2008-2013), the Refugee Fund (€628 million for the period 2008-2013) and the Integration Fund (€825 million for the period 2007-2013).41 In addition to the regular funding, €25 million of emergency funding are available and can be quickly mobilised under the External Borders Fund and Refugee Fund.

69.
69.

The European Refugee Fund could be a major source of financing of relocation within the European Union.

The Fund would need to be increased accordingly to cover the processing of the claim of a relocated asylum seeker.

70.

One of the weaknesses of the different EU funds is that they do not allow for the financing of infrastructure, thus excluding funding for construction of adequate reception facilities.

This is a gap that needs to be addressed by the European Union.
This lack of funding has a particular impact on small countries such as Malta.

71.

It should be recalled in this context that the Council of Europe Development Bank could provide funding for infrastructure, but on the basis of loans; this possibility should be explored further in the future.

9.

Way forward: fairness both for member states and for asylum seekers 28/06/2011 9.1.

Practical means of enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing in Europe 72.
Relocation of beneficiaries of international protection or asylum seekers, policy harmonisation, and technical and financial assistance could help better balance what is currently unevenly distributed amongst European states.

73.

Co-operation, as a means of greater solidarity, can take many forms.
States can assist one another by: Page 11 of 14 – assisting with borders controls, interception of boats and rescue of people in need: – facilitating reception; – providing assistance for screening those with possible international protection needs; – helping with asylum determination and fair and efficient asylum procedure; – facilitating returns (both of irregular migrants and of failed asylum seekers); – accepting resettlement and relocation (prior to or after asylum determination); – tackling the root causes.
74.

A variety of assistance is required.

In the context of Frontex operations, equipment such as boats, planes and helicopters are needed and personnel is also required.

For reception, funding is required not just for emergency reception but also for contingent planning.

For screening, expert assistance, including legal assistance and interpretation, could be made available.
The same is also required for asylum determination, but more structural assistance may also be needed for dealing with asylum claims in general (as is the case in Greece).

Assistance may also be needed in the returns process (negotiating returns and the physical act of returning persons).

Assistance may also be needed in re-settling persons.

75.

The Dublin system has to be modified.


The European Commission tabled a proposal to that effect in 200842 which, inter alia, “is aimed at addressing situations of particular pressure on Member states' reception capacities and asylum systems, as well as situations where there is an inadequate level of protection for applicants for international protection”.
One of the most contentious issues is a proposal to include a suspension mechanism that would allow member states to suspend transfers in case of a country being under specific pressure.43 While the European Parliament is largely in favour of this proposal, the European Council seems to be very sceptical.

It is urgent that the European Parliament and the European Council come rapidly to an agreement.

76.
76.

The ability to suspend transfers under exceptional circumstances when the system is overburdened would indeed enhance the credibility of the Dublin system as a whole.

In view of the M.S.S.

judgment, this proposal could prevent other member states being condemned by the Court for having applied the Dublin system automatically.

Otherwise, the most exposed countries on Europe’s southern borders will continue to feel that Dublin does not offer a fair deal.

9.2.
9.2.

Resolute efforts needed to guarantee protection of human rights of refugees and asylum seekers in countries of arrival and of stay 77.

As was rightly stated by the Commissioner for Human Rights, solidarity in itself is not enough, “European solidarity needs to be matched by strong efforts at national level”.44 78.

First and foremost, the countries where problems have been clearly identified must do their part to improve the situation at national level.
Severe deficiencies have been found in detention conditions in Europe, most recently in Greece, both in the M.S.S.

judgment and in a public declaration on Greece by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).45 The Commissioner for Human Rights has also recently published a critical report in this regard, in relation to Malta.46 79.
Excessive recourse to detention still exists in a number of member states, and conditions in detention in general, remain problematic.

Steps are required to improve this situation and further improvements are necessary to improve procedures and remedies designed to safeguard the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in Europe.47 80.

If the problems are not solved at the national level, efforts to have greater solidarity in Europe will be in vain.
All European countries should support the reforms in the countries at the forefront of the arrivals.

10.

Long-term solutions don’t stop at Europe’s borders 81.

Solidarity shouldn’t stop at the borders of Europe.

While roughly 12 000 refugees and asylum seekers have reached Europe following the events in North Africa, 750 000 persons have left Libya, with most having a destination in Egypt or Tunisia.
Most are migrant workers, a significant number have already returned to their home countries, but among them there are thousands of people in need of international protection, from countries such as Eritrea and Somalia, who cannot return home.

The figures speak for themselves and it is clear that the responsibility borne by the African neighbouring countries is far heavier than the one carried by Europe.

According to the UNHCR, Egypt and Tunisia are doing their utmost to receive these people.
28/06/2011 Page 12 of 14 82.

Europe should be doing more to share responsibilities with countries beyond its borders.

While it is understandable that European states feel that they have enough spontaneous arrivals, showing solidarity with Africa by considering resettlement, at least of a small number of refugees, would send a political signal of Europe’s willingness to co-operate with its neighbours of the southern Mediterranean for the benefit of their mutual interests.
European countries should in priority consider resettling the refugees with specific medical needs, for instance those who have survived torture or trauma and those who need specific care that cannot be provided in the country in which they have found refuge.

On 1 March 2011, UNHCR published a “proposal for an emergency resettlement effort in the context of the Libya emergency”.
By so doing, UNHCR expressed its hope that countries would be able to offer resettlement places additional to their agreed quota for 2011.

83.

In the long term, Europe will need to show increasing solidarity with the political and economic transitions in the southern Mediterranean and also in other African countries.

84.
84.

The European Council has recently broadly endorsed “A partnership for democracy and shared prosperity for democracy and shared prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean”, the aim of which is to propose a new approach for a long-term partnership for migration, mobility and security.

By so doing, Europe should enable African countries to develop their asylum systems as well as their border surveillance capability.

11.

Conclusions by the rapporteur 85.


The first responsibility of each country in Europe must be to maintain its own border security.

It appears that some countries are failing to do this and thereby transferring the burden of illegal immigration to other countries.

This is particularly so within the Schengen area and it is doubtless the realisation of what has been happening that has led to recent moves by France and other countries in Schengen to call for the reintroduction of their own border police.
86.

The second responsibility of each country should be to set up an administrative system which facilitates the processing of claims for asylum fairly and effectively so that those with genuine claims are identified at an early stage and those with bogus claims removed so as not to clog up the system for those in genuine need of humanitarian assistance.
Greece has admitted to having problems in achieving this objective and it is, therefore, welcome that other countries have shown themselves willing to offer assistance to the Greek authorities.

87.

The third responsibility of each country is to ensure that those engaged in the smuggling of migrants are deterred by effective mechanisms for detection, apprehension and punishment.
This seems to be an area where countries are failing and it has been highlighted by Europol in its most recent report as being a significant cause for concern about security within Europe.

88.

The M.S.S.

case concerned the application of the Dublin II Regulation.
That Regulation was drawn up and agreed to by signatory countries in order to prevent forum shopping by asylum seekers of the very kind which now seems to be happening as a result of the inability of countries to be able to return asylum seekers first registered in Greece to Greece.

89.

Forum shopping is to be expected where there is a variety of legal jurisdictions and legal systems.
The Dublin II Regulation has been supported because it is common sense that, as all asylum claims are dealt with under the 1951 Refugee Convention, forum shopping should not be justified.

Some of the criticisms of Dublin II are, therefore, unreasonable.

What is important to ensure is that those who are returned to another country under the terms of the Regulation are properly treated.
As long as all applicants have access to proper advice and representation and process of law, there should be no need to try to harmonise outcomes.

Indeed, to try and harmonise outcomes would require a significant intervention by the European Union into the sovereign right of each country to interpret international law in its own courts.
Statistics such as those of the UNHCR showing, for example, that Germany recognised 63% of Iraqi asylum seekers in 2009 while the Netherlands only granted protection to 27% cannot be relied upon to tell the whole story.

For example, it may be that Germany attracts a higher proportion of genuine asylum seekers.

For this reason, the rapporteur does not believe that the introduction of a fixed quota for acceptances of asylum seekers of particular categories would be an acceptable way forward.
1 Reference to committee: Doc.

12499, Reference 3742 of 28 January 2011.

2 Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 1 June 2011.

3 Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 1 June 2011.

4 Doc.

12499, motion for a resolution on "Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe".

5 See, for example, Res 62/124 of 2008, www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-62-124.pdf.
6 See Resolution 1805 (2011) on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores.

7 www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/121479.pdf.

8 See European Parliament study on the implementation of Article 80 of the TFUE on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between Member States in the field of border checks, asylum and immigration (2011 – PE 453.167), p. 9.
28/06/2011 Page 13 of 14 9 See European Parliament Study “What system of burden-sharing between Member States for the reception of asylum seekers?” (2010 – PE 419.620), p. 16.

10 Ibid.

11 Source: UNHCR, Asylum levels and trends in industrialized Countries 2010, statistical overview of asylum applications lodged in Europe and selected non-European countries, 28 March 2011, www.unhcr.org/4d8c5b109.html; Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-QA-10-032/EN/KS-QA-10-032-EN.PDF.
12 Refers to Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Turkey.

13 For more information on the legal framework of such agreements, see Doc.

12628, report on the interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants (Rapporteur: Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera, Spain, SOC).
14 Agreement between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the Gradual Abolition of Checks at their Common Borders, 14 June 1985.

22 EU member states, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are currently signatories to the agreement.

15 Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one Member State of the European Communities, 15 June 1990.
16 Council Regulation 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member states by a third-country national, 18 February 2003.

17 See, inter alia, Kritzman-Amir T. and Berman Y., Responsibility sharing and the rights of refugees: the case of Israel, JLE, 2009, 41, George Washington International Law Review, 619.

18 M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece, Application No.


30696/09, 21 March 2011 (Grand Chamber), see especially paragraph 223.

19 www.coe.int/t/commissioner/News/2011/110328Malta_en.asp.

20 UNHCR Highlights on the situation in Libya and neighbouring countries, UNHCR, 10 May 2011.

21 Ibid.

22 See ‘What system of burden-sharing between member states for the reception of asylum seekers?

22 January 2010 Study, European Parliament, Directorate General for internal policies, PE 419.620.
In 2004, Finland made a proposal for EU responsibility-sharing mechanism, which the Germans had already tried in the early 90’s.

In both instances, EU member states couldn’t reach an agreement.

23 Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between member states in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof.
If the relevant conditions are met, the Directive enables to provide immediate and temporary protection to displaced persons from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0055:EN:HTML.
24 European http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/ 226&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en; see also Communication on Migration from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2011) 248 final, 4 May 2011.

MEMO/11/226; Commission’s 25 Joint Communiqué II, Nicosia, 19 April 2011, www.doi.gov.mt/EN/press_releases/2011/04/DOI%20-%20pr0785A.asp.
26 See UNHCR’s Handbook on resettlement, www.unhcr.org/4a2cfe336.html.

27 UNHCR Resettlement departures to Europe in 2010: Belgium 2, Czech Republic 48, Denmark 386, Finland 543, France 217, Germany 457, Iceland 6, Ireland 20, Italy 58, Netherlands 430, Norway 1088, Portugal 24, Romania 38, Sweden 1789, Switzerland 23, United Kingdom 695 [source: UNHCR].

28 European Commission’s MEMO/11/226, op.

cit.


; The programme proposed by the Commission provides for closer political and practical co-operation among the member states, so as to increase the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of their resettlement activities, and the humanitarian and strategic impact of resettlement.

A second objective is to promote the participation in resettlement by more member states within the European Union.
The establishment of a joint EU resettlement programme will make it easier and more cost-effective for other member states to take part in resettlement.

These countries can benefit from the experiences and know-how acquired in other member states and will participate in decision-making on resettlement priorities.

For 28/06/2011 more EN&guiLanguage=en.


details: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference Page 14 of 14 =MEMO/09/370&format=HTML&aged=0?uage= 29 For detailed information about the financial, political and legal implications of relocation of refugees, subsidiary protection beneficiaries and/or asylum seekers, see the very comprehensive study JLS/2009/ERFX/PR/1005 – 70092056, Study on the feasibility of establishing a mechanism for the relocation of beneficiaries of international protection.
30 Ibid., p. 13.

31 Times of Malta, “Migrants seek new life in Germany", 22 October 2010.

32 www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/121479.pdf.

33 Extraordinary JHA Council Meeting, 12 May 2011.

34 www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/art103.html.

35 European Commission’s MEMO/11/226, op.


cit.. 36 Since its inception in 2006 as a purely sea-based operation patrolling the coastal waters between Greece and Turkey, Joint Operation Poseidon has grown to become the focus of Frontex’s operational deployment in the Mediterranean region.

Joint Operation Poseidon, since the beginning of 2010, has also had a land-based component covering the Greek and Bulgarian land borders with Turkey.
37 www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/121479.pdf.

38 On 31 March 2011, Frontex’s Management Board endorsed the Agency’s Fundamental Rights’ Strategy.

See www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/art105.html.

39 See footnote 13.
39 See footnote 13.

40 In this context, see Amnesty International and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) briefing on the Commission proposal for a regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), September 2010.
41 Italy, being one of the major beneficiaries of these funds, has for instance been allocated € 55 million for 2010 and € 75 million for 2011.

42 COM(2008) 820 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0820:FIN:EN:PDF.
43 “In order to avoid that, in cases of particular pressure on certain Member States with limited reception and absorption capacities, Dublin transfers add to the burden on those Member States, a new procedure is inserted in the Regulation allowing for the suspension of Dublin transfers towards the responsible Member State.
Such a procedure can also be used in cases where there are concerns that Dublin transfers could result in applicants not benefiting from adequate standards of protection in the responsible Member State, in particular in terms of reception conditions and access to the asylum procedure.” Ibid, p. 10.
44 CommHR, Press Release, 28 March 2011, Malta: European solidarity needs to be matched by strong efforts at national level to protect the human rights of migrants, www.coe.int/t/commissioner/news/2011/110328malta_EN.asp; see also Fundamental Rights Agency report, “Coping with a fundamental rights emergency – The situation of persons crossing the Greek land border in an irregular manner” (2011) http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Greek-border-situation- report2011_EN.pdf.
45 www.cpt.coe.int/documents/grc/2011-10-inf-eng.pdf; 15 March 2011.

46 www.coe.int/t/commissioner/News/2011/110328Malta_en.asp.

47 See, inter alia, Doc.

11688 "Europe’s boat people: Mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe" (rapporteur: Mr Morten Østergaard, Denmark, ALDE) and Doc.

11990 on improving the quality and consistency of asylum decisions in the Council of Europe member states (rapporteur: Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Latvia, SOC).
See also Resolution 1707 (2010) and Recommendation 1900 (2010) on detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe, Doc.

12105.

28/06/2011 Doc.


12628 1 June 2011 The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Report1 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Rapporteur: Mr Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA, Spain, Socialist Group Summary As Europe struggles to cope with the relatively large-scale arrival of mixed migratory flows by boat from Africa, arriving mainly through Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece and Cyprus, the surveillance of Europe’s southern borders has become a regional priority.
The passengers are often travelling in unseaworthy vessels, at the mercy of unscrupulous traffickers, and there have been many fatal incidents.

The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population once again expresses its deep concern at some of the measures taken to deal with these desperate people.
Sometimes they are “pushed back” to their country of origin, which calls into question the well-established principle of non-refoulement, and there seem to be different ideas about what constitutes the “place of safety” where those who are rescued must be taken.

Even joint operations run by the European Union’s border agency Frontex do not have all the adequate guarantees that human rights will be fully respected.
Finally, countries on the southern borders of the European Union are having to face a disproportionate burden in dealing with these flows, which is unfair.

States have a clear moral and legal obligation to save persons in distress, but beyond this they should rigorously apply international law in dealing with these migratory flows.

That means treating those intercepted humanely, giving them a fair chance to seek international protection when it is needed, and keeping detention to a minimum.
Frontex staff need proper training in all these matters and the international community needs to spell out with greater consistency exactly how maritime law should be applied.

1 Reference to committee: Doc.

11880 and Doc.

11905, Reference 3569 of 29 May 2009.

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Doc.

12628 A.

Draft resolution2 The surveillance of Europe's southern borders has become a regional priority.
The European continent 1. is having to cope with the relatively large-scale arrival of migratory flows by boat from Africa, reaching Europe mainly through Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece and Cyprus.

2.

Migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other persons risk their lives to reach Europe's southern borders, mostly in unseaworthy vessels.
These journeys, always undertaken illicitly, mostly on board flagless vessels, putting them at risk of falling into the hands of migrant smuggling and trafficking rings, reflect the desperation of the passengers, who have no legal and above all no safer means of reaching Europe.
Although the number of arrivals by sea has fallen drastically in recent years, resulting in a shift of 3. migratory routes (particularly towards the land border between Turkey and Greece), the Parliamentary Assembly, recalling, inter alia, its Resolution 1637 (2008) "Europe's boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe", once again expresses its deep concern over the measures taken to deal with the arrival by sea of these mixed migratory flows.
Many people in distress at sea have been rescued and many attempting to reach Europe have been pushed back, but the list of fatal incidents – as predictable as they are tragic – is a long one and it is currently getting longer on an almost daily basis.

4.

Furthermore, recent arrivals in Italy and Malta following the turmoils in North Africa confirm that Europe must always be ready to face the possible large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on its southern shores.
The Assembly notes that measures to manage these maritime arrivals raise numerous problems, of 5. which five are particularly worrying: 5.1.

Despite several relevant international instruments satisfactorily setting out the rights and obligations of states and individuals applicable in this area, interpretations of their content appear to differ.
Some states do not agree on the nature and extent of their responsibilities in specific situations and some states also call into question the application of the principle of non-refoulement on the high seas; 5.2.

While the absolute priority in the event of interception at sea is the swift disembarkation of those rescued to a "place of safety", the notion of "place of safety" does not appear to be interpreted in the same way by all member states.
Yet it is clear that the notion of "place of safety" should not be restricted solely to the physical protection of people, but necessarily also entails respect for their fundamental rights; 5.3.

Divergences of this kind directly endanger the lives of the persons to be rescued, in particular by delaying or preventing rescue measures, and are likely to dissuade seafarers from rescuing people in distress at sea.
Furthermore, they could result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement in respect of a number of persons, including some in need of international protection; 5.4.
Although the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex) plays an ever increasing role in interception at sea, the guarantees of respect for human rights and obligations arising under international and European Union law in the context of the joint operations it co-ordinates are inadequate; 5.5.
Finally, these sea arrivals place a disproportionate burden on the states located on the southern borders of the European Union.

The goal of responsibilities being shared more fairly and greater solidarity in the migration sphere between European states is far from being attained.

The situation is rendered more complex by the fact that these migratory flows are of a mixed nature 6. and therefore call for specialised and tailored protection-sensitive responses in keeping with the status of those rescued.
To respond to sea arrivals adequately and in line with the relevant international standards, the states must take account of this aspect in their migration management policies and activities.

The Assembly reminds the member states of their obligations under international law, including the 7.

European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and 2 Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 1 June 2011.

2 Doc.
2 Doc.

12628 the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, and particularly of the principle of non- refoulement and the right to seek asylum.

The Assembly also reiterates the obligations of the States Parties to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.

8.
8.

Finally and above all, the Assembly reminds the member states that they have both a moral and legal obligation to save persons in distress at sea without the slightest delay, and unequivocally reiterates the interpretation given by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which states that the principle of non-refoulement is equally applicable on the high seas.
The high seas are not an area where states are exempt from their legal obligations, including those emerging from international human rights law and international refugee law.

9.
Accordingly, the Assembly calls on the member states, when conducting maritime border surveillance operations, whether in the context of preventing smuggling and trafficking in human beings or in connection with border management, be it in the exercise of de jure or de facto jurisdiction, to: 9.1. fulfill without exception and without delay their obligation to save people in distress at sea; 9.2. ensure that their border management policies and activities, including interception measures, recognise the mixed make-up of flows of individuals attempting to cross maritime borders; 9.3. guarantee for all intercepted persons humane treatment and systematic respect for their human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement, regardless of whether interception measures are implemented within their own territorial waters, those of another state on the basis of an ad hoc bilateral agreement, or on the high seas; 9.4. refrain from any practices that might be tantamount to direct or indirect refoulement, including on the high seas, in keeping with the UNHCR's interpretation of the extraterritorial application of that principle and with the relevant judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; 9.5. carry out as a priority action the swift disembarkation of rescued persons to a "place of safety" and interpret a "place of safety" as meaning a place which can meet the immediate needs of those disembarked and in no way jeopardises their fundamental rights, since the notion of "safety" extends beyond mere protection from physical danger and must also take into account the fundamental rights dimension of the proposed place of disembarkation; 9.6. guarantee access to a fair and effective asylum procedure for those intercepted who are in need of international protection; 9.7. guarantee access to protection and assistance, including to asylum procedures, for those intercepted who are victims of human trafficking or at risk of being trafficked; 9.8. ensure that the placement in a detention facility of those intercepted –
 always excluding minors and vulnerable categories –, regardless of their status, is authorised by the judicial authorities and occurs only where necessary and on grounds prescribed by law, that there is no other suitable alternative and that such placement conforms to the minimum standards and principles set forth in Assembly Resolution 1707 (2010) on the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe; 9.9. suspend any bilateral agreements they may have concluded with third states if the human rights of those intercepted are not appropriately guaranteed therein, particularly the right of access to an asylum procedure, and wherever these might be tantamount to a violation of the principle of non- refoulement, and conclude new bilateral agreements specifically containing such human rights guarantees and measures for their regular and effective monitoring; 9.10. sign and ratify, if they have not already done so, the aforementioned relevant international instruments and take account of the Guidelines of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the Treatment of Persons rescued at Sea; 9.11. sign and ratify, if they have not already done so, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No.
197) and the so-called "Palermo Protocols" to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000); 3 Doc.

12628 9.12. ensure that maritime border surveillance operations and border control measures do not affect the specific protection afforded under international law to vulnerable categories such as refugees, stateless persons, women and unaccompanied children, migrants, victims of trafficking or at risk of being trafficked, or victims of torture and trauma.

10.
10.

The Assembly is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the respective responsibilities of European Union states and Frontex and the absence of adequate guarantees for the respect of fundamental rights and international standards in the framework of joint operations co-ordinated by that agency.
While the Assembly welcomes the proposals presented by the European Commission to amend the rules governing that agency, with a view to strengthening guarantees of full respect for fundamental rights, it considers them inadequate and would like the European Parliament to be entrusted with the democratic supervision of the agency's activities, particularly where respect for fundamental rights is concerned.

11.
11.

The Assembly also considers it essential that efforts be made to remedy the prime causes prompting desperate individuals to risk their lives by boarding boats bound for Europe.

The Assembly calls on all the member states to step up their efforts to promote peace, the rule of law and prosperity in the countries of origin of potential immigrants and asylum seekers.

12.
Finally, in view of the serious challenges posed to coastal states by the irregular arrival by sea of mixed flows of individuals, the Assembly calls on the international community, particularly the IMO, the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Council of Europe and the European Union (including Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office) to: 12.1. provide any assistance required to those states in a spirit of solidarity and sharing of responsibilities; 12.2. under the auspices of the IMO, make concerted efforts to ensure a consistent and harmonised approach to international maritime law through, inter alia, agreement on the definition and content of the key terms and norms; 12.3. establish an inter-agency group with the aim of studying and resolving the main problems in the area of maritime interception, including the five problems identified in the present resolution, setting clear policy priorities, providing guidance to states and other relevant actors and monitoring and evaluating the use of maritime interception measures.
The group should be made up of members of the IMO, the UNHCR, the IOM, the Council of Europe, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office.

4 Doc.

12628 B.

Draft recommendation3 The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution … (2011) on the interception and rescue at sea of 1. asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants.

2.

The Assembly notes that, on its southern borders, Europe has to cope with a relatively large number of arrivals by boat of mixed migratory flows.
Recent arrivals following the turmoils in North Africa confirm that Europe must be ready to face such arrivals on a relatively large scale.

It is therefore a matter of urgency that the five main problems noted by the Assembly in its aforementioned resolution with respect to the existing measures to manage these maritime arrivals are speedily resolved.
The Assembly welcomes the Council of Europe Secretary General’s initiative to call an extraordinary 3. meeting of the Committee of Ministers to examine possible Council of Europe action in case of the massive arrival of asylum seekers and migrants from the southern Mediterranean.

It further welcomes the support given by the Committee of Ministers to the Secretary General’s proposals on the elaboration of emergency action plans, as well as regarding the training of officials dealing with asylum requests.
4.

While widely supporting these decisions, the Assembly reminds the Committee of Ministers of its dual responsibility: to support those member states that are in need, but also to make sure that all human rights obligations are complied with in the context of the interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants, including by guaranteeing to those intercepted access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure.

5.
The Assembly therefore calls on the Committee of Ministers to: include in the training material all necessary elements to enable the trained persons to proceed 5.1. to a screening assessment of the international protection needs of intercepted persons and to ensure that staff involved in the operations of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex) are trained accordingly; 5.2. define, in close co-operation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), guidelines and standard operating procedures, when interception and rescue at sea takes place, determining minimum administrative procedures to guarantee that those persons with international protection needs are identified and provided with the appropriate protection; 5.3. continue monitoring the situation of large-scale arrivals of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, and in particular the issue of interception and rescue at sea, including by holding extraordinary meetings on the situation, where appropriate, and use the good offices of the UNHCR with its representative at the Council of Europe, where relevant.
3 Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 1 June 2011.

5 Doc.

12628 C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Díaz Tejera, rapporteur Contents 3.

Page 1.

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................6 2.

General overview....................................................................................................................................7 2.1.
Mixed migration from Africa to Europe.........................................................................................7 2.2.

A working definition of "interception" ............................................................................................9 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................9 3.1.
UNCLOS and jurisdictional issues .............................................................................................10 3.2.

Disembarkation at a "place of safety" ........................................................................................13 3.3.

Establishing disembarkation responsibility ................................................................................16 3.4.
Combating trafficking and smuggling .........................................................................................17 3.5.

The European Union ..................................................................................................................18 3.6.
Frontex .......................................................................................................................................19 Recommendations................................................................................................................................20 4.

1.

Introduction4 The surveillance of Europe's southern borders has become a regional priority, as the southern 1.
European states feel overwhelmed by the arrival of large numbers of persons reaching their shores by sea in an irregular manner.

Conducted individually, by a group of states or within the context of a joint operation co- ordinated by Frontex,5 border management activities are generally legitimately based on considerations prioritising national or regional security and stability, and also on attempts to reduce the loss of lives at sea.
The maritime interception of vessels and persons is one of the measures resorted to by states to achieve these aims.

Yet several aspects of maritime interception measures raise a series of human rights concerns, centred around the individual circumstances of the intercepted persons.

In order to present these human rights concerns and propose measures for their resolution, an analysis of the relevant norms of international maritime law and international human rights is required.
This report's6 combined approach towards the two legal spheres is premised on a number of concrete 2. queries, a process that facilitates an otherwise complex legal analysis.

At a preliminary stage, a jurisdictional query is necessary, and the report needs to establish the extent to which, if at all, states are bound by their international human rights obligations when implementing interception measures at sea, particularly when such measures occur on the high seas.
Having established this primary parameter, the degree of state responsibility for possible human rights violations as a consequence of maritime interception needs to be determined, either specifically or in relation to generic situational contexts.

3.

It ought to be emphasised at the outset that it is not this report's intention or mandate to target and criticise specific countries for their past and/or present activities.
Nonetheless, reference must inevitably be made to a number of maritime incidents and state policies insofar as they are the very core of the report's subject matter.

The specific incidents and policies referred to are the situations off the West-African coast and in the central Mediterranean.

4 The rapporteur would like to thank Mr Neil Falzon, Human Rights Advocate and Academic, who acted as a consultant in the drafting process of the report.
It should be noted that this report was prepared and drafted prior to the turmoils in North Africa, notably in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

The report has been updated to reflect the new situation.

5 The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 December 2004.
6 The preparation of the report also involved a conference organised by the Portuguese Parliament and the Service of Foreigners and Borders (SEF) of the Ministry of the Interior and the Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, the European Committee on Migration (CDMG) of the Council of Europe, with the participation of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Lisbon on 31 May and 1 June 2010, on "Human rights and migration: Realising a human rights based approach to the protection of migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers".
An exchange of views was also organised by the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population in Strasbourg on 7 October 2010, on "Interception and Rescue at Sea of Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Irregular Migrants".

Views expressed and information provided during these two activities have been incorporated into this report.

6 Doc.

12628 2.
6 Doc.

12628 2.

General overview This introductory section seeks to provide a short overview of the migratory patterns affecting Europe's 4. southern borders and involving a number of African states.

Following this overview, a definition of the notion of "interception" is provided.
This introductory description is by no means a detailed account of the migration and asylum scenarios played out in the Mediterranean and off Africa's west coast, yet has the purpose of laying out the scenarios' main features and modalities.7 2.1.

Mixed migration from Africa to Europe 5.

In recent years the Mediterranean Sea has seen increasing numbers of persons leaving north African shores and travelling by sea in an attempt to reach Europe.
Persons from various countries of origin board rickety vessels that are generally unfit for the dangerous journey, since they are usually unequipped to deal with the challenges presented by severe climatic conditions, over-crowdedness and the physical and mental state of the passengers.

For persons departing from North Africa, generally Libya but also Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, Italy is 6. the primary destination.
Malta, being mid-way between North Africa and Italy, is in most cases not the intended destination.

A similar scenario is that seen off the West African coast, where boats departing from Senegal and Mauritania target the Canary Islands as the access point to European territory.8 The journeys voyages are in all cases undertaken through irregular means.

A vast majority of boats 7. used in these situations are flagless, raising jurisdictional issues.
This recourse to irregular means of travelling is primarily due to the fact that for most persons leaving Africa in this manner, regular and – more importantly – safer options are in fact not available.
For many persons, especially refugees and persons in need of alternative forms of international protection, obtaining authentic and official personal documentation may be impossible due to governmental unwillingness to issue necessary documents, personal exposure and risks consequential to attempts at obtaining them or the sheer inexistence of the appropriate state entities.

These limitations are further exacerbated by the stringent conditions imposed to be granted access to the European Union.

8.
For these reasons, the only way for such persons to travel by sea across the Mediterranean or across the Atlantic stretch between West Africa and the Canary Islands, is to seek the assistance of smuggling networks or in some cases to fall prey to human traffickers.9 Together with the high risks associated with such perilous journeys, the resort to irregular means to access European territory triggers a number of state responses based on the premises of combating the crimes of smuggling and trafficking, maintaining maritime safety and security and border management and protection.
9.
Yet despite the apparent novelty of these situations and their widespread media coverage – once again put in the spotlight following the ongoing events in the southern Mediterranean and the large scale of arrivals on the island of Lampedusa (Italy) – it ought to be mentioned that the phenomenon of "boat people" is certainly not a new one, and not one that is particular or exclusive to Europe.10 7 See Assembly Resolution 1637 (2008) and Recommendation 1850 (2008) "Europe's boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe".
8 According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the arrivals by sea from Africa are approximately as follows: Italy – 22 000 in 2006, 19 900 in 2007, 36 000 in 2008, 8 700 in 2009 and 390 in 2010; Malta – 1 800 in 2006, 1 800 in 2007, 2 700 in 2008, 1 470 in 2009 and 28 in 2010.

The arrivals by sea from West Africa to Spain are approximately as follows: 32 000 in 2006; 18 000 in 2007; 13 400 in 2008; 7 285 in 2009 and 1 270 in 2010.
See www.unhcr.org/pages/4a1d406060.html.

9 The distinction between human smuggling and human trafficking is an important one, especially in this context.
"Smuggling" means “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person ...”, whereas "trafficking" means “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the treat of use of force or other forms of coercion ... for the purpose of exploitation”.
See United Nations General Assembly Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Smuggling Protocol), 15 November 2000, and Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (Trafficking Protocol), 15 November 2000.
The two Protocols are generally referred to as the "Palermo Protocols".

10 See for example: Mathew P., Refugee Protection in the Wake of the Tampa, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.

96, No.3 (July 2002), pp.

661-676; Hathaway J. C., Labelling the “Boat People”: The Failure of the Human Rights Mandate of the Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.

15, No.

4 (November 1993), pp.


686-702; Stepick A., Haitian Boat People: A Study in the Conflicting Forces Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.

45, No.

2, U.S. Immigration Policy (Spring, 1982), pp.

163- 196; Willheim E., MV Tampa: The Australian Response, International Journal of Refugee Law, 2003, pp.

159-191.

7 Doc.

12628 10.


Such boat arrivals are generally associated with a sudden influx of persons that places large burdens on the search and rescue capacities, reception modalities and asylum systems of the receiving state, also within the European context.
Following a series of appeals for European solidarity by the southern European states, in January 2009 Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta detailed their concerns in a paper presented to the European Union institutions, in which they specified that “the influx of illegal immigrants is clearly a cause for concern, as it results in considerable strain on these countries' admission resources and asylum systems”.11 The paper made a clear appeal to the European Union to assist the four states in coping with the challenges of being the region's southern border.
The assistance requested by Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Malta included, inter alia, the conclusion of European Union Readmission Agreements with African and Middle- Eastern countries of origin and transit, the strengthening of Frontex and the establishment of an intra- European Union relocation scheme for persons recognised as being in need of international protection.

11.
11.

Another common feature of boat arrivals is the mixed composition of the persons aboard the vessels, their migratory movements being characterised as mixed migratory flows including asylum seekers, refugees and persons eligible for subsidiary or complementary protection, economic migrants, victims of trafficking or persons at risk of being trafficked and others.
The coming together of all these persons is what defines these migratory flows as mixed, and ought to be the basis of any comprehensive and protection-sensitive border management strategy developed and implemented by the states involved at the departure, transit and arrival stages.
In the specific context of the Mediterranean arrivals, statistics indicate a large presence of persons 12. potentially eligible for international protection, linked primarily to the fact that the countries of origin of a substantial percentage of persons are refugee-producing countries or countries currently involved in armed conflict as well as source countries for human trafficking and smuggling.
Official figures reveal that of the 1 475 persons arriving in Malta by boat in 2009,12 1 308 persons applied for asylum (89% of arrivals).

Of these, 852 persons were recognised as being in need of international protection,13 notably 65% of all asylum seekers for that year and 58% of all arrivals by boat.

In 2008,14 approximately 36 000 persons arrived in Italy by sea and 75% of these applied for asylum.
Additionally, around 70% of all asylum applications received by Italy were presented by persons arriving by boat.

Considering that, as in previous years, international protection needs were recognised in around half of all asylum cases processed in Italy,15 it may be said that over 20% of all persons reaching Italy by boat were either refugees or persons otherwise in need of international protection.16 13.
Figures for the Canary Islands are somewhat different, revealing a smaller asylum component amongst the persons reaching the Island.
In 2008, 356 asylum applications were presented in the Canary Islands, with the total number of arrivals being about 2 300.17 Furthermore, a steady annual decrease in the number of arrivals is evident in relation to Spain, with the consequential reduction in the number of asylum applications received from persons leaving West Africa by boat.18 In 2006, almost 32 000 persons arrived by sea; there were only 12 000 persons in 2007.19 14.
In the aftermath of the still ongoing events in the southern Mediterranean, according to UNHCR between mid-January and 10 May 2011, nearly 34 500 persons arrived by boat in Lampedusa, leading to massive overcrowding at the migrant reception centre.

Among them, there were 23 000 Tunisians (mainly 11 www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/assets/files/16/0970_Final_paper_Versione_firmata.pdf, p. 1.
12 The two largest population groups amongst the 1 475 persons were Somalia, with 898 persons, and Eritrea with 156 persons.

13 Of these, seven persons were recognised as being refugees, whilst 845 were granted subsidiary protection.

See Office of Prime Minister (Malta), Annual Reports of Government Departments 2009, July 2010: https://opm.gov.mt/file.aspx?f=2626.
14 Figures relative to 2009 for Italy are not given here due to the anomalous situation created by the implementation by the Italian government of the push-back policy.

15 The highest protection rates relate to Somali asylum-seekers: 352 recognised as refugees and 3 173 granted subsidiary protection.

16 UNHCR, Refugee protection and international migration: a review of UNHCR’s operational role in southern Italy – Pre- publication edition, September 2009, at p. 4: www.unhcr.org/4ac35c600.html.
See also information from the Italian Ministry of the Interior: www.interno.it/mininterno/export/sites/default/it/temi/asilo/sottotema009.html.

17 It should be noted that of these 356 applications, 140 were presented at official border points.

18 This is primarily due to the HERA series of Frontex co-ordinated joint operations, the main aim of which is “to tackle illegal migration flows coming from West Africa countries heading to Canary Islands”.
Taken from Frontex, HERA 2008 and NAUTILUS 2008 Statistics, News Releases, 17 February 2009, www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/ art40.html.

The HERA projects are further examined below.

19 Refugee protection and international migration: a review of UNHCR’s role in the Canary Islands, Spain, UNHCR, April 2009, www.unhcr.org/4a1d2d7d6.html.

8 Doc.

12628 irregular migrants) and 11 000 persons of other nationalities (mainly refugees and asylum seekers fleeing the conflicts in Libya).
Malta has received 1 100 asylum applications since the start of the North African uprisings.

15.

Acknowledging the mixed composition of any group of persons reaching the shores of a European state is certainly the first step towards ensuring the most appropriate response to the various categories of persons.

This is especially relevant in the context of the interception of boats and the actions taken thereafter.

2.2.

A working definition of "interception" 16.


As a corollary to the principle of state sovereignty, it is the legitimate interest of states to ensure their territorial integrity.

It is therefore the sovereign right of all states to exercise control over their borders and to take measures deemed necessary to prevent unlawful entry into their territory.

The interception of persons is one of these entry-management tools adopted by states.

17.
Whilst international law does not provide a comprehensive definition of "interception", the UNHCR has sought to define the term as follows: “one of the measures employed by states to: (i) prevent embarkation of persons on an international journey; (ii) (iii) transporting persons contrary to international or national maritime law; prevent further onward international travel by persons who have commenced their journey; or assert control of vessels where there are reasonable grounds to believe the vessel is where, in relation to the above, the person of persons do not have the required documentation or valid permission to enter; and that such measures also serve to protect the lives and security of the travelling public as well as persons being smuggled or transported in an irregular manner.”20 The above definition clearly includes within its scope measures and activities not related to 18. interception at sea yet having the similar aim and effect of impeding irregular entries into the destination country.
Such non-maritime measures include the extraterritorial out-posting of immigration officers and airline liaison officers at airports and other border points, and the provision of financial and technical capacity to countries of origin and transit countries.
In relation to maritime interception measures, the interception of boatloads of persons leaving African shores attempting to reach European territory essentially involves a combination of the elements contained in the UNHCR definition, albeit to varying degrees depending on general and specific contextual features.

19.

Many situations do in fact entail the assertion of control by a state over a vessel and many subsequently result in the prevention of the vessel's onward journey.
Whilst the rescue by non-state actors of persons in distress at sea, such as by fishermen or cargo ships, does not necessarily include a state asserting or exercising control over the rescued persons, it could nonetheless result in the prevention of the rescued persons' onward journey.

3.

Analysis 20.
3.

Analysis 20.

This section identifies the legal instruments applicable in the context of interception of irregular immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees, with the aim of clarifying and emphasising states' legal obligations when undertaking maritime interception.

It will be noted that the discussion necessarily entails an appreciation of the meeting points between international maritime law and international human rights law.
Any recommendation or proposal for future action must consequently also rely on the principles enshrined in these fields.

21.

The mixed flow of persons travelling by sea is not a straightforward situation.

By its very nature, as a situation occurring at sea, it triggers the application of various aspects of international maritime law, such as jurisdiction, the right of innocent passage and smuggling and trafficking.
International human rights and refugee law is also triggered since the interception of such persons has a definite effect on the level of enjoyment by the intercepted persons of their fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, to be free 20 Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, 2003, No.
97 (LIV), UNHCR Executive Committee, 9 June 2000, Also in UNHCR, Interception of Asylum-Seekers and Refugees: the International Framework and Recommendations for a Comprehensive Approach: www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49997afa1a.html.

9 Doc.

12628 from torture, to access to an effective remedy, to seek and enjoy asylum, to be protected against refoulement to a place of persecution and ill-treatment and to be free from collective expulsions.
Furthermore, this report's principal interest in interception also requires attention to be paid to relevant instruments in the Community acquis of the European Union.

3.1.

UNCLOS and jurisdictional issues 22.
From the international maritime law perspective, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)21 is the major international convention on maritime affairs insofar as it codifies states' rights and responsibilities at sea, whilst also providing for key concepts such as the territorial sea, exclusive economic zones, the right of innocent passage and the freedom of the high seas.22 In delimiting the various stretches of water in terms of their distance from a coastal state, the UNCLOS provides details on the nature of a state's rights within these stretches, particularly by establishing the extent to which a state exercises jurisdiction over persons and vessels within these waters.
These details provide the international maritime law contribution to the discussion below on the extent to which, if at all, a state's international human rights obligations, particularly the absolute prohibition of refoulement, are applicable within these waters.

23.

The most straightforward concept in this regard, in Article 2 of the UNCLOS, is that a state's sovereignty extends into its territorial waters, although such waters are not technically a state's territory.
This article is the basis for several subsequent UNCLOS provisions dealing with, inter alia, the manifestation by states of their sovereignty through the exercise of jurisdictional authority.

Therefore, by virtue of these provisions, it is clear that a state enjoys full and extensive jurisdictional authority when acting in its own territorial waters – a de jure jurisdiction.

24.
24.

The situation is somewhat different when a state acts within the territorial waters of another state, with the latter's express consent, as authorised by UNCLOS or through a bilateral treaty provision.

This is in fact the scenario off the West African coast, with Spanish vessels patrolling the Senegalese and Mauritanian territorial waters.
In such cases, the coastal state's authorisation effectively grants the patrolling state the right to exercise its own jurisdictional authority within the coastal state's territorial waters, conferring it with de jure jurisdiction.
According to the agreement between Spain and Mauritania, for example, Spain is granted such jurisdictional authority and it is on this basis that, in the context of the Frontex joint operations conducted off the Mauritanian coast, Spanish vessels intercept flagless vessels and ensure their return to Mauritania.23 It should be noted that Frontex’s participation in joint operations in the framework of bilateral agreements with third countries is not foreseen in Frontex’s founding regulation.
Therefore, the regulation needs to be amended accordingly to define the role and competence of Frontex in this context.24 25.
In relation to the high seas, the UNCLOS establishes the principle of the freedom to navigate in Articles 89 and 90, specifying that “no State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its jurisdiction” and reserving these waters for peaceful purposes.25 From a jurisdictional perspective, ships sailing on the high seas are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their flag state with the express prohibition of boarding foreign ships, save in the exceptional circumstances listed in Article 110 (right of visit).
Included in this list of exceptional circumstances is the reasonable ground for suspecting that a ship is without nationality.26 The fact that boats carrying migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from Africa to Europe in an irregular manner are generally flagless, and therefore not subject to any state's exclusive jurisdiction, authorises the ships of any state to establish and exercise its jurisdiction over these boats.

This is in fact the 21 For a general overview of the Convention, see Hollis D.J.
and Rosen T., United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, at www.eoearth.org/article/United_Nations_Convention_on_Law_of_the_Sea_28UNCLOS%29,_1982.

22 For the purposes of this report, some key terms ought to be defined.

Article 3 states that the territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles from the baselines, whereas a state's internal waters are those waters on the landward side of the baseline ("baseline" defined in Article 5 as the “low-water line along the coast”).
The contiguous zone (Article 33) is that stretch of water contiguous to the territorial sea but not extending beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines, whilst the exclusive economic zone (Article 57) may stretch up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines.

Finally, Article 86 provides that the high seas are those parts of the sea that essentially do not form part of the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of any state.
Also, in defining "innocent passage", Article 19 includes “loading or unloading of any ... person contrary to the ... immigration ... regulations” as not being included in such a definition.

23 Acuerdo entre el Reino de Espaňa y la República Islámica de Mauritania en material de inmigración, Madrid, 1 July 2003, Boletín Oficial del Estado, No.

185, 4 August 2003, 30050-30053.


24 See AI/ECRE, Briefing on the Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) briefing to the European Commission, p. 27, www.ecre.be/files/ECRE_Amnesty_Briefing_Frontex_proposal_September_2010.pdf.

25 Article 88.

26 Article 110(1)(d).

10 Doc.


12628 legal basis upon which European Union member states exercise their jurisdictional authority during the interception activities carried out on the high seas off the Canary Islands and in the central Mediterranean.

26.

Yet for the purposes of the present analysis, an appreciation of the concept of jurisdictional authority under international maritime law does not suffice for a more comprehensive discussion on interception at sea.
Whilst international maritime law clarifies the nature and extent of a state's obligations at sea, in terms of exercise of its jurisdictional powers, international human rights law provides guidance as to how far such jurisdictional powers trigger the intercepting state's international human rights responsibilities.
The question is essentially whether a state is bound by its human rights obligations when conducting interception measures at sea (depending on the ratione loci of the relevant human rights treaties).27 27.
The territorial application of treaty obligations is undisputed; a treaty entered into by a state binds the state in respect of its entire territory, unless of course the treaty specifies otherwise.28 A state is therefore bound to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons within its territory.

As stated above, a state exercises sovereign authority and jurisdiction within its own territorial waters, thereby also subject to its human rights obligations.
Therefore interception measures conducted by a state in its own territorial waters ought to be carried out in conformity with the state's human rights obligations, requiring the state to safeguard the rights of all persons aboard the intercepted vessels and, in the case of asylum seekers and refugees, to ensure their access to its asylum procedures and not to be returned to their countries of origin, as also reiterated by UNHCR.29 28.
As indicated above, the de jure jurisdiction enjoyed by a state when acting within the territorial waters of another state, on the basis of the latter state's ad hoc express consent or acquiescence, leads to the same conclusion.
This point was also reiterated by the European Court of Human Rights in the Bankovic case.30 Thus, for example, Spanish activities within Mauritanian territorial waters on the basis of a bilateral agreement granting it jurisdictional authority to intercept boats of persons and return them to Mauritanian shores, trigger the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5) ("the Convention") in respect of Spain.31 29.


Moving further away from a state's coast and territorial waters, the interception on the high seas of boats of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees and potential victims of trafficking generally involves intercepted boats that are flagless, thereby authorising the intercepting state to exercise its jurisdiction over the vessels and the persons aboard them.
Such clear de jure jurisdiction should also be considered a sufficient legal basis for the triggering of the intercepting state's international human rights obligations, therefore requiring the state to act towards the intercepted persons in the same manner as it would with 27 See for example: Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil, Political Rights (ICCPR); Article 2(1) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Also at the regional level: Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

28 This principle is also enshrined in Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.

29 UNHCR Executive Committee, Conclusion No.


97 (LIV), see footnote 20, recommends at paragraph (a)(i) that “the state within whose sovereign territory, or territorial waters, interception takes place has the primary responsibility for addressing any protection needs of intercepted persons”.
See also UNHCR's paper on Maritime interception operations and the processing of international protection claims: legal standards and policy considerations with respect to extraterritorial processing, November 2010, at www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cd12d3a2.html, paragraph 2.

30 Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 other Contracting States, Application No.
52207/99, judgment of 12 December 2001, paragraph 71, where the Court stated that a state may exercise jurisdiction when acting outside its own territory and on the territory, or within the jurisdictional authority of another state, “through the consent, invitation or acquiescence of the Government of that territory”, in Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2009, Oxford University Press (Second Edition), p. 805, and Klug A. and Howe T., The concept of State jurisdiction and the applicability of the non-refoulement principle to extraterritorial interception measures, in Ryan Bernard and Mitsilegas Valsamis (eds.
), Extraterritorial Immigration Control: Legal Challenges, 2010, Martinus Nijhoff.

31 Bankovic is one in a series of cases where the Court examined the Convention's extraterritorial application.

The Court's general conclusions in this regard are that once a state exercises effective control and authority over persons or property, then it exercises de facto jurisdiction and, consequently, is obliged to behave in a manner that is consistent with its human rights obligations.
See Cyprus v. Turkey (First and Second Applications) Applications Nos.

6780/74 and 6950/75, 1975; the third inter-state case Cyprus v. Turkey, No.

8007/77, 1978; Loizidu v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), 1995; the fourth inter-state case Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No.

25781/94, 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey, Application No.

46221/99, 2005; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, Application No.

48787/99, 2004, and Issa v. Turkey, Application No.

31821/96, 2004.
31821/96, 2004.

An evaluation of the cases, and the progressive development by the Court of the Convention's extraterritorial application may be found in Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, footnote 30 supra, pp.

804- 807.

11 Doc.

12628 regard to persons present within its own territory.

It should be noted that a state is also bound by its international human rights obligations when its exercises de facto jurisdiction.32 30.
Yet the latter conclusion is disputed in relation to the extraterritorial application of the principle of non- refoulement33 since, it is argued, the prohibition of returning a person to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened applies to persons already within a state's territory and not to persons trying to enter such territory.
On the basis of this argumentation, the practice of diverting boats of persons, including asylum seekers and refugees, from the high seas to territories where their lives would be at risk would not constitute a practice prohibited under international refugee and human rights law.34 Yet the extraterritoriality of the non-refoulement principle is firmly supported by UNHCR, as clearly stated in the Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.35 31.
In the advisory opinion, UNHCR reiterates established principles and interpretations of states' obligations with regard to non-refoulement and considers these obligations from a geographical perspective.
It concludes that: “...the purpose, intent and meaning of Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention are unambiguous and establish an obligation not to return a refugee or asylum-seeker to a country where he or she would be at risk of persecution or other serious harm, which applies wherever a State exercises jurisdiction, including at the frontier, on the high seas or on the territory of another State.”36 32.
UNHCR's approach also considers the protection vacuum that would be created if states were authorised to return refugees and asylum seekers to a country were they are at risk simply on the basis of the consideration that they are acting outside their territory, an approach deemed to be “inconsistent with the humanitarian object and purpose of the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol”.37 The opinion draws extensively on cases and statements of international and regional human rights bodies in order to underline an interpretation of the prohibition of refoulement that extends to state actions beyond their territory and on the high seas.38 33.
Furthermore, as will be discussed below, international maritime law relating to the prevention of smuggling and trafficking and European Union legislation also make specific reference to the obligation of states to respect the principle of non-refoulement, including during activities on the high seas.

34.
34.

The application of international human rights norms on the high seas, including the principle of non- refoulement, requires states to exercise their jurisdictional authority over the intercepted vessels and persons in a manner that is consistent with such norms.

It ought to emphasised that this requirement is not only limited to the prohibition of direct or indirect refoulement, but also to the broader spectrum of rights.
Was excessive force resorted to by the states' naval officers during the interception measures?

May the return to 32 See UNHCR amicus curiae in Hirsi at: www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b97778d2.html, paragraph 4.2.

33 The prohibition is enshrined in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, Article 7 ICCPR and Article 3(1) CAT.
At the regional level it may be found in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2(3) of the Organisation for African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969, and in Article 22(8) of the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights.
For an extensive analysis of the principle under the 1951 Refugee Convention, the ICCPR, the European Convention on Human Rights and CAR, see Wouters K., International Legal Standards for the Protection from Refoulement, 2009, Intersentia.
34 This is the viewpoint adopted by the United State Supreme Court in Sale, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalisation Service, et al., Petitioners v Haitian Centres Council, Inc., et al, 21 June 1993, 509 US 155, and subsequently followed in a number of cases in Australia and in Britain.
Also, in 2005 the German Federal Ministry of the Interior stated that “state practice and predominant legal opinion are that the principle of non-refoulement in the Geneva Refugee Convention does not apply on the high seas to persons alleging persecution, since the high seas are extraterritorial”, referred to in Fisher-Lescano A., Lohr T. and TohidipurT., Border Controls at Sea: Requirements under International Human Rights and Refugee Law, International Journal of Refugee Law, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp.
256-295, at p. 265.

35 26 January 2007, at www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/45f17a1a4.html.

36 Paragraph 24.

37 Paragraph 29.
A similar argument, yet with reference to the broader extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights, was made by the Court in the fourth inter-state case involving Cyprus and Turkey, where the Court stated that a conclusion not recognising such an extraterritorial application of human rights norms “would result in a regrettable vacuum in the system of human rights protection in the territory in question by removing from individuals there the benefit of the Convention's fundamental safeguards and their right to call a High Contracting Party to account for violation of their rights in proceedings before the Court”, at paragraph 78.
38 Reference is made to various Executive Committee Conclusions, the Court cases referred to above, the Human Rights Committee, the International Court of Justice and the Committee against Torture.

12 Doc.

12628 the country of departure be described as a collective expulsion as defined under Protocol No.

4 to the European Convention on Human Rights?39 Could the intercepted persons challenge the decision to return them to the country of departure?40 35.
As concluded in the context of interception measures conducted within territorial waters, either by the intercepting state or by another state, ad hoc evaluations of the interception activities would be subsequently required in order to assess whether, in specific situations, the human rights of the intercepted persons were in fact violated and whether such a violation, or violations, could be attributed to the actions of the intercepting state.

3.2.

Disembarkation at a "place of safety" 36.
UNCLOS's contribution to the present discussion on maritime interception also includes its codification of the duty of all seafarers to render assistance to persons found to be in distress at sea.41 Together with this duty, UNCLOS further provides that all coastal states should establish and maintain adequate and effective search and rescue regimes.42 These duties are extensively complemented by two other major international instruments, namely the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and the 1979 International Convention on Search and Rescue (SAR), with the latter convention providing the mechanisms and rules implementing the duty of states to rescue persons in distress at sea, irrespective of nationality, status or circumstances.43 The SAR regime is essentially based on the principle of state co-operation within the context of an international maritime search and rescue plan that is targeted to meeting the rescue needs of persons in distress at sea.
It is on the basis of this convention that the world's seas are divided into “area(s) of defined dimensions within which search and rescue services are provided”,44 commonly known as SAR zones.

37.
37.

Through the establishment of SAR zones, Rescue Co-ordination Centres (RCC) as the state units responsible for the organisation and co-ordination of search and rescue operations within these zones and defining the nature of SAR obligations, the convention also establishes the principle on the basis of which a state's SAR responsibilities are triggered.
Whilst it is the duty of every seafarer, including state vessels, to assist and rescue any person in distress at sea, it is the location of the rescue operation that determines which RCC – and therefore which state – is responsible for overall co-ordination of the rescue operation as required by SAR.

Rescue operations required and conducted in a particular state's SAR zone are the SAR responsibility of that state.
This principle and also the precise nature of a state's obligations under the convention are at the heart of an important discussion having a strong bearing on the situation of persons aboard rescued or intercepted boats.

38.
38.

Following a number of maritime incidents that seemed to threaten the integrity of the tradition and obligation of seamen to provide assistance at sea, a process for the amendment of the SAR and SOLAS Conventions, amongst others, was initiated in 2001.45 The International Maritime Organisation (IMO)46 stressed the need to identify gaps and inconsistencies with a view to improving the search and rescue regime.

39.
39.

The amendments adopted in 2004 came into force in July 2006, essentially clarifying that a state's SAR obligations include the responsibility to co-ordinate all search and rescue operations within its SAR zone and to ensure that all rescued persons are disembarked at a place of safety within a reasonable time.47 39 Protocol No.

4 to the European Convention on Human Rights, securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol thereto, 1963.
Article 4 states that “collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited”.

40 In the application to the Court brought by the first group of persons pushed back to Libya by Italy in 2009 (Hirsi et al.

v. Italy, Application No.

27765/09), the applicants are in fact alleging violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and of Article 4 of Protocol No.

4.
4.

41 Although it is acknowledged that interception at sea and search and rescue operations are distinct issues, rescue operations may in some situations fall under the definition of "interception".

42 Article 98.

43 Chapter 2, 2.1.10.

44 Annex, Chapter 1, 1.3.1.

45 See IMO Assembly, Resolution A.920(22), Review of Safety Measures and Procedures for the Treatment of Persons Rescued at Sea, 29 November 2001, www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D24573/A920(22).pdf.
46 IMO also expressed the need to ensure that rescuing vessels can disembark rescued persons at a place of safety.

47 IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC), Resolution MSC.155(78), Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979, as amended, 20 May 2004, www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=6879/155(78).pdf.
The amendments to SOLAS were included in Resolution MSC.153(78), Adoption of Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, 20 May 2004, www.mardep.gov.hk/en/msnote/pdf/msin0656anx1.pdf.

For a straightforward overview of the conventions' 13 Doc.
12628 Together with these amendments, the IMO also adopted the Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons rescued at Sea,48 intended to provide an explanation to the competent state authorities of their international law obligations in a search and rescue context.49 40.

Some of the guidelines are directly relevant to the interception at sea of refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants.
Yet the guidelines also seek to clarify the thorny issue of what may or may not be considered a "place of safety" for the purposes of disembarkation of rescued persons.

41.

A traditional approach to the term would be to bear in mind the convention drafters' intentions as a reflection of the pertaining maritime context.

Such an interpretation would define a "place of safety" in relation to the maritime threats and perils giving rise to the very rescue.
Thus the safety would include all ports where the rescued persons are safeguarded from imminent danger to their lives and where they have adequate access to food, shelter, medication, etc.

42.

Yet for a contemporary understanding of the term to be relevant and, more importantly, useful to today's shipmasters it ought to be applicable in the scenarios faced by today's seafarers.
The increased tendency of groups of persons, including asylum seekers and refugees, to embark on dangerous maritime journeys, possibly coupled with an increased understanding and awareness of the level of human rights protection in particular regions and countries, requires an interpretation of "safety" that goes beyond a mere protection from physical danger, but also considers the human rights perspective of the proposed disembarkation location.
In fact, it would seem incongruous to accept a definition of "place of safety" that permits the disembarkation or persons by a rescuing ship, and under the co-ordination of an RCC state, at a port of a state where the fundamental human rights of the rescued persons could be at risk.

Such disembarkation could be tantamount to refoulement.

43.
43.

The Guidelines embrace this interpretation of a "place of safety" and state that in situations involving asylum seekers and refugees rescued at sea, disembarkation in territories where their lives and freedoms would be threatened should be avoided.50 In the list of international law references and principles set out in the Guidelines, specific reference is made to the principle of non-refoulement as codified in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.51 44.
This interpretation was reiterated by the IMO Facilitation Committee in January 2009, when it issued a set of principles to states to consider with a view to harmonising their disembarkation procedures.52 The Principles relating to Administrative Procedures for Disembarking Persons Rescued at Sea53 invite states to incorporate a number of priorities into their disembarkation administrative procedures.
Importantly, the IMO indicated that states should not require shipmasters to conduct any procedures secondary to immediate assistance, saving procurement of basic identification information, aboard the rescuing vessel.

States should ensure that asylum seekers are guaranteed utmost security and confidentiality of their identity, and that following disembarkation they are referred to the competent asylum authorities for their asylum applications to be processed.
Finally, states are urged to ensure respect for the international protection principles enshrined in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) throughout disembarkation procedures.

45.
45.

Beyond operational necessity, the relevance of establishing a comprehensive definition of "place of safety" that is recognised and implemented by states is evident in the context of evaluating whether the disembarkation of rescued or intercepted persons in a specific third country, such as for example Libya, Senegal and Mauritania, is deemed to be in conformity with a state's obligations under international human rights law.
In the above analysis on the applicability of international rights norms on the high seas, particularly regarding the extraterritorial application of the non-refoulement principle, the conclusion was reached that once a state exercises jurisdiction over persons or vessels, it is required to ensure the protection of their fundamental human rights.
This requirement entails protection from non-refoulement in the present content, see the leaflet prepared by IMO in conjunction with UNHCR, Rescue at sea: A guide to principles and practice as applied to migrants and refugees, www5.imo.org/SharePoint/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1437.

48 IMO MSC, Resolution MSC.167(78), Guidelines on the Treatment of Persons rescued at Sea, 20 May 2004, www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D15540/167%2878%29.pdf.
49 The Guidelines invite states, RCCs and shipmasters to establish their own procedures reflecting the Guidelines' content, the purpose of which is “to provide guidance ... with regard to humanitarian obligations and obligations under the relevant international law relating to treatment of persons rescued at sea”, Annex, paragraph 1.1.

50 Annex, paragraph 6.17.

51 Appendix, paragraphs 7 and 8.

52 It is of course relevant that the IMO felt the need to issue such principles following the Guidelines.
53 IMO Facilitation Committee, FAL.3/Circ.194, 22 January 2009, www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D24818/194.pdf.

14 Doc.
14 Doc.

12628 sense of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, the European Convention on Human Rights, the ICCPR and CAT.54 The evaluation as to whether an intended place of disembarkation is a safe one would therefore entail an extensive analysis into its general human rights situation, coupled with a more specific examination of the particular treatment reserved for the intercepted persons.

46.
46.

For example, concerns were raised in relation to Libya in the context of the push-back policy implemented by Italy throughout 2009 and a push-back incident involving Malta in July 2010.55 Concerns included the fact that Libya is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and that it has not established asylum procedure or institutions responsible for asylum and refugee matters.
Emphasis is also placed on the fact that conditions in Libya's detention facilities are particularly harsh and that sub- Saharan Africans are often victims of widespread discrimination and racial violence.56 With the expulsion of UNHCR in mid-2010, it seems that the situation for asylum seekers and for the refugees previously recognised under UNHCR's mandate has been exacerbated.57 Indeed, with the situation in Libya deteriorating following the civil war that broke out in February 2011, refugees and asylum seekers have found themselves in acute danger, prompting UNHCR to appeal to the international community for their urgent resettlement.
47.

A similar analysis is required in relation to the Frontex joint operations hosted by Spain and conducted off the West African coast.

According to Frontex statistics,58 5 969 persons were diverted back to the closest shore (Senegal or Mauritania) during the Joint Operation HERA 2008, yet the fate of the diverted persons remains unclear, particularly in terms of whether their human rights were protected by the Spanish, Senegalese or Mauritanian authorities.
Since the interception modalities remain unclear, it is not possible to ascertain the precise manner in which boats were actually diverted from their original route and returned to the closest shore.59 No information has been provided as to whether intercepted and diverted asylum seekers were given the opportunity to present their asylum claims and, generally, what treatment was reserved for the diverted persons.
Despite Frontex's assertions that “a Mauritanian or Senegalese law enforcement officer is always present on board of deployed member states' assets and is always responsible for the diversion”, the above analysis emphasised that Spain remains responsible to act according to its international human rights obligations.
Furthermore, it is also interesting to note that since Frontex refers to the assets of member states participating in the joint operation, it is therefore not only Spain that is bound to adhere to its human rights responsibilities, but all the member states involved in Operation HERA 2008.60 48.
As outlined below, recent European Union efforts at harmonising search and rescue practices through the adoption of appropriate guidelines have also incorporated a definition of "place of safety" that takes into account the principle of non-refoulement, including to the extent that rescued persons should be given the opportunity to express their fear of being returned to the intended point of disembarkation.
54 This was also noted by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) in its annual report for 2008-2009, paragraph 93-95, at www.cpt.coe.int/en/annual/rep-19.pdf.

55 Whilst the Malta incident was the result of a rescue mission, the Italian push-backs occurring in the summer of 2009 were either the result of rescue operations or of interception activities.

For details of the incidents, see Tondini M., Fishers of Men?
The Interception of Migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and Their Forced Return to Libya, October 2010, INEX Paper, available at www.inexproject.eu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=51&&Itemid=72 and The Sunday Times, "Right back where they left", 25 July 2010, at www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/ 20100725/local/right-back-where-they-left.

56 See, for example, UNHCR's submission to the Hirsi case, March 2010, pp.
4-8, at www.unhcr.org/refworld/ docid/4b97778d2.html; CPT, Report to the Italian Government on the visit to Italy carried out by the CPT from 27 to 31 July 2009, April 2010, Chapter II(C); Human Rights Watch, Pushed Back, Pushed Around: Italy's Forced Return of Boat Migrants and Asylum Seekers, Libya's Mistreatment of Migrants and Asylum Seekers, 21 September 2009, at www.hrw.org/en/node/85582/section/1 and Jesuit Refugee Service Malta, Do they know?
Asylum-seekers testify to life in Libya, December 2009, at www.jrsmalta.org/Do%20They%20Know.pdf.

57 "UNHCR says ordered to close office in Libya", UNHCR, 8 June 2010, at www.unhcr.org/4c0e79059.html.

58 HERA 2008 and NAUTILUS 2008 Statistics, 17 February 2009, at www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/ art40.html.
59 While the bilateral agreements between Spain and Senegal, and Spain and Mauritania are available, memoranda of understanding detailing the operational elements of the border patrols are not in the public domain.

Frontex explained that intercepted persons “have either been convinced to turn back to safety or have been escorted back”, ibid.
60 This point may raise complex international law issues since the legal basis for member states other than Spain to patrol Senegalese or Mauritanian territorial waters is unclear.

In the absence of such a legal basis, the legitimacy of such activities is questionable.

See Trevisanut S., Maritime Border Control and the Protection of Asylum-Seekers in the European Union, Touro International Law Review, Vol.

12, 2009, pp.

158-161.

15 Doc.

12628 3.3.

Establishing disembarkation responsibility 49.


With the amendments to the SAR and SOLAS Conventions, it was hoped that clarity could be brought to complex situations and that states would have the tools to harmonise their practices.

Yet an indirect and definitely unintended consequence of the amendments was the creation of further disagreement, especially between Italy and Malta.

Malta argued that it was not in its interests to accept the 2004 amendments and in fact refused them.
The Maltese authorities argued that the amendments required the state responsible for the SAR zone within which persons are rescued to be also responsible for providing the safe disembarkation place.
Malta's concern was that it would be obliged to assume responsibility for every person rescued within its SAR zone.61 This is primarily due to the fact that Malta's SAR zone is extremely large, ranging from close to Tunisia to Greece and covering an area of about 250 000 square kilometres.62 Malta's decision not to adopt the 2004 amendments has led to a situation whereby Malta remains bound by the SAR and SOLAS Conventions prior to the amendments and Italy, accepting the amendments, is bound by the new versions.
50.

In substantive terms, this means that whereas Malta is bound to ensure the disembarkation of persons rescued within its SAR zone at the nearest safe port, Italy's understanding of disembarkation in the SAR regime is that this ought to occur in the state responsible for the SAR zone.

The potential for conflict is clear, particularly in those cases where persons are rescued within Malta's SAR zone, but geographically closer to Lampedusa.
This kind of disagreement was the basis for the diplomatic stand-off between Italy and Malta in April 2009, following the rescue of over 140 persons by the Turkish cargo ship Pinar E about 41 nautical miles off Lampedusa and about 114 nautical miles from Malta.

Whilst Malta insisted the rescued persons be taken to the nearest port, an Italian port, Italy urged Malta to take responsibility for the persons in fulfilment of its SAR obligations.

51.
After four days, Italy authorised the ship to enter Italian waters and to disembark the rescued persons.63 The death of a pregnant woman aboard the ship, the rapid deterioration in the persons' physical and psychological conditions due to lack of sufficient water and food, increased security risks due to overcrowding and an alleged financial loss of over US$350 000, emphasise the urgent need for states to more effectively co-ordinate their search and rescue efforts and prioritise the respect for human life in all their activities at sea.64 52.
These divergent approaches to the interpretation of states' SAR obligations were not limited to Italy and Malta, but also included other European Union member states to the extent that the organisation of Frontex joint operations had become problematic.65 In response to this situation, in April 2010 the European Union adopted the "Frontex Guidelines" with a view to “provide for better co-ordination among the member states participating in the operations with regard to such situations and to facilitate the conduct of such 61 See the letter sent by the Maltese Permanent Representative to the European Union to the Chairperson of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 2 July 2007, at www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes/libe/libe_20070703_0900_hearing.htm.
For a detailed analysis see Aalberts T.E.

and Gammeltoft-Hansen T., Sovereignty at Sea: The law and politics of saving lives in the Mare Liberum, DIIS Working Paper, 2010, at www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2010/WP201018_sovereingty_at_sea_mare_liberum_web.pdf.

62 It ought to be reiterated that the disembarkation of an asylum seeker onto a state's territory has long-term implications in terms of access to asylum procedures, reception modalities and durable solutions.
63 See The Sunday Times of Malta, "Pregnant woman's funeral on stranded cargo vessel: Italy, Malta refuse to give ground", 19 April 2009, at www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090419/local/pregnant-womans-funeral-on-stranded- cargo-vessel; La Repubblica, "Pina, le lacrime del comandante 'Non sono riuscito a salvare quella ragazza'" [Pinar, the master's tears “I was not able to save that girl”], 21 April 2009, at www.repubblica.it/2009/04/sezioni/cronaca/immigrati- 5/reportage-21apr/reportage-21apr.html.
64 Just a week after this incident, Italy and Malta were involved in a similar situation ending with the disembarkation of the rescued persons in Malta.

See The Times of Malta, "Migrants rescued close to Lampedusa brought to Malta: Government keeps mum", 1 May 2009, at www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090501/local/migrants-rescued-close- to-lampedusa-brought-to-malta.
In retrospect, it is possible to argue that these two incidents heightened tensions between Italy and Malta, escalating to the decision by Italy to commence the implementation of the push-back policy in May 2009.
65 "Go ahead for Nautilus 2008", Frontex, 7 May 2008, at www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/art36.html and The Times of Malta, "Germany to accept migrant survivors, 29 June 2007, at www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/ index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=1844&MMN_position=92:90.
See also the position announced on 3 September 2010 by the Dutch Government, wherein the Dutch Minister of Justice stated, summarily, that Dutch vessels are not Dutch territory and asylum requests made aboard Dutch vessels should be assessed by the state hosting the Frontex operation (reported on http://migrantsatsea.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/dutch- govt-position-on-asylum-requests-made-at-sea/).

16 Doc.
12628 operations”.66 In substantive terms, the Guidelines reiterate the principle of non-refoulement, particularly in relation to disembarkation responsibilities, and underline the duty to inform rescued persons of the intended place of disembarkation so as to give them the opportunity to express their possible fear of being returned to such place.67 The Guidelines are controversial since they include a provision stating that when disembarkation at the country of departure is not possible, this should happen in the member states hosting the Frontex Operation.68 The future of the Guidelines remains uncertain since they are currently being challenged before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), yet they remain valid pending the outcome of the case.69 53.
A further unresolved aspect of the SAR regime that raises serious human rights concerns relates to situations where the state responsible for the SAR zone is unresponsive to distress calls and fails to fulfil its obligation to co-ordinate search and rescue operations.
Within the European context, such incidents have been seen in the central Mediterranean region where persons rescued within Libya's SAR zone were denied access to Maltese territorial waters on the basis that Libya was the state responsible for the SAR zone.
The incident of the Francisco y Catalina in July 2006 is a clear example of the impact of such a scenario on the lives of the rescued, and rescuing, persons.70 In fact, it seems that it is on the basis of the solution brokered by UNHCR during this incident that the southern European states included in their above-mentioned Paper the proposal to establish a responsibility-sharing scheme for persons rescued outside the SAR zone of a European Union member state.71 3.4.

Combating trafficking and smuggling 54.
Two other international maritime instruments requiring inclusion in this discussion are the so-called "Palermo Protocols".72 As protocols to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000), the two protocols embody international efforts to combat the crimes of smuggling and trafficking by providing a detailed definition of the two terms and establishing an international co-operative framework aimed at criminalising and preventing activities falling with the definitions' purview.73 55.
The Protocols require states parties to strengthen border controls in order to detect and prevent smuggling and trafficking.74 In order to effectively fulfil these obligations, states are authorised to deny entry to persons implicated in these offences,75 to suppress the use of the vessels used for such purposes and also to board and search them.76 Thus the protocols grant states far-reaching authority over vessels with regard to which there are reasonable grounds to believe they are being used for the purposes of smuggling or trafficking of persons.
Since, as noted above, the sea crossings made by migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are in the vast majority of cases made in an irregular manner through smuggling or trafficking networks, southern European states have the right to intercept such vessels in the interests of combating crime.

Yet the protocols do not grant states the right to exercise this de jure jurisdiction in an absolute manner.

56.
Together with a number of provisions obliging states to ensure the protection and humane treatment of smuggled and trafficked persons,77 both protocols include important saving clauses that effectively 66 Council Decision of 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the sea external borders in the context of operational co-operation co-ordinated by the European Agency for the Management of Operation Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, Preamble, paragraph 9.
The Guidelines, in their entirety, are to form part of the operational plan drawn up for each Frontex co-ordinated project.

67 Part I, Guideline 1.2.

68 Part II, Guideline 2.1.

69 European Parliament v. Council of the European Union, Case C-355/10.

70 Having rescued 51 persons within Libya's SAR zone, the Spanish fishing trawler was prevented from entering Maltese waters.
See the UNHCR press release "Malta: Spanish trawler waits offshore, UNHCR calls for EU burden-sharing", 18 July 2006, at www.unhcr.org/44bcbaec16.html.

71 See the Paper referred to above in footnote 10, pp.

3-4.

72 List of States Parties the Trafficking Protocol at www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/countrylist- traffickingprotocol.html, and for the Smuggling Protocol see http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY &mtdsg_no=XVIII-12-b&chapter=18&lang=en.
73 For definitions of the two terms, see above at footnote 8.

Article 2 of each protocol states their purposes, essentially the prevention and combating of the two crimes, the protection of victims' rights and the promotion of state co-operation towards these ends.

74 Article 11(1) in both protocols.

75 Trafficking Protocol, Article 11(5).

76 Smuggling Protocol, Articles 8(1) and 8(7) respectively.
77 For example Article 9(1)(a) of the Smuggling Protocol obliges states to ensure the persons' protection and safety and Article 14, on training and technical co-operation, requires states to include “the humane treatment of migrants and the protection of their rights” in all training provided to personnel involved in combating smuggling.

Under Article 16 states to 17 Doc.


12628 incorporate the duty to respect the fundamental principle of non-refoulement in all measures adopted by states under the protocols.
Article 14(1)78 of the Trafficking Protocol states that: “Nothing in this Protocol shall affect the rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law and, in particular, where applicable, the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and the principle of non-refoulement as contained therein.” 57.
The effective impact of these saving clauses is that the fact that a vessel is flagless and engaging in smuggling or trafficking does not permit states to rely on the protocols in justification of interception measures that result in a breach of the principle of non-refoulement or of any other fundamental human right.79 Together with the conclusions reached above regarding the extraterritorial application of international human rights obligations and of the principle of non-refoulement, the Palermo Protocols' saving clauses strengthen the view that interception at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants must be conducted with a full adherence to international human rights standards.
3.5.

The European Union 58.

At a regional level, the principle of non-refoulement is also enshrined in one of the European Union's main instruments relating to maritime law.
A necessary corollary of the creation of an area without internal borders in order to ensure the free movement of persons was the need for the European Union to ensure a common policy on its external borders.80 Towards achieving these aims, the "Schengen Borders Code"81 was adopted as the main instrument through which member states would, on a common basis, take all necessary measures to manage the European Union's internal and external borders.
Under the Code's Chapter II, member states are required to control external borders through, inter alia, checks of persons attempting to enter their territory and border surveillance activities, with Article 13 stipulating that third- country nationals who do not fulfil the established entry requirements are to be denied entry to European Union territory.
This statement is nonetheless expressly qualified in the same article, providing that this obligation to refuse entry to third-country nationals not fulfilling entry requirements “shall be without prejudice to the application of special provisions concerning the right of asylum and to international protection”.

82 It should also be further reiterated that the right to seek asylum is included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.83 59.
The Schengen Borders Code is complemented by a handbook, intended for use by the national authorities involved in border controls and to be included in the member states' border management training programmes.84 The relevance of the Schengen Handbook to the present analysis is its clarification of the principles and procedures to be followed by border officials in a number of scenarios, essentially:85 – – – All persons wishing to seek international protection must be given the opportunity to do so; Persons are considered applicants for international protection when fear of serious harm is expressed in relation to return to his/her country of origin or former habitual residence; No particular form is required for this expression of fear as long as the key component – fear – is expressed; are obliged to ensure that migrants are afforded appropriate protection against violence, in particular protection of their right to life and the right not to be subject to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Furthermore, the special needs of women and children are to be given special attention.

78 Replicated in Article 19(1) of the Smuggling Protocol.

79 See Gallagher A., Human Rights and the New UN Protocols on Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling: A Preliminary Analysis, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol.

23, No.

4 (November 2001), pp.

975-1004.


80 See, in particular, European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Towards integrated management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union, COM(2002) 233 final, 7 May 2002, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!Doc Number&lg=en&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2002&nu_doc=233.
81 Regulation (EC) no 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), at http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l1451 4_en.htm.

82 Article 13(1).
82 Article 13(1).

This principle is also included in the Code's Preamble (paragraph 20), stating that the Code “should be applied in accordance with the Member States' obligations as regards international protection and non-refoulement”.

83 Article 18.

See www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/default_en.htm.


84 European Commission, Commission Recommendation establishing a common “Practical Handbook for Border Guards (Schengen Handbook)” to be used by Member States' competent authorities when carrying out the border control of persons, C(2006) 5186 final, 2006, at www.statewatch.org/news/2006/dec/com-schengen-handbook-06.pdf.

85 See Section 10, Asylum-seekers/applicants for international protection.

18 Doc.
18 Doc.

12628 – – In case of doubt, the decision as to whether a person is attempting to request international protection shall not be taken by the border official alone, but the official is obliged to consult the national authorities responsible for such applications; A number of procedural guarantees are clearly stipulated (use of interpreters where necessary, provision of relevant information, etc.).

3.6.

Frontex 60.
3.6.

Frontex 60.

Whilst it is not the aim of this report to provide an evaluation of this European Union agency, attention must nonetheless be given to its present and potential role in the interception at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.

61.

At present, the Joint Operation HERA is the only operation in which intercepted vessels are diverted back to the closest shore.
Diversions were never included in the operational arrangements for the central Mediterranean joint operations, yet it is not sure whether this is due to a policy of the member states hosting or involved in the operations or whether it was due to the lack of support and agreement from the relevant North African states, particularly Libya.
In this regard, although the recent announcement by the European Commission on the finalisation of a Migration Co-operation agenda with Libya does not include any reference to the role of Frontex, particularly in relation to diversions of intercepted vessels, it is yet to be seen what role will be allocated to Frontex and to its joint operations.
This co-operation has however been temporarily suspended in the light of the ongoing events in Libya, with the European Union institutions acknowledging the need to re-evaluate their asylum policy in relation to their relations with third countries deemed to be "unsafe".86 62.

The above comments on HERA 2008 emphasised Spain's obligation to ensure that its interception measures are conducted in a manner that is in conformity with its international human rights obligations.
This was also reiterated in relation to the other member states participating in the operation.

Yet in this regard Frontex's responsibility and accountability remain elusive.
In joint operations, Frontex co-ordinates member states' efforts and resources and provides technical expertise so as to maximise the operation's efficiency and success,87 whilst the participating member states decide on the operational aspects including rules on disembarkation, the assumption of responsibility over rescued persons and also diversions.
As an Agency of the European Union, Frontex is obliged to act in a manner that is consistent with the Union's stated fundamental values, as contained in the founding Treaties and widely reiterated in the European Union acquis.

The nature, extent or import of Frontex's decision-making power or operational authority does not minimise or rule out these obligations to respect fundamental human rights in its own actions and to ensure their adherence in all the activities it co-ordinates and facilitates.
This understanding is also confirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 51).

63.
63.

Possibly in response to such concerns, the Commission's proposal to amend the Frontex Regulation, presented in February 2010, includes a number of provisions aimed at “strengthening the safeguards to guarantee full respect of fundamental rights.”88 It is proposed that all Frontex activities shall be conducted in accordance with fundamental rights and international protection obligations.89 This is a general statement that reaffirms the above conclusions without adding any substantive element.
It is nonetheless a welcome inclusion, the strength of which will only be evidenced in its application.
The same may be said of the proposal to include in the evaluation of Frontex's activities, performed every five years, an assessment of the extent to which the Charter of Fundamental Rights was respected.90 In spite of these affirmations, the proposal does not indicate what measures are to be taken to ensure compliance with these rules.91 In terms 86 Malta Today, "Gaddafi’s illegitimacy forces EU into asylum policy rethink, MEP says", 24 March 2011, www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/gaddafis-illegitimacy-forces-eu-into-asylum-policy-rethink-mep-says.
See also the Press Release of the European Parliament of 16 March 2011, "Flight from north African unrest: a long-term solution needed", www.europarl.europa.eu/en/pressroom/content/20110314IPR15475/html/Flight-from-north-African-unrest-a- long-term-solution-needed.

87 This is clearly specified in the Agency's establishing Regulation (Article 1), where it is also reiterated that the control and surveillance of the external borders is an obligation of the member states.
88 Comments made by the European Union Home Affairs Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, during the announcement of the proposals, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/184&type=HTML&aged=0&language=.

The Commission proposal: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0061:FIN:EN:PDF.

89 Amendment of Article 1.

90 New paragraph in Article 33.


91 This is one of the points raised by Amnesty International and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) in their comments to the proposal.

See Amnesty International and ECRE, Briefing on the Commission proposal for a Regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of 19 Doc.
12628 of training, the European Commission proposes that all Frontex staff and member state border guards and other personnel concerned shall receive training in fundamental rights and access to international protection.92 It is worth noting in this context that on 31 March 2011, Frontex’s Management Board endorsed the Agency’s Fundamental Rights Strategy.93 64.
The proposal also gives Frontex a greater role in the design and conduct of joint operations by requiring that the project's operational plan be drawn up by Frontex's Executive Director and agreed upon jointly by the Executive Director and the host member state.
According to the proposal, this operational plan should cover elements such as the project's modus operandi, its duration, geographical area of coverage and, specifically for sea operations, “specific requirements regarding the applicable jurisdiction and maritime law provisions concerning the geographical area where the joint operation takes place”.94 It is opportune to reiterate that the Frontex Guidelines discussed above form part of this operational plan, thereby incorporating the broader definition of "place of safety".95 65.
Following a formal request for assistance by the Italian Ministry of the Interior received by Frontex on 15 February 2011 regarding the extraordinary migratory situation in Lampedusa, Joint Operation HERMES 2011 started in February 2011 with the deployment of additional aerial and maritime assets from Italy and Malta.
According to an official communication by Frontex “The Italian Government requested assistance in strengthening the surveillance of the European Union’s external borders in the form of a Joint Operation.
Additionally, Italy requested a targeted risk analysis on the possible future scenarios of the increased migratory pressure in the region in the light of recent political developments in North Africa and the possibility of the opening up of a further migratory front in the Central Mediterranean area”.96 66.
In the context of this operation, European Commissioner Cecilia Malmström clearly stated that the Frontex mission would be governed by European legislation and that the interdiction and push-back of migrants encountered at sea was not permitted.97 This Commission statement has the potential of having serious repercussions on the development of not only the European Union’s asylum policy but also particularly on the relations of European Union member states with third countries that are unwilling or unable to guarantee the adequate respect and protection of the rights of migrants and asylum seekers.
Specifically, the application of this statement to the above-mentioned Spanish and Italian maritime activities is yet to be established.

It ought to be noted, however, that despite this statement, on 14 March 2011, the Italian authorities denied entry to about 1 800 persons aboard the ship Mistral Express.

The vessel eventually made its way to Morocco.98 4.

Recommendations 67.
Recommendations 67.

The above analysis provides a summary of the main relevant parameters within which states may and should operate when implementing interception measures at sea.

Obligations emerging from various international and regional maritime law instruments were highlighted and aligned with or against responsibilities imposed by international law, including international human rights and refugee law.
This analysis was presented against the backdrop of mixed flows of persons leaving African shores and attempting to reach and access European territory.

68.

It is necessary at this stage to draw a number of conclusions from the above observations and extract a set of recommendations.

These are primarily addressed to states, but also indirectly to relevant international and regional institutions and other actors.
Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), September 2010, p. 14.

92 New paragraph 1(a) in Article 2 and the replacement of the first paragraph in Article 5.

93 See www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/art105.html.

94 New paragraphs in Article 3.
95 For a critical analysis of the proposal, see the briefing presented by Amnesty International and ECRE at footnote 91, and also UNHCR, UNHCR's observations on the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), COM(2010)61 final, October 2010, at www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4cb881a02.html.
96 www.frontex.europa.eu/newsroom/news_releases/art95.html.

97http://migrantsatsea.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/frontex-operation-hermes-to-begin-on-sunday-20-feb- %e2%80%93push-back operation-hermes-to-begin-on-sunday-20-feb-e2%80%93 push-back-practice-prohibited/ 98 Il Messaggero, "Viminale ferma nave con 1.800 migranti.

PD all’attacco.

Barroso: contate sulla Ue", 14 March 2011.

See also, "Ferry with 1800 Evacuees from Libya, Blocked from Landing in Italy, Sails to Morocco", 20 March 2011.
-practice-prohibited/.http://migrantsatsea.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/frontex- 20 Doc.

12628 68.1.

States should ensure that their border management policies and activities, including interception measures, recognise the mixed composition of the flows of persons attempting to cross their maritime borders and ensure that all persons affected by these policies and activities are not deprived of their fundamental human rights.
Interception measures must include clear guidelines on the identification and referral of persons who may need international protection, and on other measures potentially affecting rights, such as deprivation of liberty, restriction on freedom of movement, etc.

68.2.
68.2.

In all instances where states exercise their de jure or de facto jurisdiction over intercepted persons and vessels, they must adhere to their obligations under international law, including international human rights and refugee law, including protection from refoulement, whether the interception measures occur within their own territorial waters, in those of another state on the basis of an ad hoc bilateral agreement, or on the high seas.
Standardised procedures must be developed to guarantee respect for fundamental rights and include a system of prompt, automatic, impartial and independent oversight of operations.

68.3. International agreements upon which interception operations are based must be publicly available and subject to democratic scrutiny.

They must also be subject to independent supervision of their application.

68.4. regarding nationality, age, personal circumstances and reasons for passage of those intercepted.
All states or agencies involved or co-ordinating interception operations must keep records 68.5. immediately refrain from such practices where these result in direct or indirect refoulement.

All states currently intercepting migrants, asylum seekers and refugees at sea should 68.6.

Disagreements over the responsibility for rescued persons endanger the lives, security and livelihood of the rescued and rescuing persons, and could discourage seafarers from rescuing persons in distress at sea.
The prompt disembarkation of rescued persons at a place of safety should be a priority of all search and rescue regimes.

Border operations at sea should contain clear guidance concerning the place of disembarkation.

68.7.
68.7.

Disembarkation of rescued persons should be made at a place that provides for their protection and assistance through national referral mechanisms or equivalent, including to asylum procedures, and for the assessment of immediate needs and that does not present a risk to their fundamental human rights.

Persons in need of international protection should be granted access to a fair and effective asylum procedure where their claims can be properly determined.
In the conduct of border surveillance activities, whether in the context of prevention of 68.8. smuggling or trafficking or of border management, all intercepted persons must be treated humanely and their human rights must be respected at all times, including the principle of non-refoulement.

68.9.

The arrival by sea of mixed flows of persons – directly, following a search and rescue operation or in the context of border management activities – presents serious challenges to coastal states.
The international community should provide assistance to these states in a spirit of solidarity and responsibility-sharing.

68.10.

States should, within the context of the International Maritime Organisation, make concerted efforts to ensure a consistent and harmonised approach to international maritime law through, inter alia, agreement on the definition and content of the key terms and norms.
68.11 An Inter-agency group should be established with the aim of setting clear policy priorities, providing guidance to states and other relevant actors and monitoring and evaluating the use of maritime interception measures.

The group should include the International Maritime Organisation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration, the Council of Europe, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office.
21 Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe Mr Joseph FENECH ADAMI (EPP) Malta In view of its geographical position in the cen tral Mediterranean Malta has seen its fair share of irregular migrants reaching its shores, often after being rescued at sea.

Such an influx of migrants, which became significant as f rom 2002, is typica lly made up of genuine asylum seekers, mainly from the Horn of Africa, and economic migrants who choose to make their way into Europe irregularly.
The overwhelming majority of irregular migrants arriving in Malta apply for international protection.

More than half of these applicants ar e recognised as in need of international protection, in consideration of their individual cases.

The Maltese authorities have more than ad equately fulfilled their obligations with regards to irregular migrants arriving in Malta, and are willing to continue doing so.
Yet, it must be stated tha t asylum is not onl y about the process leading to t he recognition of international protection, but also, as i mportantly, about the process leading to long-term integration in the host society.
Malta has taken the necessary steps in this field as well, particularly by providing for the rights of beneficiaries of international protection at l aw, in com pliance with its international and EU obligations, as well as through the establishment of the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS), which provides accommodation and integration-oriented services to beneficiaries of international protection.
However, de f acto integration does not only depe nd on gov ernment-driven initiatives, but also on the geo-social re alities of the host State.

In this regard Malta f aces insurmountable limitations, including a small territory of 316 s quare kilometres, a population density f igure of around 1, 300 per s quare kilometre and a sm all labour market prone to saturation.
In view of these circumstances, considerable numbers of beneficiaries of international protection find it di fficult to settle independently and reside at O pen Centres for prolonged periods, with t he result that cr owding at these C entres becomes a m ajor concern.

It should be cle ar that the closur e of specific Open Cent res, as suggested by certain international observers, would pr esent a w hole range of new, and even worse, difficulties.
Following the dramatic increase of arrival of immigrants from Libya, Open Centres in Malta are set to face increasing pressures….

In this s cenario the only way forward for Malta, as well as f or the beneficiaries o f international protection them selves, is the implementation of the burden sharing principle or, as I prefer to call it, the responsibility sharing principle.
My country is grateful to all the State s who have to date assisted in the re settle ment of migrants arriving in M alta in their respective countries.
However it is regrettable that it is only a lim ited number of States who have to date agreed to take part in such re settlement projects and this is particularly regrettable in the present circumstances, when within the European Union discussions are underway to agree on a Comm on European Asylum System, and when a European Asylum Support Office is being inaugurated in Malta.
Within this scenario, the Council of Europe could do m ore by way of promoting the principle of responsibility sharing as a necessary component of a fair and comprehensive asylum system, which does not only cater for the asylum determination process, but also for the long-term integration of beneficiaries of international protection.
In practice, higher reception and other standards for the benefit of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection can only be achie ved if the burde ns are equitably distributed amongst States.

So long as European States exposed to as ylum pressures are not ass isted in a w ay that rea lly addresses their diff iculties, they will invariably trail be hind- to the detrim ent of Europe’s objectives, but above a ll to the detriment of beneficiaries of international protection.
The implementation of the principle of responsibility sharing should therefore be one of the main, if not the main objective of the Council of Europe in the asylum sphere.

The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants.

Mr Joseph FALZON (EPP) Malta Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of the experiences that Malta faces in addressing this phenomenon of irregular migration my sea.
As all of you are surely aware in the central Mediterranean this has now reached unprecedented proportions taxing in no small way the States in the region.

International Law greatly restricts the jurisdiction of coastal states on the high seas, limiting intervention only on crimes attracting universal jurisdiction.
Irregular or illegal migration are not one of these crimes and hence Malta does not practice interception except inwards from the limits of the contiguous zone and when there are clear indications that such national laws will be flouted.

With respect to rescue, Malta has invested heavily in the development of the staff and relevant structures to ensure that Malta is well prepared to coordinate any SAR event in the Malta Search and Rescue Region.
This was through advanced training and modern equipment with excellent results.

So much so that Malta is now training foreign SAR personnel in Malta, presently hailing from more than 20 countries.

As required by international norms, Malta does not make any distinction when providing assistance to persons in distress at sea regardless of the nationality or status of such persons or the circumstances in which those persons are found.
Our aim in all our SAR operations is first and foremost to safeguard life.

Hence, once we become aware of a possible distress case, our actions are targeted to identify the quickest and most efficient manner so that assistance is rendered.

This could be through dedicated national assets, assets belonging to other nations or very often by, what we term, good Samaritans.

The latter could be fishermen, merchant vessels or any other vessel at sea.
Assistance rendered by these vessels would be in line with the overarching obligation on all States to oblige all ships under their flag to render assistance to any persons in distress at sea.

Rescues of irregular migrants are very different from normal SAR operations as the individuals are of all ages and many times in a poor state of health.

Hence, great care is necessary.


In addition, once the persons in distress are rescued, it is vital that in the shortest time possible they are delivered to facilities that can cater for their medical and other needs and to relieve the rescuing asset as quickly as possible from its obligations.

Thus it is logical and practical that the disembarkation of such rescued persons should occur at the geographically closest place of safety to the location of the rescue.
This year the magnitude of the phenomenon of irregular migration is such that the Maltese SAR assets alone have rescued over 1500 persons all of which were disembarked in Malta where they received the necessary medical and humanitarian services.

When considering the size of Malta and the Maltese population one can begin to understand the pressure this poses.
Suffice to say that even though we are still not past the middle of the year, the figure of irregular migrants rescued and disembarked in Malta is close to 40% of the national birth rate!

Doc.

12617 23 May 2011 Lives lost in the Mediterranean sea: who is responsible?
Motion for a resolution presented by Mrs Strik and others This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the members who have signed it More than a thousand people are thought to have perished in the waves of the Mediterranean since January 2011 while trying to reach European soil.

According to the UNHCR, five boats coming from Libya with a total of 2400 persons on board have reached Lampedusa, some having required rescue operations to save human lives.
Another three boats, which are thought to have carried up to 800 people, have gone missing.

On 8 May, the Guardian reported that 61 boat people escaping from Libya had died after their appeals for rescue had been ignored by armed forces operating in the Mediterranean.

The intercepted boat in distress was left drifting for 16 days before the currents brought it back to the Libyan coast.

According to witnesses, back in Libya, the 10 survivors were imprisoned for days, during which one person had succumbed.
Following this tragic incident, the President of the Assembly called for an immediate and comprehensive inquiry into the circumstances of the death of these 61 people.

The Assembly should carry out an enquiry into this particular incident, but also into other cases where better interception and rescue co-ordination could have saved human lives.

No vessel has the right to ignore another in distress on the sea.
Under the circumstances where an increased number of makeshift boats are likely to embark from Libya as the conflict continues, Europe should do everything possible to provide humanitarian aid and prevent the loss of human life at sea, and to offer protection where it is needed.

Signed (see overleaf) F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Doc.
12617 Signed 1: STRIK Tineke, Netherlands, SOC ACKETOFT Tina, Sweden, ALDE AXELSSON Lennart, Sweden, SOC BARBI Mario, Italy, ALDE BEMELMANS-VIDEC Marie-Louise, Netherlands, EPP/CD BRAUN Márton, Hungary, EPP/CD BUGNON André, Switzerland, ALDE CEBEC Erol Aslan, Turkey, EPP/CD von CRAMON-TAUBADEL Viola, Germany, SOC DARCHIASHVILI David, Georgia, EPP/CD DIMITROV Kirtcho, Bulgaria, EPP/CD DUNDEE Alexander, United Kingdom, EDG FENECHIU Relu, Romania, ALDE FLYNN Paul, United Kingdom, SOC FRANKEN Hans, Netherlands, EPP/CD GALATI Giuseppe, Italy, EPP/CD GROTH Annette, Germany, UEL HOOD Jim, United Kingdom, SOC HUSS Jean, Luxembourg, SOC KOX Tiny, Netherlands, UEL Van der MAELEN Dirk, Belgium, SOC MAURY PASQUIER Liliane, Switzerland, SOC NAGHDALYAN Hermine, Armenia, ALDE NYKIEL Mirosława, Poland, EPP/CD OHLSSON Carina, Sweden, SOC PETROV Petar, Bulgaria, EPP/CD POULSEN Jørgen, Denmark, ALDE PRESENIK Jakob, Slovenia, EPP/CD PUPOVAC Milorad, Croatia, SOC RUPPRECHT Marlene, Germany, SOC SANTINI Giacomo, Italy, EPP/CD SPAUTZ Marc, Luxembourg, EPP/CD VERCAMER Stefaan, Belgium, EPP/CD XUCLÀ i COSTA Jordi, Spain, ALDE 1 EPP/CD: Group of the European People’s Party SOC: Socialist Group ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe EDG: European Democratic Group UEL: Group of the Unified European Left NR: not registered in a group 2 issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 064 (2011) 22.06.2011 Grand Chamber Hearing concerning a group of migrants intercepted at sea and sent back to Libya The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber1 hearing today Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 9.15 a.m. in the case of Hirsi and Others v. Italy (Application no.
27765/09) The case concerns a group of Somalian and Eritrean migrants travelling from Libya who were intercepted at sea by the Italian authorities and sent back to Libya.

The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int).

After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which will be held in private.

Its ruling in the case will, however, be made at a later stage.

The applicants are 11 Somalian and 13 Eritrean nationals.
They were part of a group of about 200 people who left Libya in 2009 on board three boats bound for Italy.

Among them were women who were pregnant at the time and children.

On 6 May 2009, when the boats were 35 miles south of Lampedusa (Agrigento), in waters under Maltese jurisdiction for search and rescue purposes, they were intercepted by Italian Customs and Coastguard vessels.

The passengers were transferred to the Italian military vessels and taken to Tripoli.
The applicants say that during the journey the Italian authorities did not tell them where they were being taken, or check their identity.

Once in Tripoli they were handed over to the Libyan authorities.
At a press conference on 7 May 2009 the Italian Minister of the Interior explained that the interception of the vessels on the high seas and the return of the migrants to Libya was in accordance with the bilateral agreements with Libya that entered into force on 4 February 2009, marking a turning point in the fight against illegal immigration.

The applicants consider that their case falls within the jurisdiction of Italy.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), they argue that the decision of the Italian authorities to intercept the vessels on the high seas and send the applicants straight back to Libya exposed them to the risk of ill-treatment there, as well as to the serious threat of being sent back to their countries of origin (Somalia and Eritrea), where they might also face ill-treatment.
They also complain that they were subjected to collective expulsion prohibited by Article 4 of Protocol No.

4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens).

Lastly, relying on Article 13 of the Convention (right to an effective remedy), they complain that they had no effective remedy against the alleged violations of Articles 3 of the Convention and 4 of Protocol No.

4.

Procedure The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 2009.
On 15 February 2011 The Chamber to which the case was assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber2 on 15 February 2011.
1 Under Article 30 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.
” The following have been authorized to intervene as a third party (under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention): - the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, - the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, - the non-governmental organisations Aire Center, Amnesty International, and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), - the non-governmental organisation Human Rights Watch, and - the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic.
Composition of the Court The case will be heard by a Grand Chamber, composed as follows: Jean-Paul Costa (France), President, Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Josep Casadevall (Andorra), Nina Vajić (Croatia), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Peer Lorenzen (Denmark) Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Guido Raimondi (Italy), Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal), Judges, Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Substitute judges, and also Michael O’Boyle, Deputy Registrar.
Representatives of the parties Government Silvia Coppari, Co-Agent, Giuseppe Albenzio, Adviser; Applicants Anton Giulio Lana, Counsel, Andrea Saccucci, Counsel, Alice Sironi, Adviser.

Third party For the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: Madeline Garlick, Head of Policy and Legal Support Unit, Bureau for Europe, Cornelis Wouters, Senior Refugee Law Advisor, Division of International Protection, Samuel Boutruche, legal officer, Policy and Legal Support Unit, Bureau for Europe.
2 Under Article 30 of the European Convention on Human Rights, "Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects".
2 This press release is a document produced by the Registry.

It does not bind the Court.

Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site.

To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court's RSS feeds.
Press contacts echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
3 Doc 12618 20 June 2011 Agenda 3rd part of the 2011 Ordinary Session (20-24 June 2011) adopted by the Assembly on 20 June 2011 F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Monday 20 June 2011 8 a.m. Bureau of the Assembly 9.30 a.m.

Political groups 11.30 a.m. 1.

Opening of the third part of the 2011 Ordinary Session a.

Statement by the President b.

Examination of new credentials (Doc.


12638) c. Election of a Vice-President of the Assembly with respect to Finland d. Changes in the membership of committees (Commissions (2011) 06 + Addendum) e. Request for a current affairs debate on: – "The political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya" Adoption of the agenda f. g. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Kyiv, 27 May 2011) (AS/Per (2011) PV 02) 2.
Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee (Doc.

12642 Part I + Addendum and Part II) Rapporteur: Mr Dariusz Lipiński (Poland, EPP/CD) Observation of the early parliamentary elections in "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (5 June 2011) (Doc.

12643) Rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau: Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto (Monaco, EPP/CD) Debate and [possibly] vote 1 p.m. 2 p.m. End of the sitting Committees 3 p.m. 1.
Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Mr Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers (CM/AS(2011)5) Questions Written questions (Doc.

12641) 4 p.m. 2.a.

Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2012-2013 (Doc.
12622) Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development: Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci (Turkey, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 12 noon 2.b.

Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012-2013 (Doc.

12623) Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development: Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci (Turkey, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 12 noon Joint debate Vote on a draft opinion (Doc.

12622) Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.


12623) 5 p.m. End of the sitting 5.10 p.m.

Political groups 2 Tuesday 21 June 2011 8.30 a.m.

Committees 10 a.m. 1.

Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France (Doc.

12616) (from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.) 2.

Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco (Doc.
12625) Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee: Mr Luca Volontè (Italy, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (for opinion) (Doc.

): Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera (Spain, SOC) Rapporteur of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (for opinion) (Doc.

): Ms Nursuna Memecan (Turkey, ALDE) Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 4 p.m.
Debate and vote on a draft resolution Statements by: – Mr Abdelwahed Radi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco – Mr Mohamed Cheikh Biadillah, Speaker of the House of Counsellors of Morocco 12 noon 3.

Address by Mr Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine Questions 1 p.m. End of the sitting 2 p.m.

Committees 3 p.m. 1.

Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France (Doc.

12616) (continued) (from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.) 2.

The situation in Tunisia (Doc.


12624) Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee: Ms Anne Brasseur (Luxembourg, ALDE) Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 4 p.m.

Debate and votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation 3.a.

Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe (Doc.

12630) Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population: Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 4 p.m. 3.b.
The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants (Doc.

12628) Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population: Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera (Spain, SOC) Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 4 p.m. Joint debate Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

12630) Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

12628) 8 p.m. End of the sitting 3 Wednesday 22 June 2011 8.30 a.m.

Political groups 10 a.m. 1.


[Possibly 2nd round] Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France (Doc.

12616) (from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.) 2.

Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (Doc.

12631) Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee: Mr Latchezar Toshev (Bulgaria, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (for opinion) (Doc.
): Ms Virág Kaufer (Hungary, SOC) Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population (for opinion) (Doc.

): Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera (Spain, SOC) Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (for opinion) (Doc.

): Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego (Croatia, SOC) Rapporteur of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (for opinion) (Doc.

12640): Ms Elvira Kovács (Serbia, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 21 June at 3.30 p.m.
Statement by Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Debate 12 noon 3.

Address by Mr Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia Questions 1 p.m. End of the sitting 2 p.m.

Committees 3 p.m. 1.

Address by Mr Nickolay Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria Questions 4 p.m. 2.

Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly (Doc.

12627) Rapporteur of the Ad hoc Committee of the Assembly: Mr Jean-Claude Mignon (France, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 21 June at 3.30 p.m.
Debate and vote on a draft resolution 3.

Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (Doc.

12631) (continued) Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 21 June at 3.30 p.m.

Debate (continued) and vote on a draft recommendation 8 p.m. End of the sitting 4 Thursday 23 June 2011 8.30 a.m.

Committees 10 a.m. 1.

The state of human rights in Europe 1.a.

1.b.

National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe (Doc.
12636) Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights: Mr Christos Pourgourides (Cyprus, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Wednesday 22 June at 10.30 a.m.

The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe (Doc.

12632) Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee: Ms Carina Ohlsson (Sweden, SOC) Rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (for opinion) (Doc.
): Sir Alan Meale (United Kingdom, SOC) Deadline for tabling amendments: Wednesday 22 June at 10.30 a.m.

Statement by Ms Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Federal Minister of Justice of Germany Statement by Mr Dominic Grieve, Attorney General for England and Wales Joint debate Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

12636) Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

12632) 12.45 p.m. 2.


Award ceremony for the 2011 Human Rights Prize of the Parliamentary Assembly1 1 p.m. 2 p.m. End of the sitting Committees 3 p.m. 1.

Current affairs debate: The political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya Debate 2.

More women in economic and social decision-making bodies (Doc.
12540) Rapporteur of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men: Ms Gisèle Gautier (France, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (for opinion) (Doc.

12637): Ms Hermine Naghdalyan (Armenia, ALDE) Deadline for tabling amendments: Wednesday 22 June at 3.30 p.m.

Debate and votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation 3.

Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 (Doc.
12546) Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee: Mr Miloš Aligrudić (Serbia, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Wednesday 22 June at 3.30 p.m.

Debate and vote on a draft resolution 7.30 p.m. End of the sitting 1 A programme is published separately (AS/Inf (2011) 08).

5 Friday 24 June 2011 8.30 a.m. Bureau of the Assembly 10 a.m. 1.

The progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure (June 2010 – May 2011) (Doc.
12634 + Addendum) Rapporteur of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee): Mr Dick Marty (Switzerland, ALDE) Deadline for tabling amendments: Thursday 23 June at 10.30 a.m.

Debate and vote on a draft resolution 2.a.

Towards a European framework convention on youth rights (Doc.
12629) Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education: Ms Elvira Kovács (Serbia, EPP/CD) Deadline for tabling amendments: Thursday 23 June at 10.30 a.m. 2.b.

Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment (Doc.

12626) Rapporteur of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development: Ms Marija Pejčinović-Burić (Croatia, EPP/CD) Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (for opinion) (Doc.
): Ms Marietta Karamanli (France, SOC) Deadline for tabling amendments: Thursday 23 June at 10.30 a.m. Joint debate Vote on a draft recommendation (Doc.

12629) Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.
12626) 1 p.m. Closure of the third part of the 2011 Ordinary Session 6 20-24 June 2011 Monday 20 • Opening of the session and statement by Assembly President Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu • Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee • Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly, presented by Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers Joint debate: • – Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2012-2013 – Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012-2013 Tuesday 21 Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France • • Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco, and statements by: – Abdelwahed Radi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco – Mohamed Cheikh Biadillah, Speaker of the House of Counsellors of Morocco • Address by Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine • • The situation in Tunisia Joint debate: – Asylum seekers and refugees – sharing responsibilities in Europe – The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Wednesday 22 • Living together in 21st century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe, and statement by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe • Address by Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia • Address by Nickolay Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria • Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly Thursday 23 • Joint debate on the state of human rights in Europe: – National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe – The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe, and statements by: Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Federal Minister of Justice of Germany - - Dominic Grieve, Attorney General for England and Wales • Award ceremony for the 2011 Human Rights Prize of the
 Parliamentary Assembly • Current affairs debate: the political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya • More women in economic and social decision-making bodies • Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 Friday 24 • • The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2010-May 2011) Joint debate: – Towards a European framework convention on youth rights – Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment The 47 The Council of Europe brings together 47 democracies including 22 central and eastern European countries.
Today, the Organisation has almost completed its enlargement but continues its monitoring to ensure that all its members respect the obligations and commitments they entered into when they joined.
Member states: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Assembly The Parliamentary Assembly brings together 636 members (318 representatives and 318 substitutes) from the national parliaments of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
Countries that have joined the Council of Europe since November 1990: Hungary (1990), Poland (1991), Bulgaria (1992), Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Romania (1993), Andorra (1994), Latvia, Albania, Moldova, "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Ukraine (1995), the Russian Federation, Croatia (1996), Georgia (1999), Armenia, Azerbaijan (2001), Bosnia and Herzegovina (2002), Serbia and Montenegro (2003), replaced by Serbia (2006), Monaco (2004), Montenegro (2007).
Applications for membership: Belarus (12 March 1993).

The Special Guest status of the Belarus parliament was suspended on 13 January 1997.

The parliaments of Canada (1997), Israel (1957) and Mexico (1999) hold observer status with the Assembly.
The political groups 203 177 100 97 29 Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD) Socialist Group (SOC) European Democrat Group (EDG) Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group of the Unified European Left (UEL) The Assembly committees 84 seats 27 seats Political Affairs Legal Affairs and Human Rights Economic Affairs and Development Social, Health and Family Affairs Migration, Refugees and Population Culture, Science and Education Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Honouring of obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe (Monitoring) Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs Monday 20 June 2011 Morning (11.30 a.m.-1 p.m.) ♦ Opening of the third part of the 2011 Ordinary Session Parliamentary Assembly President Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu opened the third part of the 2011 Ordinary Session and made an opening statement.
The Assembly examined the credentials of new members notified by national delegations and dealt with changes in the membership of committees.

It also elected Krista Kiuru (Finland, SOC) as a Vice- President of the Assembly with respect to Finland.

Adopting its agenda, the Assembly decided to hold a current affairs debate on “The political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya” on Thursday afternoon.
It also decided to add a debate on “Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16”.

♦ Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee Rapporteur: Dariusz Lipiński (EPP/CD) The progress report covers the discussions held and decisions reached by the Bureau and the Standing Committee since the last part-session.
Jean-Charles Gardetto (Monaco, EPP/CD) presented the conclusions of the Assembly’s observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (5 June 2011).

Monday 20 June 2011 Afternoon (3 p.m.-5 p.m.) ♦ Communication from the Committee of Ministers to the Parliamentary Assembly, presented by Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers Doc.
12641 Following his presentation, Mr Gryshchenko will answer questions from members of the Assembly.

The deadline for tabling written questions is Monday 13 June at 11.30 a.m. ♦ Joint debate: Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2012-2013 Doc.
12622 Report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development Rapporteur: Erol Aslan Cebeci (Turkey, EPP/CD) The Economic Affairs Committee supports the reforms initiated by the Secretary General to revitalise the Council of Europe and give it fresh political impetus, including rationalised structures and tighter control of staff expenditure.
It acknowledges the need for a reinforced field presence – though continues to have reservations about new offices in Geneva, Vienna and Warsaw – and can accept cuts in co-operation programmes if this means they are better matched to the challenges faced by member states.
A refocusing of the intergovernmental sector is also necessary, though the parliamentarians warn that it should meet the needs not just of foreign affairs ministries, but those of other specialised ministries too, and therefore the wider interest of member states.

A review of the relevance of the Council of Europe’s 210 conventions and protocols is also a good move, though the Assembly – as the instigator of many of these treaties – believes it should be closely involved in any resulting action plan.
The committee also welcomes the introduction of a biennial budget, a long-standing request of the Assembly, but argues that this will only be a major step forward if the rules of budget management are also made more flexible, for example by allowing unspent appropriations from the first year to be carried over to the second.
The future of the European Court of Human Rights continues to be a critical issue for the Council of Europe, and the committee is surprised that – given the Assembly’s historical role in shaping and supporting the Convention and electing the judges – it has not been asked to participate in the long- term strategic reflection on the Court.

Finally, the committee suggests a stronger fundraising capacity, including negotiating with the EU a stable, sustainable system for funding joint programmes.
With all the fresh challenges of assisting emerging democracies in the Mediterranean basin, the Council of Europe needs to be as capable and focused as ever, the committee concludes.

Contact in the secretariat: Yann de Buyer, tel.

2911.

Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012-2013 Doc.
12623 Report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development Rapporteur: Erol Aslan Cebeci (Turkey, EPP/CD) The Assembly recognises that it must play its part in the overall reform of the Council of Europe that is currently under way, and has launched its own internal process of reflection, aimed at strengthening its relevance, effectiveness and visibility, as well as creating stronger links with national parliaments.
The Assembly has already taken steps to rationalise its work and reduce its expenditure, with its overall budget falling by 2 per cent in real terms from 2005 to 2010, and operational expenditure declining by 16 per cent over the same period.
Given the financial difficulties affecting certain member states, the Assembly should agree to reduce its expenditure again, the Economic Affairs Committee suggests, in line with the 0.75 per cent cut requested by the Secretary General for 2012-2013, saving a total of 109 100 euros.
According to the committee, priorities for the coming period should include stepping up the assistance programme for the parliaments of member states and states with “Partner for Democracy” status, and further modernisation of the Assembly’s IT capacity, as well as building on the successful installation of modern communication technologies already undertaken in the Chamber.

Contact in the secretariat: Yann de Buyer, tel.

2911.
2911.

Tuesday 21 June 2011 Morning (10 a.m.-1 p.m.) ♦ Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France Doc.

12616 Voting takes place from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., in the area behind the presidential rostrum.

According to the European Convention on Human Rights, judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly from a list of three candidates nominated by the High Contracting Party concerned.
To assist it in making its decision, the Assembly invites its sub-committee on the election of judges to make confidential recommendations based on personal interviews with all the candidates and assessments of their CVs.

The document containing these recommendations is made available only to members of the Assembly.

An absolute majority of votes cast is required in the first round of voting.
If this is not obtained, a second round of voting will take place on Wednesday 22 June from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., for which a relative majority of votes will be sufficient.

Contact in the secretariat: Andrew Drzemczewski, tel.

2326.

♦ Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly, submitted by the Parliament of Morocco Doc.
12625 Report of the Political Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Luca Volontè (Italy, EPP/CD) Opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Rapporteur: Arcadio Díaz Tejera (Spain, SOC) Opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Rapporteur: Nursuna Memecan (Turkey, ALDE) In January 2010 the Assembly created “Partner for Democracy” status, to allow parliaments of non- member states in neighbouring regions to benefit from its experience in democracy-building.
Partners for Democracy can send parliamentary delegations to participate in the work of the Assembly, provided they commit to pursue the values upheld by the Council of Europe, hold free and fair elections, work towards abolishing the death penalty, and encourage the balanced participation of women and men in public life.
Less than two months later, the Speakers of the two Chambers of the Moroccan Parliament requested “Partner for Democracy” status in a letter to the President of the Assembly, the first parliament to do so.
At a time when many people in Arab and Mediterranean countries are expressing their desire to acquire basic political and social rights, the Political Affairs Committee deems it important that Morocco, with its well-established political institutions and traditions of pluralism, continues on the path of democratic transformation.

The country has committed to deep constitutional, institutional, political and legal reform, an aim broadly shared by its political forces, public officials and civil society.
A closer relationship with the Assembly would encourage these reforms, the committee believes.

The Moroccan Parliament should therefore be granted Partner for Democracy status, and invited to appoint a delegation of six Representatives and six Substitutes, according to the Political Affairs Committee.
No later than in two years’ time Morocco’s progress should be reviewed against a number of benchmarks indicated by the committee based on a series of institutional and legal reforms – including striking the death penalty from the Penal Code, in order to build on the de facto moratorium on executions that has been in place since 1993.

The Assembly also expects to be invited to observe any parliamentary elections in Morocco.
Statements by: – Abdelwahed Radi, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Morocco – Mohamed Cheikh Biadillah, Speaker of the House of Counsellors of Morocco Contact in the secretariat: Pavel Chevtchenko, tel.

3835.

♦ Address by Victor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine Following his address, the President will answer oral questions from members of the Assembly.
Tuesday 21 June 2011 Afternoon (3 p.m.-8 p.m.) ♦ Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France (continued) Doc.

12616 Voting takes place from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., in the area behind the presidential rostrum.

♦ The situation in Tunisia Doc.


12624 Report of the Political Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Anne Brasseur (Luxembourg, ALDE) The Political Affairs Committee again pays tribute to the courage of the Tunisian people who, despite violent repression, showed in “the Jasmine Revolution” their determination to transform Tunisia into a free, open and democratic country.
Five months on, the process of democratic transition is well under way – not least plans for elections to a National Constituent Assembly – and the political process seems broadly inclusive.

Without giving lessons, the Assembly should reaffirm its readiness to place its experience at the disposal of Tunisia’s institutions.

However, deterioration of the economic and social situation – including a big rise in unemployment – is a worry.
The revolution created high expectations, and disillusion and disappointment could swiftly set in if the economic situation continues to decline.

Internal security should be strengthened, corruption and nepotism curbed, and abuses of the former ruling elite investigated.

Organising free and fair elections will be the first major challenge, requiring media freedom, basic civil rights, transparent funding of parties, neutral security forces, and the presence of outside observers.
Politicians should act responsibly, respect election laws and accept the result.

The active involvement of civil society will also be needed.

Keeping the reform process on track after the election will be a big challenge too.

The Council of Europe must do all it can to support democracy in Tunisia, not least with practical assistance on electoral matters, and by involving Tunisian representatives in its own activities.
The Venice Commission’s expert advice will continue to be necessary, while Tunisia could consider signing up to other Council of Europe conventions and partial agreements, and the future Tunisian Parliament could also consider applying for “Partner for Democracy” status with the Assembly.

The Committee of Ministers should also think about creating a special status for the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean.
Finally, Tunisia’s international partners, especially the EU, should do more to help stimulate the economy and stabilise the country socially.

As the Political Affairs Committee points out, the success of Tunisia, which was at the forefront of the “Arab spring”, is important for democracy throughout the region.

Contact in the secretariat: Pavel Chevtchenko, tel.

3835.

♦ Joint debate: Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe Doc.
12630 Report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Rapporteur: Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) A fresh wave of “boat people” from North Africa in recent months has brought – according to the latest figures – some 34 460 people to Italy, comprising about 23 000 irregular migrants and about 11 000 asylum seekers or refugees, and 1 106 to Malta, almost all asylum seekers or refugees.
Although these numbers are relatively high, they are still only a fraction of the approximately 750 000 refugees that have so far been taken in by North African countries neighbouring Libya.

These numbers should not pose an insurmountable problem for Europe as a whole, the Migration Committee points out, although the arrival of these people in certain regions does pose a greater problem for the countries concerned.
Malta in particular, because of its size and population, and the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, face the greatest strain.

These “frontline” states have requested help – and the committee believes that it is a moral duty of all other Council of Europe member states, because of this uneven geographical distribution, to shoulder their fair share of responsibility for resettling these refugees, whose needs are different from those of purely economic migrants.
This issue also needs to be resolved to avoid further tensions within the EU, notably over the operation of the Schengen visa-free regime.

Meanwhile the “Dublin system”, which supposedly regulates responsibility for dealing with asylum claims in the EU, has already been shown to be unfair and urgently needs reform.

The EU must do more to support states under pressure, making more money available and stepping up the work of its border agency FRONTEX.
It could also do more to help Council of Europe member states that are not in the EU which face similar problems.

Contact in the secretariat: Isild Heurtin, tel.

4100.

The interception and rescue at sea of asylum-seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Doc.
12628 Report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Rapporteur: Arcadio Díaz de Tejera (Spain, SOC) As Europe struggles to cope with the relatively large-scale arrival of migratory flows by boat from Africa, arriving mainly through Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece and Cyprus, the surveillance of Europe’s southern borders has become a regional priority, according to the Migration Committee.
The passengers are often travelling in unseaworthy boats, at the mercy of unscrupulous traffickers, and there have been many fatal incidents.

The committee once again expresses its deep concern at some of the measures taken to deal with these desperate people.

Sometimes they are “pushed back”, which calls into question the well- established principle of non-refoulement, and there seem to be different ideas about what constitutes the “place of safety” where those who are rescued must be taken.
Even joint operations run by the EU’s border agency FRONTEX do not have adequate guarantees that human rights will be fully respected.

Finally, countries on the southern borders of the EU are having to face a disproportionate burden in dealing with these flows, which is unfair.

States have a clear moral and legal obligation to save persons in distress, but beyond this they should rigorously apply international law in dealing with this influx.
That means treating those intercepted humanely, giving them a fair chance to seek international protection when it is needed, and keeping detention to a minimum.

FRONTEX staff need proper training in all these matters, and the international community needs to spell out with greater consistency exactly how maritime law should be applied.

Contact in the secretariat: Isild Heurtin, tel.

4100.
4100.

Wednesday 22 June 2011 Morning (10 a.m.-1 p.m.) ♦ Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of France (possible second round) Doc.

12616 Voting takes place from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., in the area behind the presidential rostrum.

An absolute majority of votes cast is required in the first round of voting.

If this is not obtained, a second round of voting takes place, for which a relative majority of votes will be sufficient.
♦ Living together in 21st century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe Doc.
12631 Report of the Political Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Latchezar Toshev (Bulgaria, EPP/CD) Opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Virág Kaufer (Hungary, SOC) Opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Rapporteur: Arcadio Díaz Tejera (Spain, SOC) Opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education Rapporteur Gvozden Srećko Flego (Croatia, SOC) Opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Rapporteur: Elvira Kovács (Serbia, EPP/CD) The Political Affairs Committee takes note of the report of the ten-member Group of Eminent Persons, headed by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, on “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st century Europe”, presented in Istanbul in May 2011.
Its proposals should give fresh impetus to the Council of Europe’s current and future activities.

The Group’s findings corroborate many positions already taken by the Assembly, which remains ready and willing to contribute to the changes needed to ensure greater cohesion in European societies.

Europe is multicultural, according to the committee, and although multiculturalism is facing increasing difficulties at national level in some parts of Europe, assimilation is not an alternative.
The active interaction of culturally different groups within a framework of basic European values is the way forward, the committee believes.

Ways must be found to overcome what the Group of Eminent Persons called the current “crisis of leadership” in Europe, encouraging politicians and elected representatives to avoid stigmatising ethnic, minority or migrant communities, and countering the rise of xenophobic or racist parties.
Tolerant education policies, greater opportunities for cultural exchange and sporting contacts among the young, and a diverse media will all play their part.

An annual Forum against extremism could be organised, as well as a major “Campaign on living together” along the lines of the two “All different, all equal” campaigns.

The appointment of a high-profile personality to disseminate the report also echoes a similar proposal from the Assembly for a “Delegate for Democracy”.
Finally, the committee wholeheartedly supports the proposal to bring countries from the southern and eastern Mediterranean closer to the Council of Europe, matching the Assembly’s own “Partner for Democracy” initiative.

Statement by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Contact in the secretariat: Joao Ary, tel.

2112.

♦ Address by Serzh Sargsyan, President of Armenia Following his address, the President will answer oral questions from members of the Assembly.
Wednesday 22 June 2011 Afternoon (3 p.m.-8 p.m.) ♦ Address by Nickolay Mladenov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria Following his address, the Foreign Minister will answer oral questions from members of the Assembly.

♦ Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly Doc.
12627 Ad hoc Committee of the Assembly Rapporteur: Jean-Claude Mignon (France, EPP/CD) The Parliamentary Assembly can be proud of its achievements over the last 60 years, yet now is also a good moment to reaffirm its mission by adapting its functioning to a changing context: the values upheld by the Council of Europe remain as inspirational as ever – as recent events in North Africa and the Middle East have shown – and the Secretary General has embarked on an ambitious reform of the Organisation as a whole.
The aim of any reform should be to strengthen the Assembly’s political relevance and effectiveness, make it more visible, and improve its members’ involvement, according to the ad hoc committee.

Greater interaction with national parliaments – and with other international parliamentary bodies such as the European Parliament – would be an additional objective.
A swathe of measures proposed by the ad hoc committee – some of which would require a change of practice and others modifications to the Rules of Procedure – include greater flexibility in proposing what the Assembly debates, better follow-up to adopted texts, more user-friendly and interactive communication tools, and a number of practical changes to ensure more space for debates, a fairer distribution of speaking time, and longer committee meetings.
The Assembly is also invited to consider a change in its committee structure, by merging its current Economic, Social and Environment Committees into one Committee on Social Cohesion, Health and Sustainable Development, together with a commensurate redistribution of tasks among all eight of the remaining general committees.

Contact in the secretariat: Horst Schade, tel.

2075.
2075.

♦ Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (continued) Thursday 23 June 2011 Morning (10 a.m.-1 p.m.) ♦ Joint debate on the state of human rights in Europe: National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe Doc.
12636 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Rapporteur: Christos Pourgourides (Cyprus, EPP/CD) It is often assumed that only governments are responsible for fully and effectively implementing the international human rights norms that states sign up to – whereas in fact all state organs are bound by this legal obligation, whether executive, judicial or legislative, according to the Legal Affairs Committee.

The key role of parliaments, in particular, is often overlooked.
There are plenty of ways parliaments can exercise influence: they debate issues of principle when they ratify international human rights treaties, they can vet draft laws for their “human rights compatibility”, and they can hold governments to account when they fail to uphold the standards they have voluntarily taken on – not least when it comes to implementing judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
They can also keep an eye on the rulings of judges and decisions of authorities at national level, and have a more general role in fostering the creation of a pervasive human rights culture.

The committee points approvingly to several Council of Europe member states – notably the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Romania – which have set up parliamentary structures to monitor the implementation of judgments of the European Court.
All parliaments should have such structures, the committee suggests, ideally dedicated “human rights committees” which would rigorously and regularly monitor compliance with international human rights obligations, particularly the European Convention, and check that all new laws are in line with them.

Governments should also be expected to report regularly to these committees on how they are implementing, for example, European Court judgments.

Contact in the secretariat: Roland Klages, tel.

5316.
5316.

The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe Doc.
12632 Report of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Carina Ohlsson (Sweden, SOC) Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs Rapporteur: Sir Alan Meale (United Kingdom, SOC) The Social Affairs Committee begins by deploring the recent dramatic cuts in welfare programmes in a number of European countries, hitting the poorest and most disadvantaged hardest.
National parliaments have a vital role to play in countering such developments, the committee believes, and therefore protecting social rights, which form part of the corpus of human rights.

Parliaments should insist on regular reviews of how governments are implementing social rights, not least through the Council of Europe’s Social Charter and its enforcement mechanism, and keenly scrutinise new laws, particularly when it comes to health.
Protecting human rights, including social rights, should be the top priority when they vote on budgets.

Meanwhile, there is further scope for bringing together parliamentarians from different countries who deal with social issues, especially in international fora, to work or campaign together.
Member states that have signed up to international standards on social rights must continue to uphold them as they have contracted to do, and take positions in world finance or trade bodies that enable those promises to be respected.

On health in particular, their laws should be in line with the basic guarantees enshrined in the revised European Social Charter, as well as other international health treaties such as the Medicrime Convention.
In particular, the four countries which have not yet ratified the 1991 “Turin Protocol” aimed at revitalising the Social Charter (Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) should do so.

Finally, the Committee of Ministers should draft a new protocol on the right to health which would include the right to a healthy environment.

Contact in the secretariat: Angela Garabagiu, tel.

4520.
4520.

Statement by Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Federal Minister of Justice of Germany Statement by Dominic Grieve, Attorney General for England and Wales ♦ Award ceremony for the 2011 Human Rights Prize of the Parliamentary Assembly In 2008 the Assembly established a Human Rights Prize to honour individuals or non-governmental organisations who have carried out “outstanding civil society action in the defence of human rights in Europe”.
The second edition of the Prize is to be awarded to the Russian NGO “Committee against Torture” (Komitet Protiv Pytok), in recognition of the organisation’s key role in assisting victims of serious human rights abuses.

It was selected by a distinguished panel of leading figures from the world of human rights, chaired by PACE President Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, from a list of individuals or organisations nominated for the prize.
In a ceremony coinciding with the special debate held every two years on “the state of human rights in Europe”, the President will present the Prize – consisting of a trophy, a diploma and a cheque for 10,000 euros – to Igor Kalyapin, Chairperson of the Committee Against Torture.

The winner of the first Prize in 2009 was British Irish Rights Watch, an NGO which has been monitoring the human rights dimension of the conflict in Northern Ireland since 1990.
Contact in the secretariat: Andrew Drzemczewski, tel.

2326.

Thursday 23 June 2011 Afternoon (3 p.m.-7.30 p.m.) ♦ Current affairs debate: the political and humanitarian consequences of the situation in Syria and Libya Robert Walter (United Kingdom, EDG) is due to open the debate.

No report is prepared for a current affairs debate, and there is no vote.

♦ More women in economic and social decision-making bodies Doc.
12540 Report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Rapporteur: Gisèle Gautier (France, EPP/CD) Doc.

12637 Opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development Rapporteur: Hermine Naghdalyan (Armenia, ALDE) Although the proportion of women in the labour-market is increasing, they remain considerably under- represented in top management, as well as in the governing structures of trade unions, associations and other bodies, according to the Equal Opportunities Committee.
This is a matter of justice, respect for human rights and good governance, as well as self-interest: studies show that companies which value and promote women achieve better productivity and are more profitable.

Discrimination in many forms lies behind this imbalance, and putting it right will involve both radical societal changes – such as countering the tendency for women to be stereotyped from an early age into certain roles, for example – and far-reaching anti-discrimination policies in the workplace.
Progressive measures to enable women to reconcile family and professional life, without having to choose between them, will also be needed.

Positive measures such as quotas for women are also, in the committee’s view, a transitional but necessary exception to the rule of strict equality.

Some member states have introduced – or are considering introducing – quotas for the governing boards of major firms, and some large companies are doing so anyway, even without a legal obligation.
Member states should legislate to help working mothers through progressive measures such as parental or family leave, flexible working time, a guarantee of being able to return to work after pregnancy and supportive childcare arrangements.

Employers should be encouraged to offer equal pay for equal work.
Other ideas include networking initiatives for high-flying women executives, an “Equality” label for progressive firms and organisations, gender-balance clauses in public tenders and feminised work titles.

Finally, governments should lead the way by requiring state-owned and large private companies to guarantee a minimum of 40 per cent women on their governing and management boards.

Contact in the secretariat: Sonia Sirtori, tel.

2370.

♦ Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 Doc.
12546 Report of the Political Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Miloš Aligrudić (Serbia, EPP/CD) In 2007 Austria became the first Council of Europe member state to adopt a voting age of 16 for all municipal, state and national elections.

Some German länder, one Swiss canton and the three British Crown Dependencies also permit voting at 16.

The great majority of other member states currently have 18 as their minimum voting age, though the issue has recently been debated in several.
The Political Affairs Committee takes the view that young people should be encouraged to be as active as possible in political life.

It points to studies which show that the earlier people actively participate in politics, the more likely they are to be engaged in later life.

More younger voters could lead to better turnout figures, the committee suggests, and counter the tendency – as the population ages – for the agenda to become dominated by issues primarily of concern to older people.
More generally, a wider franchise leads to more representative governments.

The committee proposes that young people be actively drawn into civic life through greater community involvement and education.

States should investigate the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 years for all kinds of elections, as well as whether the age for standing for election could also be reduced.

Contact in the secretariat: João Ary, tel.

2112.


Friday 24 June 2011 Morning (10 a.m.-1 p.m.) ♦ The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2010- May 2011) Doc.
12634 and Addendum Report of the Monitoring Committee Rapporteur: Dick Marty (Switzerland, ALDE) In the latest of its annual reports, covering the period June 2010 to May 2011, the Monitoring Committee draws general conclusions from its assessments of the ten monitored member states (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine) and the four countries engaged in post-monitoring dialogue (Bulgaria, Monaco, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey) as regards the progress they have made in fulfilling their obligations and commitments to the Council of Europe.
The committee focuses on four main areas where it detects systemic problems in monitored countries – elections and political pluralism, parliamentary co-operation with the opposition, the constitutional framework, and the capacities of parliament – and makes concrete recommendations to the monitored countries concerned.
The committee also completes its second three-year cycle of reports on member states not subject to monitoring or post-monitoring dialogue by assessing the third and final group of eleven countries (Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) based on reports from relevant Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms.

It lists important treaties that states in this group have still not signed or ratified.
Finally, in view of the committee’s forthcoming 15th anniversary, and in the context of reform of the Assembly, the committee reports that it has initiated discussion on ways of making the monitoring procedure more effective, thus improving member states’ compliance with their statutory obligations.

The rapporteur, in his explanatory memorandum, sets out some options for the future.

Contact in the secretariat: Agnieszka Nachilo, tel.

2905.
2905.

♦ Joint debate: Towards a European framework convention on youth rights Doc.

12629 Report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education Rapporteur: Elvira Kovács (Serbia, EPP/CD) The Assembly has long been concerned with the rights of young people, believing that the period of transition between childhood and adulthood is crucial for the development of individuals as fulfilled and responsible members of society.
In order to become fully independent and autonomous, young people should be able to expect education or training that is affordable and matches the needs of the job market, a job with reasonable pay, the possibility to move on from the parental home to decent housing, sound advice on staying healthy and living sustainably, and access to stimulating and enriching cultural or sporting activities.
They also need opportunities for expressing themselves, taking decisions and – in time – participating fully in the great debates of society and the democratic process itself.

Having reviewed young people’s access to their rights in Europe, the Culture Committee proposes consideration of a framework convention on youth rights and sets out ten guiding principles on which such a text could be based.
States should be signing up to a raft of measures for promoting the well-being of their young people as an investment in the future, the committee believes.
Ideas put forward in the guidelines include better access to education and academic mobility, free sporting facilities, tax breaks for people at the beginning of their careers, social housing and low-interest mortgages for the young, as well as timely and accurate advice on preventing sexually-transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy and drug or alcohol abuse.

Contact in the secretariat: Penelope Denu, tel.

2332.

Reversing the sharp decline in youth unemployment Doc.
12626 Report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development Rapporteur: Marija Pejčinović-Burić (Croatia, EPP/CD) Opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Marietta Karamanli (France, SOC) Around one in five of Europe’s young people has no job, according to the Economic Affairs Committee, and youth unemployment rates remain twice as high as for the rest of the population.
This is despite the fact that most young Europeans today have better levels of education than their parents, and that many European countries face labour shortages in a growing number of sectors.

If governments fail to offer realistic solutions to youth unemployment, Europe may well have to pay the price of a “lost generation”, compromising its competitiveness, security, social stability and future development prospects, the committee warns.
The mismatch between the qualifications of young people and the rapidly changing needs of the labour market, structural economic shifts and cuts in public spending on employment schemes are among the main causes of youth unemployment or under-employment.

The situation is further aggravated by the economic crisis.
Member states should adjust their policies to bring them into line with the labour-related provisions of the revised European Social Charter and give greater priority to reducing youth unemployment.

They need to promote better qualifications and more diverse skills, encourage mobility and inter- generational solidarity, improve access to jobs and apprenticeship schemes, and do more to connect up employers, state employment agencies and young jobseekers.
The committee also stresses the need for Europe’s policymakers to help southern Mediterranean countries to fully tap their development potential by offering a better future to their young people in their quest for jobs and sustainable livelihood.

Contact in the secretariat: Geza Mezei, tel.

2143.

♦ Closure of the third part of the 2011 Ordinary Session Practical information 1.
Meetings of committees and political groups The list of meetings held by the committees and the other organs of the Assembly (Bureau, political groups, etc.)

is published on the Assembly’s website before each sitting.

Unless a committee decides otherwise, committee meetings are not public.

Meetings of political groups take place on Monday morning and late afternoon as well as Wednesday morning.

2.

Languages The official languages of the Assembly are English and French.
German, Italian and Russian are working languages.

Speeches made in plenary session in any of these five languages are interpreted simultaneously into the other official and working languages.

Members may, however, speak in languages other than English, French, German, Italian and Russian, provided that their delegation arranges for interpretation into one of the official or working languages.

During sittings this is generally the case for Spanish, Greek and Turkish.

3.
3.

Assembly documents The following documents are available in French and English at the document counter (on the first floor, to the right of the top of the main staircase, near lift No.

IV).
IV).

Official documents The main official documents are: Reports: Amendments: Agenda: All items on the agenda are debated on the basis of a report by one of the Assembly’s committees (with the exception of current affairs debates, elections, appointments, statements by guest speakers and communications from and questions to the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe).
Committee reports comprise one or more draft texts for adoption (recommendations or resolutions) and an explanatory memorandum prepared by the rapporteur.

Only draft texts can be amended and adopted by the Assembly.

Amendments to draft texts must be tabled in keeping with the relevant rules of procedure, particularly Rule 33 (see section 4 below).

They are distributed at the document counter.


They must be signed by at least five Representatives or Substitutes, unless they are being submitted on behalf of a committee seized for report or opinion.

For each part-session the Bureau prepares a draft agenda listing the sittings at which the items will be examined.

The draft agenda is made available to members of the Assembly two weeks before the opening of the part-session.
The Assembly is required to adopt the draft agenda (Rule 26.4 of the Rules of Procedure).

A member may propose an amendment to the draft agenda drawn up by the Bureau.

The adoption of such a motion requires a majority of the votes cast (Rule 26.5).

Once adopted, the agenda can be altered only by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.
Once it has been approved by the Assembly at the first sitting of the part-session, the agenda is published (Rule 26) and made available to the members at the document counter.

Report of debates: A provisional report of debates is issued after each sitting.

The French version of the provisional report (pink pages) contains the full text of all speeches made in French and a summary in French of speeches made in other languages.
The English version (yellow pages) contains the full text of speeches in English and summaries in English of speeches in other languages.

Speeches in German or Italian are also reported verbatim in a separate publication (green pages).

Speakers may make corrections to the provisional report of debates within 24 hours of publication.
Representatives and Substitutes who were entered on the list of speakers and present in the Chamber but were unable to speak because of lack of time may hand in their typewritten texts for inclusion in the report of debates.

They should do so within 24 hours of the end of the debate concerned at the Table Office (Room 1083).

Adopted texts: The texts adopted by the Assembly are also published after each sitting, separately in English (yellow pages) and French (pink pages).
The texts adopted by the Assembly are: - Recommendations (proposals addressed by the Assembly to the Committee of Ministers, for implementation by that Committee or the governments); - Opinions (addressed to the Committee of Ministers); - Resolutions (embodying a decision by the Assembly on a question of substance which it is empowered to put into effect, a point of view for which it alone is responsible, or a question of form, transmission, execution or procedure); The other official documents (Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure) are: - reports, communications, requests for an opinion or further consideration transmitted by the Committee of Ministers; - questions addressed to the Committee of Ministers; - communications from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe; - reports of international organisations; - written declarations.
Other documents Twice a day a “notice paper” is produced, setting out the agenda for the sittings of the day.

It also contains other useful information relevant to the proceedings and procedure.

For each part-session the following lists are published: - List of Representatives - List of Substitutes - List of national delegations - List of the Secretariat officials, giving office locations and contact telephone numbers for the part-session.
The latest edition of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly was published in January 2011 in two parts, the Rules and complementary texts in one part, and the Statute of the Council of Europe in another part.

They are available in bilingual versions (English/French).

4.

Tabling amendments Members who wish to table amendments or sub-amendments to the draft texts before the Assembly should submit them to the Table Office (Room 1083).
Amendments and sub- amendments must be signed by at least five Representatives or Substitutes, unless they have been submitted on behalf of the committee submitting the report or an opinion.
Under the provisions on the organisation of debates (page 90 of the Rules of Procedure and forward), the time limits for tabling amendments are the following (where appropriate the Bureau may decide to change these limits, in particular for urgent debates or debates on general policy): - for debates on the afternoon of Monday 20 June: Monday 20 June at 12 noon; - for debates on Tuesday 21 June: Monday 20 June at 4 p.m.; - for all other debates (except urgent debates, unforeseen debates or as otherwise indicated on the agenda): 23 and a half hours before the opening of the sitting at which the debate is to begin.
Sub-amendments must be tabled at least one hour before the scheduled end of the sitting preceding that in which the debate begins.

The procedure for tabling, examining and voting on amendments and sub-amendments is set out in Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure.

5.

Motions for resolutions and recommendations A motion for a recommendation or resolution, not exceeding 300 words, must be signed by at least 20 Representatives or Substitutes belonging to at least five national delegations (Rule 24.2).
The President decides which motions are admissible.

Any motion considered admissible is printed and distributed as soon as possible.

The Bureau then decides whether it should be referred to one or more committees, or forwarded to one or more committees for information, or that no further action should be taken.

The Bureau’s decision must then be ratified by the Assembly.
For motions tabled during a part-session, the Bureau has decided that only those motions which have been tabled by 12 noon on the Tuesday of a part-session will be examined by the Bureau meeting after the part-session.

A document may be referred to only one committee for report but to any other committee for opinion (Rule 25.2).

The opinion of the latter concerns the report of the former committee.
The report concerned must therefore be made available to the committee whose opinion has been sought in good time for it to prepare its opinion.

Committee opinions may be presented orally or in writing.

An opinion presented in writing must contain a chapter at the beginning entitled “Conclusions of the committee” and an explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur (Rule 48.3 of the Rules of Procedure).

6.
6.

Written declarations Written declarations may be tabled provided that they: - do not exceed 200 words; - are on subjects within the competence of the Council of Europe; - are signed by at least twenty Representatives or Substitutes belonging to four national delegations and two political groups.

They are neither referred to a committee nor debated in the Assembly (Rule 52 of the Rules of Procedure).
Any Representative or Substitute may add his or her signature to a written declaration up to the close of the next part-session, after which no further signatures may be added.

The declaration shall be issued with the names of all members who have signed it.

7.
7.

Opinions of the Assembly (to the Committee of Ministers) According to the Statute of the Council of Europe, or to other texts of a statutory character, the Committee of Ministers seeks the Assembly’s opinion on such matters as the accession of new member states, draft conventions or the Council of Europe’s budget.

These requests for opinions are debated in the Assembly, following which the Assembly votes on the opinion to be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers (Rule 56).

8.
8.

Changes in the membership of national delegations or committees Members of the Assembly are appointed for the whole Ordinary Session.

Following parliamentary elections, the national parliament concerned or other competent authority shall make appointments to the Assembly within six months of the elections.
If the national parliament cannot make all such appointments in time for the opening of a new Ordinary Session, it may decide, for a period of not more than six months after the election, to be represented in the Assembly by members of the existing delegation (Rule 10.2 and 3).
Should any seat on a national delegation fall vacant in the course of a session as a result of death or resignation, the president of the national parliament concerned, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs, presents the credentials of the member who is to fill the vacant seat to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, who submits them to the Assembly or the Standing Committee for ratification at the first sitting or meeting following their receipt (Rule 6.4).
The chairperson of a national delegation informs the President of the Assembly of any proposed change(s) in committee membership concerning that delegation’s members.

The President of the Assembly submits the proposed change(s) to the Assembly, the Standing Committee or, failing that, the Bureau for ratification (Rule 42.6).

9.
9.

Requests for debates under urgent procedure or current affairs debates At the request of the Committee of Ministers, of the committee concerned, of one or more political groups, or of twenty or more Representatives or Substitutes, a debate may be held on an item which has not been placed on the Assembly’s draft agenda.

Requests for debates under urgent procedure must be addressed to the President of the Assembly.

The President submits them to the Bureau, which makes a proposal to the Assembly.
The adoption of urgent procedure requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast (Rule 49.4).

An urgent debate is based on a written report and gives rise to a vote, whereas a current affairs debate is not based on a report.

At least twenty members, or one political group or national delegation may request a current affairs debate (Rule 51) on a subject which is not on the Assembly’s draft agenda.
The request must be made in writing to the President of the Assembly in time for the last meeting of the Bureau before the opening of the part-session.

The possible choice between several requests is made by the Bureau, a decision which needs to be endorsed by the Assembly.

A current affairs debate may not exceed one and a half hours.

The debate shall be opened by one of the members who requested it, chosen by the Bureau.

The first speaker has ten minutes speaking time, other speakers five.
Although there is no vote on any text, the Bureau of the Assembly may subsequently propose that the subject be referred to the appropriate committee for report.

10.

Electronic voting, notification of Substitutes, list of speakers, and quorum All votes in the Assembly, except elections, take place by electronic voting.

11.

Voting cards Voting cards issued to all members are simultaneously used for identification and voting.
Distribution of voting cards is ensured by the Badge Service of the Council of Europe.

In principle, this distribution is organised via secretaries of each national delegation.

Members who do not have their card (in case a card has been lost or forgotten, or when the Parliamentary Assembly database does not contain the member’s photo) should present themselves at the welcome Protocol desk at the main entrance of the Palais de l’Europe in order to receive their card.
Staff of the Badge Service, before delivering a new card, will invite the member to present his or her identification document.

If a third and consecutive card is issued to the same member during the same calendar year for whatever reason, loss or otherwise, the national delegation will be required to pay the cost (6 Euros per card).

Voting cards as distributed by the Badge Service do not give an automatic right to vote.

In order to enjoy such a right, the member’s card has to be validated.
This operation will be carried out by the Assembly Secretariat.

12.

Notification of Substitutes In principle, all Representatives at the opening of the first sitting (on Monday, at 11.30 a.m.) have their cards validated, but not Substitutes unless the Secretariat of the Assembly is properly informed about substitutions.

Therefore secretaries of national delegations have the duty to inform the Secretariat of the Assembly about all cases of substitution.
If this is not done, Substitutes attending the sitting do not have speaking and voting rights.

Notice of substitutions has to be given before the opening of the sitting concerned (if possible by the previous day and at the latest before 8.30 a.m. for a morning sitting and before 1 p.m. for an afternoon sitting).

For the first sitting on Monday at 11.30 a.m., the deadline is 10 a.m.
This notification, including the names of Substitutes, the names of Representatives to be substituted and the length of substitution, must be given in writing for each sitting to the Secretariat of the Assembly (Beejul Tanna, Room 1074, fax during session weeks +33 3 88 41 27 27, fax outside session weeks +33 3 88 41 27 33).

If the Substitute is replacing the Representative for one or more consecutive sittings, the substitution for each sitting must be notified.
Substitutions are never carried automatically over to the following sitting.

When the correct notification has been given, Substitutes will have their voting cards validated.

At the same time, cards of Representatives who are to be replaced by Substitutes will become invalid, preventing them from speaking in the debate and voting, including in elections.

13.

Register of attendance Members shall continue to sign the register of attendance before entering the Chamber for a sitting (Rules 11.2 and 39.1).
A duly designated Substitute will find his or her name in the register next to the name of the Representative for whom he or she is substituting.

If, in the register of attendance, no name is found next to the Representative’s name, it means that no substitution was notified for the Representative for that particular sitting and therefore only the Representative is authorised to speak in the debate and vote.
All members of the Assembly – Representatives and Substitutes as well as Observers – have access to the Chamber at any time of the sitting, regardless of their speaking and voting rights.

Therefore, all members, even those who are not authorised to speak in the debate or vote, are invited to sign the register of attendance if they attend the sitting.

14.

Speakers’ register Members who wish to speak in a debate must enter their names on the list of speakers.
They may do this by post in advance of the part-session, or in person during the part-session at the Table Office (Room 1083).

The list is closed one hour before the scheduled end of the previous sitting, except in the case of the first sitting of a part-session, when the deadline is one and a half hours before the start of the sitting (i.e.

at 10 a.m.).
at 10 a.m.).

It should be noted that in any one part-session members may enter their names on the list for a maximum of five debates but may take the floor not more than three times (this limit does not apply to members appointed as political group spokespersons or as rapporteurs).

A Substitute whose name has not been notified to the secretariat before a sitting cannot participate in the debate.
The order of speakers on the list for each debate is determined according to criteria set by the Bureau and can be found in the Rules of Procedure.

Speaking time is limited to a total of 13 minutes for committee rapporteurs (to present the report and to reply to the debate).

Rapporteurs for opinion, to present the opinion or to reply to the debate, shall have the same speaking time to present their opinions as the speakers registered for the debate concerned.
Other speakers on the list normally have a maximum of 5 minutes, although this may be reduced depending on the number of speakers on the list.

At the start of each sitting the President announces the speaking arrangements.

Only authorised members – i.e.

Representatives or their duly appointed Substitutes – may speak in debates or submit questions for oral reply to the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers or to guest speakers.

The list of speakers is verified accordingly.

15.


Questions to invited guest speakers For most invited guest speakers, the draft agenda indicates whether there is the possibility for members to ask questions.

Where there is that possibility, members are encouraged to register their names with the Table Office as soon as the draft agenda is published and the name of the guest speaker appears, unless the draft agenda specifies that there is only one question from each political group.
For most guest speakers other than the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, members are invited to submit the subject of their question.

For the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, the name of the member wishing to ask a written question is registered if accompanied by the full written text of the question.

In this context, a deadline is specified in the draft agenda.

The written questions to the Chairperson are published as an Assembly document.
In accordance with established practice, the Bureau has agreed that written questions will receive a written reply from the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers.

These replies will be published in the report of the sitting.

The Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers has indicated that he or she is prepared to give an oral reply to spontaneous questions at the end of his address.
Rule 57.2 of the Rules of Procedure states, however, that “no Representative or Substitute may table more than one question for oral answer at any one part-session.” Members may therefore register on one of the two lists by completing and returning the appropriate form (either “written question for oral reply” or “spontaneous question”).

For the other guest speakers, there is no formal deadline as such, as the questions are “spontaneous”.
However, members have an interest in registering their names as early as possible, as there is usually not enough time to answer all questions.

16.

Electronic voting While they are sitting in the Chamber, members are invited to keep their voting cards inserted in the voting terminals.

However, when they leave, they should take their cards with them.
Voting cards should be inserted correctly into the terminals (the photo side of the member’s card is facing the Presidential dais; then the card is pushed down until a “click” is heard).

A card correctly inserted is signalled by its number being displayed on a small screen in the voting terminal.

Any malfunctioning or error message displayed on the voting terminal screen should be immediately reported to the Secretariat present in the Chamber.
The opening of a vote by the President is confirmed by a small green light on the voting terminal.

After the opening of a vote, members should vote by putting their hands into the small booth of the voting terminal and by pressing one of the three voting buttons (stickers which are on the top of voting terminals are put there only for information in order to indicate the positions of the “for”, “abstention” and “against” buttons).
The chosen vote is confirmed by a coloured light on the terminal: green (“for”), white (“abstention”) or red (“against”).

Rule 38.9 indicates that a member cannot modify his or her vote after the voting is closed.

The names of Assembly members who participate in votes, as well as how they voted in each case, are published on the Assembly’s website.

17.
17.

Quorum The Assembly may deliberate, decide the orders of the day, approve the minutes of proceedings, decide upon procedural motions, and agree to adjourn, whatever the number of Representatives present.

All votes other than votes by roll-call shall be valid whatever the number of members voting, unless, before the voting has begun, the President has been requested to ascertain whether there is a quorum.
At least one sixth of the Representatives authorised to vote, belonging to at least five national delegations, must vote in favour of the request.

To ascertain whether there is a quorum, the President invites Representatives to mark their presence in the Chamber using the electronic voting system.

The quorum is one third of the number of Representatives of the Assembly authorised to vote (Rule 40.3).
A vote by roll-call shall not be valid unless one third of the Representatives authorised to vote took part.

The President may decide to ascertain whether there is a quorum before proceeding to a vote by roll-call.

In the absence of a quorum, the vote shall be postponed until the next sitting or, on a motion from the Chair, until a subsequent sitting.

18.
18.

Majorities required A majority of two-thirds of the votes cast is required for the adoption of a draft recommendation or a draft opinion to the Committee of Ministers, for the adoption of urgent procedure, for an alteration to the order of business, for the setting up of a committee and for the fixing of the date for the opening or resumption of Ordinary Sessions.
For the adoption of a draft resolution and for any other decision, a majority of the votes cast is required, in the case of a tie the question being rejected.

19.

Mobile phones Members are reminded that mobile phones must be switched off at all times in the Chamber and during committee meetings.

Directory Secretariat of the Assembly Secretary General Secretary General of the Assembly Wojciech Sawicki, office 6207, tel.
3630, wojciech.sawicki@coe.int Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland, office 3003, tel.

2050, thorbjorn.jagland@coe.int Head of the Office of the Secretary General of the Assembly Markus Adelsbach, office 6217, tel.

4827, markus.adelsbach@coe.int Secretary to the Secretary General of the Assembly Christine Willkomm, office 6211, tel.

2978, christine.willkomm@coe.int Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, office 3011, tel.
2382, maud.deboer-buquicchio@coe.int Spokesperson Flemming Kjerschow, office 3012a, tel.

3481, flemming.kjerschow@coe.int Director General Mário Martins, office 6127, tel.

2243, mario.martins@coe.int Director, Political and Legal Affairs Directorate Jane Dinsdale, office 6201, tel.

2328, jane.dinsdale@coe.int Directorate of Communication Director, General Services Directorate Horst Schade, office 6167, tel.

2075, horst.schade@coe.int Director Daniel Höltgen, office 0.015B, tel.
5020, daniel.holtgen@coe.int Private Office of the President Head of the Private Office Petr Sich, office 1064, tel.

2746, petr,sich@coe.int Protocol Audiovisual Service, tel.

3500.

Deputy Head of the Private Office Bonnie Theophilova, office 1064, tel.

3092, bonnie.theophilova@coe.int Head of Protocol Verena Taylor, office 0.149, tel.

2137, verena.taylor@coe.int Secretariat of the President and of the Head of Private Office Julie Bertalmio, office 1070, tel.
2061, julie.bertalmio@coe.int Services Table Office (Speakers’ lists, questions and amendments) Head of the Table Office Alfred Sixto, office 6.173, tel.

2244, alfred.sixto@coe.int Colin Lee, office 1067, tel.

4667, colin.lee@coe.int Bruno Lancestremère, office 1073, tel.

3936, bruno.lancestremere@coe.int Amendments Koen Muylle, office 1083, tel.

4283, koen.muylle@coe.int Notification of substitutes Beejul Tanna, office 1074, tel.
3273, beejul.tanna@coe.int Communication Division of the Assembly Head of Division Micaela Catalano, office 6187, tel.

2595, micaela.catalano@coe.int Francesc Ferrer, office 6189, tel.

3250, francesc.ferrer@coe.int Angus Macdonald, office 6166, tel.

3439, angus.macdonald@coe.int Nathalie Bargellini, office 6164, tel.

2282, nathalie.bargellini@coe.int Secretariat Catherine Becarmin, office 6170, tel.
3193, catherine.becarmin@coe.int Secretaries of political groups Group of the European People’s Party: Denise O’Hara, office 5141/5143, tel.

2676, denise.ohara@coe.int Socialist Group: Francesca Arbogast, office 5099/5101, tel.

2675, francesca.arbogast@coe.int European Democrat Group: Tom van Dijck, office 5117, tel.

2677, tom.van-dijck@coe.int Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe: Maria Bigday, office 5081, tel.
2682, maria.bigday@coe.int Group of the Unified European Left: Héléna de Assis, office 5158/60, tel.

3684, helena.deassis@coe.int Internet access Free Wi-Fi access is available in most areas of the Palais building.

Terminals with free broadband access are also available in the lobby of the debating chamber and outside the second floor meeting rooms.

The Assembly’s website and the Council of Europe portal, including other language portals, can be accessed here.
Badges Wearing badges is compulsory for admittance to the Chamber.

Voting cards are used as ID badges.

Contact the Protocol desk in the entrance hall.

Bars and restaurants Parliamentarians’ Bar: 1st floor, opposite the Chamber, open from 8.30 a.m. to the end of the sitting.

Restaurant Bleu: ground floor, for official meals (tel.

3704 for reservations).


Palais cafeteria: ground floor, open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Palais self-service: ground floor, lunch from midday to 2 p.m. Bank Société Générale, in the entrance hall, open from 8.15 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., tel.

7060.

A cash dispenser is located opposite the cafeteria (ground floor).

Bus Free shuttle service departing from Allée Spach to the railway station via downtown (and vice versa).

Badges must be shown.

Time schedules are available at the reception desk.
Bookshop Librairie Klébér: In the entrance hall, open from 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and from midday to 5.45 p.m., tel.

3712, librairie.kleber@coe.int Philatelic agency Council of Europe stamps and, since 1949, philatelic envelopes commemorating every session of the Parliamentary Assembly, tel.

03 88 35 08 88.

Post office La Poste: in the entrance hall, open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., tel.

3463.

Medical centre Entrance hall, open from 8.30 a.m. to the end of the sitting, tel.

2442.
2442.

Newsagent Just off the entrance hall, open from 8 a.m. to 6.15 p.m., tel.

3549.

Now selling parliamentary bus tickets.

City of Strasbourg information desk The City of Strasbourg is represented at the reception desk in the entrance hall, providing lists of hotels, restaurants and local events, flight/train times etc, tel.

3838.

For accommodation or transport, call 03 88 52 28 38.
AS/Pol (2011) OJ 05 rev2 21 June 2011 Apoj05_11rev2 Political Affairs Committee Revised Draft agenda 2 of the meetings which will take place in Strasbourg on: - Tuesday 21 June 2011, from 8.30 to 10 am – room 9 - Wednesday 22 June 2011, from 2 to 3 pm – room 9 - Thursday 23 June 2011, from 8.30 to 10 am – room 9 - Thursday 23 June 2011, from 2 to 3 pm – room 9 TUESDAY 21 JUNE 2011 FROM 8.30 TO 10.00 AM 6.
Request for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco Rapporteur: Mr Volontè, Italy, EPP/CD Amendments Doc.

12625 Doc.

12625 .Consideration of amendments to the draft Resolution Deadline for tabling amendments : Monday 20 June at 4 pm Debate in the Assembly: Tuesday 21 June at 10 am 7.

The situation in Tunisia Rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur, Luxembourg, ALDE Amendments Doc.

12624 Doc.
12624 Doc.

12624 .Consideration of amendments to the draft Resolution and/or to the draft Recommendation Deadline for tabling amendments : Monday 20 June at 4 pm Debate in the Assembly: Tuesday 21 June at 3pm This document is the convocation to the meeting for the members and alternates of the Political Affairs Committee, the leaders of the political groups and members of observer delegations Copy for information: secretaries of national delegations .
This document is available on the Parliamentary Assembly Extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) http://assembly.coe.int/extranet F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | e-mail: assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 AS/Pol (2011) OJ 05rev2 8.

Future work b) Appointment of Rapporteurs for reports: .

Situation in Belarus .

Situation in Middle East AS/Pol/WP (2011) 05 .


Democracy and Human Rights in the foreign policy of Council of Europe member states: search for a joint approach .

Violence against religious communities .

Parliamentary contribution to solving the Western Sahara conflict c) Appointment of Rapporteurs for opinion: The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns (AS/Mig Rapporteur: Mrs Dumery, Belgium, NR) d) Caserta, Italy Doc.

12325 Doc.

12542 Doc.12603 Doc.


12373 AS/Pol/Inf (2011) 09rev AS/Pol/Inf (2011) 10 Participation form Hotel Booking form WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE 2011 FROM 2 TO 3 PM 9.

Living together in 21st century Europe: follow-up to the Report of the Group of Eminent persons of the Council of Europe Rapporteur: Mr Toshev, Bulgaria, EPP/CD Amendments Doc.

12631 Doc.
12631 Doc.

12631 .Consideration of amendments to the draft Recommendation Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 21 June at 3.30 pm Debate in the Assembly: Wednesday 22 June at 10 am, vote at 4 pm THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2011 FROM 8.30 TO 10.00 AM 10.
Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 Rapporteur: Mr Aligrudic, Serbia, EPP/CD .Consideration of amendments to the draft Resolution Deadline for tabling amendments : Wednesday 22 June at 4pm Debate in the Assembly Thursday 22 June at 4 pm Amendments Doc.

12546 Doc.

12546 2 AS/Pol (2011) OJ 05rev2 11.


Co-operation between the Council of Europe and emerging democracies in the Arab world Rapporteur: Mr Gardetto, Monaco, EPP/CD AS/Pol (2011) 13rev Consideration of a revised draft report, including adoption of a preliminary draft resolution THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2011 FROM 2 TO 3 PM 12.

Council of Europe relations with the European Union AS/Pol (2011) 20 AS/Bur/AH EP PACE (2011) 04 AS/Mig/Inf (2011) 09 Doc.
12306 Resolution 1756 (2010) Recommendation 1935 (2010) Doc.

12535 Joint hearing with AS/JUR and AS/MIG and the participation of: .

Ms Tonje Meinich, Chair of the Informal Working Group on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights (CDDH-UE) .

Mr Morten Kjaerum, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 13.

Other business 14.

Next meetings .

5-6 September 2011, Caserta, Italy .


4th part-session, 3 – 7 October 2011, Strasbourg -:-:-:-:-:- MEETINGS OF THE SUB-COMMITTEES – (Room 9) .
Sub-committee on the Middle East - Tuesday 21 June 2011 from 2.30 to 3 pm 3 AS/Soc (2011) OJ 5 rev 16 June 2011 Asocoj05rev_2011 Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee Revised draft agenda1 for the meetings to be held in Strasbourg on Tuesday 21 June 2011, at 8.30 am [Room 11] Tuesday 21 June 2011, at 2 pm [Room 10] Wednesday 22 June 2011, at 2 pm [Room 7] Thursday 23 June 2011, at 8.45 am [Room 11] [Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter and Employment meeting on Thursday, 23 June 2011, at 8.30 am [Room 11] ] Tuesday 21 June 2011, at 8.30 am [Room 11] 1.
Agenda [AS/Soc (2011) OJ 5 rev] Adoption of the revised draft agenda 2.

Minutes [AS/Soc (2011) PV 4, AS/Soc (2011) PV 4 add] .

Approval of the draft minutes of the meeting held in Paris on 19 May 2011; .

Approval and declassification of the minutes of the hearing on “Living wills and the protection of health and human rights” held in Paris on 19 May 2011; 3.

Living together in 21st century Europe: follow-up to the Eminent Persons report Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Kaufer, Hungary, SOC [Doc.
12631, AS/Soc (2011) 29] Consideration and approval of an opinion 1.

This draft agenda, addressed to members and alternates of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, to observers and special guests (copy to secretaries of national delegations), serves as the convocation to the meeting.

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | e-mail: assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33 ________________________ AS/Soc (2011) OJ 05 rev 4.
Committee’s work programme [AS/Soc (2011) 1 rev 5, AS/Soc (2011) 15 rev 4] 4.1.

Appointment of rapporteurs: [Doc.12582, Doc.12584] For report  Fighting “child sex tourism” through committed legal and political action For opinion  The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2010-2011 For information  Strengthening consumer rights protection mechanisms 4.2.

Appointment of committee representatives to external events: .
Committee of Experts on participation of people with disabilities in political and public life (CAHPAH-PPL), Strasbourg, 22-24 June 2011 .

64th meeting of the European Health Committee (CDSP), Strasbourg, 28-30 June 2011 .

Meeting of the Current Affairs Committee of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, Yerevan, Armenia, 29 June 2011 .

Stakeholder Conference on “The Rights of the Volunteer”, Brussels, on 7 and 8 September 2011 .
5th meeting of the European Co-ordination Forum for the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015 (CAHPAH), Strasbourg, 21-23 September 2011 4.3.

Replies from the Committee of Ministers [Doc.12606, Recommendation 1934 (2010)] Consideration of the reply of the Committee of Ministers to the Recommendation on: - “Child abuse in institutions: ensure full protection of the victims” 5.
Combating “child pornography” as part of the campaign to stop sexual violence against children Rapporteur: Mr Conde Bajén, Spain, EPP/CD [AS/Soc (2011) 26] Exchange of views with Ms Bissera Zankova a representative of the Steering Committee on Media and New Communication Services (CDMC) 2 AS/Soc (2011) OJ 05 rev Tuesday 21 June 2011, at 2 pm [Room 10] 6.
Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Karamanli, France, SOC [Doc.12626, AS/Soc (2011) 30] Consideration and approval of an opinion 7.

Unfair economic competition by third world countries: social dumping Rapporteur: Mr Barbi, Italy, ALDE [AS/Soc (2011) 32] Consideration of an outline report 8.
Putting an end to coercive sterilisations and castrations Rapporteur : Ms Maury Pasquier, Switzerland, SOC [AS/Soc (2011) 33] Preparation of the hearing to be held in Paris in the aftternoon of 16 September 2011 9.

Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly [Doc.

12627, AS/Soc (2011) 17 rev 2] Statement by the Chairperson Wednesday 22 June 2011, at 2 pm [Room 7] 10.
3rd meeting of the Network of Contact Parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children [AS/Soc (2011) 28 rev] - Exchange of views on solicitation of children through the Internet for sexual purposes (“grooming”) with Ms Carina Ohlsson, contact parliamentarian for Sweden, and with Ms Ulrika Rogland, Senior public prosecutor (Sweden) - Exchange of views on the progress of the ONE in FIVE Council of Europe Campaign with Ms Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe [Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter and Employment meeting on Thursday, 23 June 2011, at 8.30 am [Room 11] ] Thursday 23 June 2011, at 8.45 am [Room 11] 11.
The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe Rapporteur: Ms Ohlsson, Sweden, SOC [Doc.

12632, amendments] Consideration of amendments 12.

Update on the ONE in FIVE Campaign to stop sexual violence against children [AS/Soc/Inf (2011) 1 rev 6, AS/Soc/Inf (2011) 4 rev] Statement by the Chairperson 3 AS/Soc (2011) OJ 05 rev 13.

Committee’s work programme (continued) 13.1.

Reports from committee representatives to external events: .
Mr Ayva (Turkey, EPP/CD) who took part in the European Conference on "Implementation of the Council of Europe Action Plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society 2006 - 2015", Odessa, Ukraine, 30-31 May 2011; .

Mr Baghdasaryan (Armenia, ALDE) who took part in the Regional seminar “Making Child Rights a Reality for the most vulnerable Children”, organised by IPU and UNICEF, Yerevan, Armenia, 14-16 June 2011; .
Mr Marquet (Monaco, ALDE) who took part in the Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI), Strasbourg, 21-23 June 2011; 14.
Sub-Committee on Children Chairperson of the Sub-Committee: Ms Ohlsson, Sweden, SOC [Draft conclusions] Statement by the Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the meeting held on 24-25 May in Kyiv, Ukraine, on the occasion of the international conference on “Combating violence against children: from isolated actions to integrated strategies”, organised in the framework of the Ukrainian Chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in cooperation with the State Service for Youth and Sport of Ukraine, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Violence against Children and UNICEF 15.
Exchange of views with Ambassador Joseph Licari Exchange of views with Ambassador Joseph Licari, in his capacity as President of the Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) of the Committee of Ministers, on subjects of common interest in the social affairs and health fields 16.

Other business [Lists of members of the 3 Sub-Committees] Changes in the composition of Sub-Committees 17.
Date and place of next meetings Plenary committee: - - - Friday, 16 September 2011, Paris (Council of Europe office); Fourth part-session 2011 of the Assembly, 3-7 October 2011, Strasbourg; Friday, 18 November 2011, Florence, Italy (to be confirmed, subject to authorisation by the Bureau).
Network of Contact parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children: - Wednesday, 5 October 2011, Strasbourg (to be confirmed); - Thursday, 17 November 2011, Florence, Italy (to be confirmed, subject to authorisation by the Bureau).

Sub-Committee on Children: - Sunday, 20 November and Monday, 21 November 2011, Monaco (to be confirmed, subject to authorisation by the Bureau).
4 AS/Ega (2011) OJ 5 rev 02 17 June 2011 Aegaoj05rev02_2011 Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men Revised draft agenda for the meeting to be held in Strasbourg, Palais de l’Europe on Monday 20 June 2011 from 2 to 3 pm Room 6 on Tuesday 21 June 2011 from 8.30 to 10 am Room 6 (Network) on Wednesday 22 June 2011 from 2 to 3 pm Room 6 on Thursday 23 June 2011 from 8.30 to 10 am Room 6 Monday 20 June 2011, from 2 to 3 pm, room 6 1.

2.
2.

Agenda [AS/Ega (2011) OJ 5 rev 02] Adoption of the revised draft agenda.

Minutes [AS/Ega (2011) PV 4] Approval of the draft minutes of the meeting held in Paris on 8 June 2011.

This draft agenda, addressed to members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to Secretaries of National Delegations These documents are published on PACE extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) when they become available: http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.
PACE IT Unit staff (it.unit@coe.int) remains at your disposal for any technical assistance.

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 AS/Ega (2011) OJ 5 rev 02 3.

Request from the Parliament of Morocco for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Memeçan, Turkey, ALDE [AS/Ega (2011) 14 rev, Doc 12625] Consideration and approval of a draft opinion to the report tabled by the Political Affairs Committee.

4.
4.

Women in North Africa Exchange of views with Ms Gauri van Gulik, Advocate and Researcher for Europe and Central Asia, Women's Rights Division Human Rights Watch.

5.

Fighting the global backlash against women's human rights Rapporteur: Ms Err, Luxembourg, SOC [AS/Ega (2011) 16] Consideration of a memorandum.
Tuesday 21 June 2011, from 8.30 to 10 am, Room 61 Meeting of the PACE Network of contact parliamentarians committed to combating violence against women Hearing on Rape: ‘myths’, media and reality with the participation of: - Ms Heather Harvey, Lilith Research and Development Manager, United Kingdom; - Ms Lee Eggleston, Chair, Rape Crisis, England & Wales; - Mr Carlo Chiaromonte, Secretariat of the drafting group of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.
Wednesday 22 June 2011, from 2 to 3 pm, room 6 and 6.

7.

8.

Pre-natal sex selection Rapporteur: Ms Stump, Switzerland, SOC [AS/Ega (2011) 23] Statement by the Rapporteur on the basis of her fact-finding visit to Armenia and Georgia (14 – 17 June 2011).

Muslim women: for equal opportunities Rapporteur: Ms Ferić-Vac, Croatia, SOC [AS/Ega (2011) 19] Consideration of a memorandum.

Psychological violence Rapporteur: Ms Kovács, Serbia, EPP/CD [AS/Ega (2011) 22] Consideration of a preliminary draft report.
1 Interpretation only in English and French.

2 9.

European norms concerning the enforcement and supervision of restraining orders in case of gender-based violence Rapporteur: Ms Kiuru, Finland, SOC [AS/Ega (2011) 20] Consideration of a preliminary draft report.

AS/Ega (2011) OJ 5 rev 02 Thursday 23 June 2011, from 8.30 to 10 am, Room 6 10.

11.

More women in economic and social decision-making bodies Rapporteur: Ms Gautier, France, EPP/CD [Doc.
12540, Amendments] Consideration of amendments to the draft resolution and/or recommendation.

Violent pornography: a threat to women’s dignity and rights Rapporteur: Mr Stuligrosz, Poland, EPP/CD [AS/Ega (2011) 25] Consideration of a preliminary draft report.

12.

The situation of women in Ukraine [Doc.


12491] Hearing with the participation of : - Mr Ivan Popescu, Chairperson of the Ukrainian delegation to the Assembly (to be confirmed); - Ms Olena Bondarenko (Ukraine, EPP/CD); - Ms Katerina Levchenko, lawyer and Director of La Strada (Ukraine).

13.

Priorities and work programme [AS/Ega/Inf (2011) 01 rev05] Exchange of views.

14.
14.

Appointment of representatives to external events Invitation to Mr Mendes Bota, in his personal capacity, to participate in the GenderStat Expert Group Meeting, organised by WAVE, Vienna, 30 June 2011 (at the organisers’ expenses).

15.

Other business 16.

Date and place of next meetings - Paris (Council of Europe office), 9 September 2011; - Strasbourg, during the 2011 4th part session of the Assembly (3-8 October) - Paris (Council of Europe), 8 December 2011.
3 Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l’homme AS/Jur (2011) OJ 05 Rev.

20 June 2011 ajoj05 2011Rev.


Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Draft Agenda1 for the meetings to be held in Strasbourg (Palais de l’Europe) on: - Monday 20 June 2011 at 2 pm (Room 10) - Tuesday 21 June 2011 at 8.30 am (Room 10 ) - [Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 2 pm – 3 pm (Room 10)]2 - Thursday 23 June 2011 at 8.30 am (Room 10 ) - Thursday 23 June 2011 at 2 pm (Room 9)3 Monday 20 June 2011 at 2 pm 1.

Agenda [AS/Jur (2011) OJ 05] Adoption of the agenda 2.
Minutes [Synopsis 04/2011] Approval of the minutes of the meeting held in Norway on 6-7 June 2011 postponed until the meeting on 7 September 2011 in Paris 3.
Abuse of State Secrecy and National Security: Obstacles to Parliamentary and Judicial Scrutiny of Human Rights Violations Rapporteur: Mr Dick Marty, Switzerland, ALDE [AS/Jur (2011) 27] Consideration of a preliminary draft report 1 Committee documents are published on the PACE extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) when they become available: http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.

PACE IT Unit staff (it.unit@coe.int) remains at your disposal for any technical assistance.
This draft agenda contains hyperlinks to some Assembly documents.

Further Committee documentation is available at: http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/CommitteeDocs/ComDocMenuJurEN.htm 2 The Sub-Committee on Human Rights from 2 pm.

3 Joint hearing with the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population.
_______________________________________________ This is the convocation to the meeting for the Members and Alternates of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Copy for information: Secretaries of National Delegations F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | e-mail: assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 AS/Jur (2011) OJ 05 Rev.

2 4.
2 4.

Request for partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco Rapporteur for opinion: Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera, Spain, SOC [AS/Jur (2011) 30] [Doc 12625] Consideration of a report tabled by the Political Affairs Committee Consideration and approval of the Committee’s opinion Tuesday 21 June 2011 at 8.30 am ***** 5.
Fundamental rights and fundamental duties and responsibilities Rapporteur: Mrs Marie-Louise Bemelmans-Videc, Netherlands, EPP/CD [AS/Jur (2011) 29] Consideration of a draft report and adoption of a draft resolution 6.

Appointment of a Rapporteur [Rapporteur table]  Reinforcing the selection processes of experts of the monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe [Doc.

12586] 7.
12586] 7.

Motion sent to the Committee for consultation on possible follow-up Criteria for the definition of a political prisoner [Doc 12587] 8.

Participation of members in conferences, meetings, seminars etc Report by the following representative:  The European Commission for Democracy through Law («Venice Commission ») (Venice, 17-18 June 2011): Mr Serhiy Holovaty (Ukraine, EPP/CD) 9.
Other business ***** Wednesday 22 June 2011 at 2 pm - for information: Sub-Committee on Human Rights - Room 10 ***** 3 AS/Jur (2011) OJ 05 Rev.

Thursday 23 June 2011 at 8.30 am 10.

Sub-Committee on Human Rights [AS/Jur/DH (2011) OJ 03] Report by the Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the meeting held in Strasbourg on 22 June 2011 11.

Other business 12.
Other business 12.

National parliaments: Guarantors of human rights in Europe Rapporteur: Mr Christos Pourgourides, Cyprus, EPP/CD [Doc 12636 + amendments] Consideration of amendments to the draft resolution 13.
Exchange of views with: 9 - 9.25 am  Ms Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, Federal Minister of Justice of Germany 9.25 - 10 am  Representatives of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the United Kingdom Parliament Thursday 23 June 2011 at 2 pm in ROOM 9 ***** (Joint hearing with the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population) 14.

Council of Europe relations with the European Union [AS/Pol (2011) 20 AS/Bur/AH EP PACE (2011) 04 AS/Mig/Inf (2011) 09 Doc.
12306 Resolution 1756 (2010) Recommendation 1935 (2010) Doc.

12535] Joint hearing with AS/POL and AS/MIG with the participation of:  Ms Tonje Meinich, Chair of the Informal Working Group on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights (CDDH-UE)  Mr Morten Kjaerum, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) AS/Jur (2011) OJ 05 Rev.

4 15.
Next meetings  Paris, 7 September 2011 (Council of Europe Office)  Strasbourg, during the Assembly’s 4th part session of 2011 (3-7 October 2011)  Paris, 16 November 2011 (Council of Europe Office)  Paris, 13 December 2011 (Council of Europe Office) Sub-Committee on Human Rights:  Paris, 13 December 2011 (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) ***** SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING DURING THE 2nd PART-SESSION: Sub-Committee on Human Rights:  Strasbourg, Wednesday 22 June 2011, 2 to 3 pm (Room 10) AS/ENA (2011) OJ 05 15 June 2011 AENAOJ_11_05 Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs DRAFT AGENDA for the meeting to be held in Strasbourg at the Palais de l’Europe Tuesday 21 June 2011 (from 2 to 3 pm) Room 8 Thursday 23 June 2011 (from 2 to 3 pm) Room 6 1.
2.

3.
Agenda [AS/ENA (2011) OJ 05] Opening of the meeting and adoption of the draft agenda Minutes [Synopsis meeting 9-10 June] Consideration of the synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 9-10 June 2011 Statement by the Chair [AS/ENA/Prix (2011) 4 rev] This draft agenda, addressed to members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to Secretaries of national delegations F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | e-mail: assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2717 This document is available on the Parliamentary Assembly Extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) Ce document est disponible sur le site Extranet de l'Assemblée parlementaire (accès réservé aux Membres) http://assembly.coe.int/extranet 4.
5.

6.

The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe Rapporteur for opinion: Sir Alan Meale, United Kingdom, SOC [AS/ENA (2011) 32, Doc.

12632] Approval of a draft opinion and amendments to the report by the Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs and preparation of the Assembly debate (Thursday, 23 June at 10 am) Reform of the Assembly [Doc.
12627 + Amendments, AS/ENA (2011) 25] Exchange of views and preparation of the Assembly debate (Wednesday 22 June at 4 pm) Armed conflicts and the environment Rapporteur: Mr Huseynov, Azerbaijan, ALDE [AS/ENA (2011) 18 rev.

+ AS/ENA (2011) 19 rev.]

Adoption of a draft resolution 7.

Food security and the environment Rapporteur: Mrs John-Calame, Switzerland, SOC Presentation of an outline report by the Rapporteur Exchange of views 8.

9.
9.

The impact of the world economic crisis on local and regional authorities Rapporteur: Sir Alan Meale, United Kingdom, SOC [AS/ENA (2011) …] Presentation by the Rapporteur of an preliminary draft report Exchange of views Preparatory meeting of the Parliamentary Political Process to the 6th World Water Forum (Strasbourg, 10 June 2011) [Programme] Exchange of views on follow-up by the Committee to the preparatory meeting 10.
Reply by the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 1947 on noise and light pollution [Doc.

….., Recommendation 1947 (2010)] Exchange of views 11.

Committee’s work programme [AS/ENA (2011) 02 rev.

4] A.

B. C. Appointment of Rapporteur Reports on past events Forthcoming activities 2 12.

Other business 13.
Future meetings Hünfeld (Germany), 27 August 2011: Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize (on the occasion of the presentation ceremony) (to confirm and subject to authorisation of the Assembly Bureau) Strasbourg, 3-7 October 2011 (during the Assembly part-session) Landerneau (France), 15-17 October 2011 : Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize (on the occasion of the presentation ceremony) (to confirm and subject to authorisation of the Assembly Bureau) Kiev, 2-4 November 2011: Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (on the occasion of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government) (subject to authorisation of the Assembly Bureau) Alfortville and Paris, 27-28 November 2011: Alfortville, 27 November: Sub-Committee on Energy (to confirm and subject to authorisation by the Assembly Bureau), Paris, 28 November: plenary committee 3 AS/EC (2011) OJ 07 Rev.
14 June 2011 Committee on Economic Affairs and Development Draft Agenda of the meetings to be held in Strasbourg (Palais de l’Europe) on: Monday 20 June, 2:00 - 3:00 pm (Room 8) Thursday 23 June, 2:00 - 3:00 pm (Room 5) Monday 20 June 2011: 1.

Opening of the meeting [AS/EC (2011) OJ 07 Rev.]

- Adoption of the draft agenda.

2.

Election of the Committee Vice-Chairperson 3. a. b.
Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2012-20131 Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012-2013 Rapporteur: Mr Erol Aslan Cebeci, Turkey, EPP/CD [Doc.

12622; Doc.

12623] - Consideration of possible amendments and exchange of views.

4.

Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly2 Rapporteur: Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, France, EPP/CD [Doc.
12627, Letter from the Chairperson (8 June 2011), Letter from Mr Mignon (10 June 2011)] - Statement by the Chairperson; - Exchange of views.

This draft agenda, addressed to members of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to Secretaries of National Delegations 1 Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June at 12 noon.
2 Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 21 June at 3.30 p.m. F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | e-mail: assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2719 These documents are published on the PACE extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) as soon as they become available: http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.

AS/EC (2011) OJ 07 Rev.

5.


The challenges faced by small national economies Rapporteur: Mrs Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, Malta, SOC [AS/EC (2011) 19] - Consideration of a revised introductory memorandum; - Exchange of views.

6.

Promoting an appropriate policy on tax-havens Rapporteur: Mr Dirk van der Maelen, Belgium, SOC [AS/EC (2011) 18] - Consideration of an outline for report; - Exchange of views.

Thursday 23 June 2011: 7.


Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment3 Rapporteur: Mrs Marija Pejčinović-Burić, Croatia, EPP/CD [Doc.

12626] - Consideration of possible amendments.

8.

The activities of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2010-2011 Rapporteur: Ms Birutė Vėsaitė, Lithuania, SOC [AS/EC (2011) 08 Rev.

3] - Consideration and adoption, on a provisional basis, of a draft report, including a preliminary draft resolution.

9.
9.

Investing in a low-carbon economy for growth and development Rapporteur: Mrs Doris Barnett, Germany, SOC [AS/EC (2011) 15] - Exchange of views on the basis of an outline for report.

10.

Work programme of the Committee [AS/EC (2011) 01 Rev.

3] a.

Work programme - Statement by the Chairperson; - Exchange of views on the work programme.

b.
b.

Representation to past and future events ● PACE Bureau meeting, Strasbourg, 20 June 2011 - Statement by the Chairperson; ● 46th Joint Meeting of the Council of Europe Development Bank, Tirana (Albania), 10-11 June 2011 [Doc.

12565; Recommendation 1937 (2010)] - Statement by the Chairperson.

3 Deadline for tabling amendments: Thursday 23 June at 10:30 a.m. 2 AS/EC (2011) OJ 07 Rev.

c. Appointment of rapporteur(s) - Energy diversification, a common European economic interest [Doc.

12514] – for report.


d. Future of the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre) [Doc.

12610; Recommendation 1893 (2009)] - Consideration of the reply from the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 1893 (2009).

11.

Other business 12.

Next meetings - Strasbourg, 4th part-session 2011 (3-7 October 2011); - Paris, Council of Europe Office (9 December 2011).
3 AS/MIG (2011) OJ 05 REV.2 20 June 2011 amoj05_2011 rev2 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population REVISED DRAFT AGENDA 2 1,2 of the meeting to be held in STRASBOURG on - Tuesday 21 June 2011, from 8.30 to 9.50am (Room 8) - Wednesday 22 June 2011, from 2 to 3pm (Room 8) - Thursday 23 June 2011, from 2 to 3pm (JOINT HEARING with the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Political Affairs Committee (Room 9) Tuesday 21 June 2011, from 8.30 to 9.50 am 1.

2.

3.

4.
2.

3.

4.

AGENDA [AS/Mig (2011) OJ 05 rev.2] Adoption of the agenda MINUTES [AS/Mig/CB(2011)04] The approval of the draft minutes of the meeting held in Corfu (Greece), on 1 June 2011 is postponed to the next meeting (Paris, 13 September 2011) STATEMENT BY THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE LIVING TOGETHER IN THE 21ST CENTURY EUROPE: FOLLOW-UP TO THE REPORT OF THE GROUP OF EMINENT PERSONS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Rapporteur for opinion: Mr Díaz Tejera, Spain, SOC [AS/Mig (2011) 17 Doc.
12631 – Report by the Group of Eminent persons] Consideration of a draft opinion for approval [Assembly debate: Wednesday 22 June, at 10am – Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 21 June, at 3.30pm] 1 This draft agenda, addressed to members and alternates of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population and observers’ delegations (copy to secretaries of national delegations), is the convocation to the meeting.
2 - The Sub-Committee on Refugees will meet on Tuesday 21 June from 9.50 to 10am, Room 8 (at the end of the plenary Committee meeting) - The Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s Southern shores will meet on Tuesday 21 June from 2 to 3pm (Room 7) F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | E-mail: mark.neville@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2341 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2797 Les documents sont diffusés sur le site web extranet de l’APCE (accès réservé aux délégations) dès qu’ils sont disponibles / Documents can be found on the PACE extranet web site (restricted area for delegations) as available : http://assembly.coe.int/extranet AS/Mig (2011) OJ 05 rev.2 5.
6.

7.

8.

9.

ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES: SHARING RESPONSIBILITIES IN EUROPE Rapporteur: Mr Chope, United Kingdom, EDG [Amendments to Doc.

12630 Doc.
12630 Doc.

12630] Consideration of possible amendments to the draft resolution and/or to the draft recommendation [Assembly debate: Tuesday 21 June 2011, at 3pm – Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June 2011, at 4pm] THE INTERCEPTION AND RESCUE AT SEA OF ASYLUM SEEKERS, REFUGEES AND IRREGULAR MIGRANTS Rapporteur: Mr Díaz Tejera, Spain, SOC [Amendments to Doc.

12628 Doc.
12628 Doc.

12628] Consideration of possible amendments to the draft resolution and/or to the draft recommendation [Assembly debate: Tuesday 21 June 2011, at 3pm – Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 20 June 2011, at 4pm] REFORM OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY [Doc.
12627] Exchange of views LIVING LIBRARY CO-ORGANISED WITH UNHCR IN STRASBOURG ON 21-22 JUNE 2011 - Statement by Mr Olivier BEER, Representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) - Exchange of views with two “Books” (persons involved in the living library) (tbc) UNDOCUMENTED MIGRANT CHILDREN IN AN IRREGULAR SITUATION: A REAL CAUSE FOR CONCERN Rapporteur: Mr Agramunt, Spain, EPP/CD [AS/Mig (2011) 16 rev.]

Consideration of a revised preliminary draft report 10.
THE PORTRAYAL OF MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES DURING ELECTION CAMPAIGNS Rapporteur: Ms Dumery, Belgium, NR [AS/Mig (2011) 18] Statement by the rapporteur on the exchange of views with invited experts, which took place on 2 June 2011 in Corfu, and consideration of an outline for the report Wednesday 22 June 2011, from 2 to 3pm 11.
FOLLOW-UP ON THE HUMANITARIAN CONSEQUENCES OF THE WAR BETWEEN GEORGIA AND RUSSIA: THE HUMANITARIAN SITUATION IN THE WAR-AFFECTED AREAS Rapporteur: Ms Acketoft, Sweden, ALDE Statement by the Rapporteur 2 AS/Mig (2011) OJ 05 rev.2 12.

THE SITUATION OF IDPs AND RETURNEES IN THE NORTH CAUCASUS REGION Rapporteur: Mr Dendias, Greece, EPP/CD Statement by the Rapporteur 13.

THE SITUATION OF ROMA IN EUROPE: MOVEMENT AND MIGRATION Rapporteur: Ms Groth, Germany, UEL Statement by the Rapporteur 14.

15.
15.

TRENDS DEMOGRAPHIC OPPORTUNITIES Rapporteur: Ms Memecan, Turkey, ALDE [AS/Mig (2011) 19] IN EUROPE: TURNING CHALLENGES INTO Statement by the Rapporteur and consideration of an outline for the report WORK PROGRAMME [AS/MIG/WP (2011) 05 AS/Mig/Inf (2011) 11 rev.

Doc.

12525, Doc 12557, Doc.

12617, Doc.


12504 and Doc 12512]  Appointments of rapporteurs For report: - Controlling irregular migration and asylum claims beyond the European Union’s Eastern border - The arrival of large numbers of irregular migrants to Italian coastal areas as a result of tensions in the southern Mediterranean countries Lives lost in the Mediterranean sea: who is responsible?
- For opinion: - “Health-care rationing : a threat to equal access to health?” and “Guaranteed access to health care for migrants/ foreign nationals” (for one report)  Representation of the Committee at various events - Appointments: - Statements: .

Conference on Migration in times of Economic crisis, organised by the Churches’ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) (Bucharest, Romania, 17 June 2011): statement by Mr Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain, SOC) 16.

SUB-COMMITTEES [AS/Mig/List (2011) 05 rev.]


Modifications in the composition of the sub-committees 17.

REPLIES FROM THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO TEXTS ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY PRESENTED BY THE COMMITTEE [Doc.

12620 AS/Mig (2011) 20 rev.

Rec.

1925 (2010) – Doc.

12562] Consideration of the reply to Recommendation 1925 (2010) on Readmission agreements: a mechanism for returning irregular migrants 3 AS/Mig (2011) OJ 05 rev.2 18.

OTHER BUSINESS 19.
OTHER BUSINESS 19.

NEXT MEETINGS  Paris, 13 September 2011 (to be confirmed)  Strasbourg, during the 4th part-session 2011 (3-7 October 2011)  Paris, 7 December 2011 (to be confirmed) Thursday 23 June 2011, from 2 to 3pm (Room 9) JOINT HEARING on the COUNCIL OF EUROPE RELATIONS WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION (Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Political Affairs Committee Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population) [AS/Pol (2011) 20 AS/Bur/AH EP PACE (2011) 04 AS/Mig/Inf (2011) 09 Doc.
12306 Resolution 1756 (2010) Recommendation 1935 (2010) Doc.
12535] With the participation of - Ms Tonje MEINICH, Chair of the Informal Working Group on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights (CDDH-UE) - Mr Morten KJAERUM, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) [Separate files] 4 2011 ORDINARY SESSION Third part 20–24 June 2011 TEXTS ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY Provisional edition F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Table of contents Opinion Opinion 281 (2011) Recommendations Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2012- 2013 (Doc.
12622) Recommendation 1972 (2011) The situation in Tunisia (Doc.

12624) Recommendation 1973 (2011) Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe (Doc.

12630) Recommendation 1974 (2011) The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants (Doc.

12628) Recommendation 1975 (2011) Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (Doc.
12631) Recommendation 1976 (2011) The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe (Doc.

12632) Recommendation 1977 (2011) More women in economic and social decision-making bodies (Doc.

12540) Recommendation 1978 (2011) Towards a European framework convention on youth rights (Doc.

12629) Resolutions Resolution 1817 (2011) Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012- 2013 (Doc.
12623) Resolution 1818 (2011) Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco (Doc.

12625) Resolution 1819 (2011) The situation in Tunisia (Doc.

12624) Resolution 1820 (2011) Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe (Doc.

12630) Resolution 1821 (2011) The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants (Doc.

12628) Resolution 1822 (2011) Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly (Doc.
12627) Resolution 1823 (2011) National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe (Doc.

12636) Resolution 1824 (2011) The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe (Doc.

12632) Resolution 1825 (2011) More women in economic and social decision-making bodies (Doc.

12540) Resolution 1826 (2011) Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 (Doc.
12546) Resolution 1827 (2011) The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2010 – May 2011) (Doc.

12634 + Addendum) Resolution 1828 (2011) Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment (Doc.

12626) Opinion 281 Provisional edition Budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2012-2013 Opinion 281 (2011)1 The Parliamentary Assembly supports the reforms initiated by the Secretary General of the Council of 1.
Europe, Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, to revitalise the Council of Europe and give the Organisation a fresh political impetus in future years.

In particular, it can give its backing to the measures being taken to rationalise structures and contain staff expenditure.

It welcomes the work done by the internal governance group (Group "Agenda 2020"), responsible for putting forward proposals and recommendations on the implementation of the reform.

2.
2.

The Assembly also endorses the Secretary General's initiative, in response to a proposal from the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, of setting up a Group of Eminent Persons, chaired by Mr Joschka Fischer, to prepare a report on the Pan-European project "Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe".

It notes with interest that this report has been published and will discuss its conclusions and proposals.
The Assembly takes note of the general reduction, proposed by the Secretary General, applied to the 3. budgets of the major administrative entities and institutional bodies of the Council of Europe (the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights and, solely for non-case processing activities, the European Court of Human Rights) for the financial years 2012 and 2013.
The Assembly refers to its Resolution 1817 (2011) on the expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012-2013.

4.

Concerning the Organisation's structures, the Assembly acknowledges the need for a rationalisation and reinforcement of the Council of Europe's field capacity, particularly through the creation of fifteen Council of Europe offices in member states concerned by the implementation of large-scale assistance and co- operation programmes.
However, the Assembly still has reservations, on account of their potential cost, concerning the creation of the Geneva, Vienna and Warsaw offices, which are not directly linked to the implementation of co-operation programmes.

5.
5.

Although the Assembly is strongly in favour of enhanced inter-institutional co-operation, it would not like the creation of new structures to weigh on the Organisation's budgets at a time when very significant efforts to rationalise and contain expenditure are being made on all sides, including by the Assembly itself.

6.
6.

Concerning the restructuring of the programme of activities, the Assembly understands that it is becoming extremely difficult to implement some 130 programmes (leaving aside legally binding activities) with an annual budget restricted to €40 million.

It can accordingly accept the reduction to 38 operational programmes, which means that certain programmes lacking the critical mass to have a sufficient impact should be discontinued.
However, it would not want important activities to end because the resources necessary to keep them going have been deployed elsewhere.

The co-operation programmes and related activities must indeed be geared to meeting the challenges faced by the member states.

1 Assembly debate on 20 June 2011 (20th Sitting) (see Doc.

12622, report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, rapporteur: Mr Cebeci).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 20 June 2011 (20th Sitting).
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Opinion 281 The Assembly considers that the same applies to the intergovernmental sector (committees of 7. intergovernmental experts).

It can accordingly comprehend that the new steering committees and their subordinate bodies are being organised under the three pillars of the co-operation programme, namely human rights, the rule of law and democracy.
This will make it possible to reduce the number of steering committees from 23 to 16, and the number of subordinate bodies from 28 to 6, thereby permitting a saving of about €900 000 per year.

8.
8.

However, this refocusing of activities, which is doubtless necessary, must be well thought through and correspond to the aims of all Council of Europe member states (not just the objectives of the Committee of Ministers – that is to say the ministries of foreign affairs – but also those of all the other specialised ministries concerned).

Indeed, the priorities of the capitals and of the ministries are not always the same.
Lastly, the Assembly wishes this restructuring exercise to be implemented taking full account of the 9. position it adopted in its Resolution 1783 (2011) on follow-up to the reform of the Council of Europe.

10.

The Assembly itself has set up an ad hoc committee on its own reform, whose proposals are set out in Resolution 1822 (2011) on the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly.

11.
11.

With regard to the conventions, the Assembly backs the Secretary General's intent to "take stock of the situation by conducting a critical review of their relevance".
In this connection, the Assembly refers to its Recommendation 1920 (2010) on reinforcing the effectiveness of Council of Europe treaty law, in which it requested the Committee of Ministers to instruct the relevant steering committees to examine the treaties falling within their respective spheres of competence, so as to identify conventions that are still relevant but require updating.

12.
12.

On this subject, the Assembly, as the instigator of many Council of Europe conventions, considers that it should itself be very closely involved in the implementation of an action plan for the conventions.

13.

The Assembly also welcomes the decision by the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General to introduce a biennial programme and budget for 2012-2013.
This is consistent with the Assembly's frequently voiced desire to break out of the yoke of the annual budget, which has so far been the rule at the Council of Europe.

14.
14.

Nonetheless, the Assembly would emphasise that the introduction of a biennial programme and budget will constitute a major step forward on condition that the rules of implementation are adapted so as to permit management over a two-year cycle, namely to permit the adoption of a budget for the coming year (N) and the following year (N+1) and flexible use of appropriations for years N and N+1.

15.
15.

In concrete terms, the Assembly considers that any unspent appropriations from year N should be carried forward without restriction to year N+1.

Similarly, it thinks it should be possible, under certain conditions to be determined, to draw on the funds earmarked for year N+1 if expenditure overruns the amounts budgeted for year N, for example so as to make investments that will permit the reduction of certain expenditure items in future.

16.
16.

For this reason the Assembly reiterates its call to amend the current Article 70 of the Financial Regulations of the Council of Europe so that any unspent balance at the year end will be left at the Organisation's disposal and placed in a reserve account, as the Assembly suggested in its Opinions 268 (2008) and 279 (2010) on the budgets of the Council of Europe for the financial years 2009 and 2011.

17.
17.

With regard to priorities, the Assembly continues to follow with great interest the issue of human rights protection and the future of the European Court of Human Rights, including the follow-up process and action plan adopted by the Committee of Ministers in the wake of the Interlaken Conference in February 2010.

It has also taken note of the Izmir Declaration of 27 April 2011, published on the occasion of the High-Level Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights.

18.
18.

The Assembly is nonetheless surprised that, in view of its historical role in ensuring the authority and effectiveness of the Convention system and the part it plays in the election of the Court's judges, as the source of legitimacy of their mandates, it has not been asked to participate in the long-term strategic reflections about the future role of the Court.

19.
19.

The Assembly indeed attaches great importance to the good functioning of the Convention system, particularly in the context of the current negotiations on European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights and the need to ensure the effective implementation of the Court’s judgments.

2 Opinion 281 20.
2 Opinion 281 20.

With particular regard to the rule of law, the Assembly fully concurs with the decision to target the programme towards combating threats to collective and individual security, notably organised crime, corruption and money laundering.

Here, the Assembly underlines the importance of ensuring the monitoring of the relevant Council of Europe conventions.
In particular, it invites the member states swiftly to sign and ratify the Convention on the counterfeiting of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public health, which was adopted in December 2010 and of which it was the originator, as well as the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No.

210), adopted in Istanbul on 11 May 2011.

21.


The Assembly moreover notes with satisfaction that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe intends to "pursue ... work in support of fair and democratic elections".

In this respect, it recalls that it was behind the introduction of institutionalised observation of elections within Europe.
Since 1989, the Assembly has observed over 130 parliamentary or presidential elections in European countries, and some 1 700 Assembly members have been deployed as observers.

22.

The Assembly considers that it has played a leading role in building Europe's electoral heritage.

It instigated the Council of Europe's standard-setting work concerning elections, which served as a basis for improving national electoral legislation.
With the Venice Commission as its institutional partner, the Assembly will continue to play an efficient and effective role in the field, observing legislative or presidential elections.

23.

Concerning its relations with external partners, particularly civil society, the Assembly wishes to obtain more information on the strategy of the Council of Europe with regard to civil society in general and the international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) enjoying participatory status in particular.
In October 2010, the Conference of INGOs drew Assembly members' attention to its situation following the initial consequences of the reform, entailing a 50% cut in the Conference's budget for 2011, which means that it cannot hold sessions in parallel with those of the Assembly.

24.
24.

The Assembly also welcomes the tangible action taken by the Secretary General in response to the call it issued in its Recommendation 1886 (2009) on the future of the Council of Europe in the light of its sixty years of experience to set up an annual Forum for Democracy in Strasbourg: a sort of Davos for democracy with strong participation by civil society and INGOs.

25.
25.

The Assembly notes that the Secretary General's reform priorities continue to include the modernisation of human resources policy, in particular containment of staff costs.
It has noted that the Committee of Ministers, acting on a proposal by the Secretary General, has amended the Staff Regulations so as to modernise – and in the longer term abolish – certain staff allowances that do not come under the co- ordinated remuneration system (education, language and housing allowances) and to adapt conditions for start-of-career promotions.

26.
26.

The Assembly has also been informed of the governments' wish to decrease the expatriation allowance paid to non-resident staff working for the Co-ordinated Organisations, despite negative opinions from the Committee of Representatives of the Secretaries-General and of staff representatives.

The Assembly reminds those concerned that it attaches the greatest importance to the principles of negotiation and respect for the rules governing the co-ordination system, which must be abided by.

27.
27.

Concerning the pensions of staff of the Council of Europe, the Assembly has been informed that a new actuarial study to assess the level of member states' contributions to the Pension Reserve Fund for the next three years (2012-2014) is to be published before the end of 2011.
In this context, the Assembly wishes to draw the Committee of Ministers' attention to the rate of return set for the actuarial study, as the Committee of Ministers should not impose a virtual rate that is too high, simply with a view to minimising member states' future contributions to the Fund.

28.

The Assembly is also surprised that there are no proposals to link the Pension Reserve Fund and the sole financial body of the Council of Europe, the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB).
It considers that the Bank's expertise in investment matters could be put to use by the Fund's Management Board.

In this connection, the Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to consider the advisability of granting a seat on the Management Board to the CEB and of drawing on the Bank's expertise concerning financial investments in devising the strategy for investing the Fund's assets.

29.
29.

The Assembly notes that the Council of Europe also receives voluntary contributions of about €29 million per year (including some €20 million from the European Union).

These contributions are essential to keep afloat the Organisation's co-operation and technical assistance activities.

For 2011, extra-budgetary 3 Opinion 281 resources requirements have been estimated at about €37 million.
In this context, the Assembly invites the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to negotiate with the European Commission the establishment of a stable, sustainable system of funding joint programmes with European Union resources.

30.

In view of the importance of these additional resources, the Assembly would like the structure within the Council of Europe secretariat in charge of fundraising to be reinforced.
In this connection, it also proposes holding regular meetings between the authorities of the foreign ministries of member states and of the Council of Europe, so as to foster better understanding of the system, its improved functioning and better use of the funds.

In conclusion, the Assembly is aware that the purpose of all these measures is to adapt the Council of 31.

Europe to cope with new challenges.


At the same time, current geopolitical developments in the Mediterranean basin are confronting Europe, the European Union and the Council of Europe with their political, financial, social and moral responsibilities.
For this reason, the Assembly would like the Council of Europe to assist the setting up of these new 32. emerging democracies, while placing a premium on rights, whether concerning access to freedoms, respect for human rights or the establishment of the rule of law, which are the Council of Europe's fundamental values.

This is a challenge to which the Council of Europe absolutely must respond.

4 Recommendations 1972 to 1978 Provisional edition The situation in Tunisia Recommendation 1972 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 1819 (2011) on the situation in Tunisia.

It also refers to the efforts of the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to contribute to the changes taking place in Tunisia.

2.
2.

The success of the reforms embarked upon in Tunisia, where the people have been at the forefront of the “Arab Spring”, is of particular importance for the future of the transition to democracy and progress towards the universal values of the whole Mediterranean and Middle East region.

Europe, built on those same values, should do all it can to contribute to the success of the transition in Tunisia.

3.
3.

The Council of Europe is able to put at the disposal of Tunisia its unique experience and expertise in accompanying democratic transitions and establishing new institutions in young democracies in Europe.

It should deploy its resources to offer practical and effective assistance in the implementation of democratic reforms in Tunisia.

4.
Accordingly, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 4.1. step up co-operation with the Tunisian Higher Authority for Realisation of the Objectives of the Revolution, Political Reform and Democratic Transition and provide it with relevant information on practical experiences of constitutional processes in Europe; 4.2. draw up, in liaison with the transitional Tunisian authorities and in co-operation with other institutional partners, especially the European Union, a programme to assist with the institutional and political reforms in Tunisia, and call on member states and other partners to ensure the funding of such a programme; 4.3. give priority to assistance in electoral matters, including the training of staff to administer the elections and local observers from Tunisian civil society; 4.4. involve Tunisian representatives, including those of civil society, in the activities of the Council of Europe in the field of democracy, and in particular in the Forum for the Future of Democracy, the Summer University for Democracy and the future Strasbourg International Forum for Democracy; 4.5. examine the conditions of a possible accession by Tunisia to a certain number of European conventions, notably in the fields of democracy, the rule of law and human rights; invite Tunisia to accede to the Council of Europe's enlarged partial agreements, in particular the 4.6.
European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre).

5.

In addition, the Assembly recalls its Resolution 1805 (2011) and Recommendation 1967 (2011) on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores.

It invites the Committee of Ministers to examine the measures to take in order that the Council of Europe can fully play its role as the main European organisation for the protection of human rights in this matter.
1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc.

12624, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Ms Brasseur).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Rec.

1972 6.
The Assembly refers to the conclusions of the report of the Group of eminent persons of the Council of Europe “Living Together – combining diversity and freedom in the 21st Century Europe” to move the Organisation closer to its neighbours and recommends that the Committee of Ministers examine the possibility of creating, in consultation with the Assembly, a special status with the Council of Europe for the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean which would ensure a closer relationship than the one provided by the observer status.
2 Provisional edition Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe Recommendation 1973 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly, referring to its Resolution 1820 (2011) "Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe", considers that Europe has to take further measures to ensure that responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers are shared fairly in Europe and that those seeking international protection have access to fair and efficient systems for the processing of their claims.

2.
The Assembly therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to: 2.1. establish a Council of Europe good practice guide in asylum determination practice and procedure, highlighting the relevant Council of Europe human rights standards; 2.2. ensure Council of Europe access and input to any materials developed by the European Union, for example by the European Asylum Support Office, to ensure that the interests of all 47 member states of the Council of Europe (and not just the EU-27) are fully taken into account; 2.3. provide a framework for providing mutual assistance, resettlement and relocation of refugees across the 47 member states of the Council of Europe.
1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc.

12630, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, rapporteur: Mr Chope).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting).
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Provisional edition The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Recommendation 1974 (2011)1 The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 1821 (2011) on the interception and rescue at 1. sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants.

2.
2.

The Assembly notes that, on its southern borders, Europe has to cope with a relatively large number of arrivals by boat of mixed migratory flows.

Recent arrivals following the turmoils in North Africa confirm that Europe must be ready to face such arrivals on a relatively large scale.

It is therefore a matter of urgency that the five main problems noted by the Assembly in its aforementioned resolution with respect to the existing measures to manage these maritime arrivals are speedily resolved.

3.
3.

The Assembly welcomes the Council of Europe Secretary General’s initiative to call an extraordinary meeting of the Committee of Ministers to examine possible Council of Europe action in case of the massive arrival of asylum seekers and migrants from the southern Mediterranean.

It further welcomes the support given by the Committee of Ministers to the Secretary General’s proposals on the elaboration of emergency action plans, as well as regarding the training of officials dealing with asylum requests.
4.

While widely supporting these decisions, the Assembly reminds the Committee of Ministers of its dual responsibility: to support those member states that are in need, but also to make sure that all human rights obligations are complied with in the context of the interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants, including by guaranteeing to those intercepted access to a fair and efficient asylum procedure.

5.
The Assembly therefore calls on the Committee of Ministers to: include in the training material all necessary elements to enable the trained persons to proceed 5.1. to a screening assessment of the international protection needs of intercepted persons and to ensure that staff involved in the operations of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex) are trained accordingly; 5.2. define, in close co-operation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), guidelines and standard operating procedures, when interception and rescue at sea takes place, determining minimum administrative procedures to guarantee that those persons with international protection needs are identified and provided with the appropriate protection; 5.3. continue monitoring the situation of large-scale arrivals of irregular migrants and asylum seekers, and in particular the issue of interception and rescue at sea, including by holding extraordinary meetings on the situation, where appropriate, and use the good offices of the UNHCR with its representative at the Council of Europe, where relevant.
1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc.

12628, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, rapporteur: Mr Díaz Tejera).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Provisional edition Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe Recommendation 1975 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly takes note of the Group of Eminent Persons’ report on “Living together – Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe”, presented on 11 May 2011, on the occasion of the 121st session of the Committee of Ministers in Istanbul.

The Assembly expects that the report will give a fresh impetus to, and generate a higher political commitment for, a range of current and future Council of Europe activities, against the backdrop of the Organisation’s reform process.

2.
2.

The analysis of the Group of Eminent Persons provides a basis for further reflection on Europe’s future which should involve politicians, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), trade unions, youth organisations, academics, as well as representatives of religions, the media and local authorities from different backgrounds and countries.

On several issues, the Group’s findings corroborate positions already taken by the Assembly, while in some cases suggesting different ways of achieving similar goals.
The challenge has been, and still is, to ensure implementation in a situation which the Group correctly refers to as a “crisis of leadership”.

3.

For its part, the Assembly is ready and willing to contribute to the changes which are needed to ensure greater cohesion in European societies, so that everyone may fully benefit from living together.
It therefore wishes to share with the Committee of Ministers its own reflections on the matter and propose concrete ways of implementation of the proposals within the remit of its competences and priorities.

Europe is multicultural and European peoples have proved their capacity to live together in diversity 4. and build together their common future.
Although multiculturalism is facing increasing difficulties at national level in various European countries, the Assembly firmly believes that assimilation is not an alternative.

The response to these difficulties is an intercultural approach which implies an active interaction of the culturally different groups within society in order to develop the best model of living together.
The strengthening of common European values and identity should be promoted in a way which does not eliminate the different cultures of specific groups, but preserves and incorporates their specificities in the common European framework.

This process can be endangered by growing populist, xenophobic and identity politics and similar such rhetoric coined for short-term electoral purposes and the Assembly therefore calls on member states to develop policies to prevent such negative practices.

5.
5.

Respect of one's own culture helps to understand the culture of others and accept differences as normal and enriching.

Apart from respect for the law as an important part of the democratic culture, other cultural elements should also be taken into account.

6.

People coming lawfully to live in a country should not be expected to leave elements of their identity (faith, language, culture, etc.)

behind.
behind.

However, they are expected to show willingness to integrate into the society of their new country, by not only learning its language, but also gaining knowledge and understanding of the local culture, and they must respect democracy, human rights, including the rights of 1 Assembly debate on 22 June 2011 (23rd and 24th Sittings) (see Doc.

12631, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Toshev, Doc.
12653, opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Ms Kaufer, Doc.

12650, opinion of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, rapporteur: Mr Díaz Tejera, Doc.

12651, opinion of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mr Flego, and Doc.12640, opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Ms Kovács).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 June 2011 (24th Sitting).
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Rec.

1975 women, and the rule of law.

The communities of origin should not ostracise those who choose to change their faith or culture.

7.

As the Assembly has stressed time and again, education is the main tool – but not the only one – against misleading information and stereotypes about specific groups.
Moreover, education is indispensable to individual and societal welfare and cultural development, without which democracy, human rights and the rule of law would lose their foundations.

The capacity to be open to and value diversity is highly dependent on quality education.

An emphasis on teacher training should be added to the specific recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons in this area.
The work of the Council of Europe in areas such as education for democratic citizenship or history teaching should be enhanced.

8.

In this context, the Assembly recalls the 1999 Committee of Ministers Declaration and Programme on education for democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizens, and believes that their implementation could substantially contribute to the development of a European spirit within society.
It thus urges member states to strengthen the implementation of the 1999 Programme as well as the more recent Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in 2010, taking concrete steps adapted to their local specificities.

9.
9.

The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1754 (2010) "The fight against extremism: achievements, deficiencies and failures", in which it “regrets that the challenge of establishing a more ethical attitude in politics when dealing with issues related to race, ethnic and national origin and religion is still to be met”.
Elected representatives have a special responsibility to change the situation both as individuals and as members of the bodies to which they are elected, be it at local, regional, national or international level.

The Assembly reiterates that politicians have a special responsibility to eliminate from political discourse negative stereotyping or the stigmatising of any ethnic, minority or migrant group, be they present or not within the borders of their states.
They should promote a message of non-discrimination, tolerance and respect for people from different backgrounds.

10.

The Assembly regrets that, as stated in several passages of the report of the Group of Eminent Persons, women from minority groups are particularly affected by marginalisation.
This situation must be addressed as a priority, not only to ensure gender equality but also to strengthen women’s potential to act as a bridge between their communities and the society at large, by educating children in a culture of diversity and dialogue and helping them reconcile multiple identities.

11.

The Assembly wishes to stress the need to focus on youth and implement youth rights as an investment in Europe’s cohesion and future.
Youth policies should be at the core of member states' strategies aimed at building up “Living together” societies.

In this respect, national authorities should adopt specific measures to encourage youth participation in economic and democratic life, and offer to all young people equal opportunities to contribute to the development and well-being of their societies.
In addition, more attention should be paid to the potential of sport as a powerful tool to further intercultural dialogue and living together among young people.

12.

The Assembly also stresses the central role the media can play in strengthening democracy, the respect of fundamental rights and the development of culture.

It believes that the Council of Europe should strengthen its relations with the media world.

13.
13.

The Assembly considers that an important role can and should be played by the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre); appropriate means should be given to it in order to develop a specific comprehensive “Living together” programme, including the educational, intercultural and youth policy dimensions, to support development in non-member countries of the Mediterranean region.

14.
The Assembly, prompted by the relevant proposals and recommendations made by the Group of Eminent Persons, resolves, for its part, to: 14.1. initiate its own reflection on ways to encourage politicians and elected representatives at all levels to speak out on the challenges raised at present by the threats to the European project and solidarity; 14.2. pursue reflection on the proposal for an annual Forum against extremism, while keeping in mind the necessity for the Assembly to maintain its capacity for rapid reaction in the face of new disturbing developments; 2 Rec.
1975 consider organising jointly with the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance 14.3.
(ECRI), as appropriate, and in co-operation with all relevant sectors of the Organisation and, possibly, the European Parliament, a Conference to take stock of best practices and shortcomings in the implementation of the 2003 Charter of European Political Parties for a Non-Racist society, as well as the 2005 Declaration on the use of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic elements in political discourse and the earlier Committee of Ministers Recommendation No.
R (97) 20 on “hate speech”; 14.4. consider organising an Assembly campaign to promote the Council of Europe Conventions on Nationality (ETS No.

166) and on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No.

144); 14.5. policies; address the issue of ageing societies in Europe, inter alia through appropriate family support 14.6.

Roma and other groups susceptible to marginalisation.

address the democratic deficit resulting from the lack of democratic participation of migrants, 15.
Recalling that in Recommendations 1927 (2010), 1933 (2010) and 1962 (2011), the Assembly addressed a number of concrete proposals to the Committee of Ministers with respect to the fight against extremism and the promotion of intercultural dialogue calling for “a new culture of living together”, it urges the Committee of Ministers to consider those proposals also in the light of the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons.

in 16.
in 16.

The Assembly recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons, give priority to the following issues: the Committee of Ministers, further recommends that implementing the 16.1.

Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No.

144); promote further the Council of Europe Conventions on Nationality (ETS No.
166) and on the 16.2. different – all equal” campaigns; consider launching a major campaign on "Living together", along the lines of the two “All 16.3. integration projects in member states; explore the possibility of enhancing the role of the Council of Europe Development Bank in 16.4. themselves with and respect the culture, language, traditions and history of immigrant groups; call on member states to build cultural bridges by encouraging their citizens to familiarise 16.5. consider the development of guidelines addressing both the rights and responsibilities of migrants and the links between them through, as a minimum, a code of good practice on living together, possibly leading at some stage in the future to a framework convention; 16.6. take urgent measures to implement Assembly Recommendation 1963 (2011) on combating poverty, to improve access for people experiencing poverty, in particular from migrant and minority communities, to all human rights (civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights); 16.7. examine the steps needed to guarantee the basic rights of irregular migrants and their children, recognising that many of these people are exploited and cannot or will not be returned to their countries of origin; 16.8. reinforce all its programmes aimed at assisting member states in the design of sound educational policies and the proper implementation of the right to education, with no discrimination, in particular as regards people from disadvantaged, minority or migrant backgrounds, in order to combat the educational and cultural divide in our societies; 16.9. enhance the work of the Council of Europe in the areas of education for democratic citizenship based on the rights and responsibilities of the citizens, which should include education in multiculturalism, and history teaching with a special emphasis on teacher training; 16.10. establish pilot projects on intercultural dialogue with local authorities, schools and higher education institutions and media in member states, including, where possible, a multilateral dimension in such pilot schemes; 3 Rec.
1975 16.11. call on representatives of religions to contribute, when appropriate, to the debates on common values, common heritage, protection of religious freedom, respect for human rights and democratic citizenship, the fight against terrorism, xenophobia and intolerance.
16.12. states, including a thematic European forum on intercultural dialogue to be organised periodically; create a regular process to assess the development of intercultural dialogue in member 16.13. have regular contacts with the main European media networks, with a view to further implementing the Council of Europe recommendations on training, ethical and content production issues; 16.14.
Group of Eminent Persons; fully integrate gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the recommendations of the 16.15. propose positive measures to member states to avoid the risk of women from minority groups being subjected to double discrimination – compared to men and compared to other women – and to promote their active participation in social, economic and political life; 16.16. and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No.

210).
210).

promote the signature and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing 17.

The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers, in implementing the recommendations of the Group of Eminent Persons, take specific measures to ensure the protection of those who are particularly vulnerable or at risk of exclusion and marginalisation, enabling them to live in dignity.
In this connection, the Assembly stresses that everyone is entitled to respect of social rights that cannot be denied.

The Council of Europe, in its Committee of Ministers Recommendation No.

R (2000) 3 on the right to the satisfaction of basic material needs of persons in situations of extreme hardship, stressed that this right should contain as a minimum the right to food, clothing, shelter and basic medical care.

18.
18.

The Group of Eminent Persons proposes to appoint a high-level special representative mandated to bring the content of the report to the attention of political leaders and monitor its implementation.
In this respect, the Assembly recalls that, in its Recommendation 1928 (2010) "Democracy in Europe: crisis and perspectives", it proposed that “a high-profile personality, a sort of a Delegate for Democracy, be entrusted with the task of … disseminating, on a permanent basis, the Council of Europe’s message on democracy- related issues of major current interest”.
The Assembly believes that the two proposals are not mutually exclusive and that a possible way forward would be for one and the same person to embrace both the actions proposed by the Group and those proposed by the Assembly and invites the Committee of Ministers to examine this proposal.

19.

The Group of Eminent Persons proposes to offer a special status in the Council of Europe to countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores and of Central Asia.
The Assembly recalls its status of “Partner for Democracy” for parliaments of countries in neighbouring regions and its Resolution 1818 (2011) on the request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco and Resolution 1819 (2011) on the situation in Tunisia.
In view of recent developments on the southern and eastern Mediterranean shores, the Assembly wholeheartedly supports ways of bringing countries from that region closer to the Council of Europe.

20.
20.

The Assembly resolves to pursue its reflection on this matter, inter alia by organising a conference, involving the Secretary General, representatives of the Committee of Ministers and of the Group of Eminent Persons, the rapporteur and other members of its Political Affairs Committee, as well as the rapporteurs of the other committees seized for opinion, in order to deepen and enlarge the debate related to the development of our multicultural societies.
Following this conference, an action-based agenda for the Council of Europe should be set during a Ministerial Session, and this should feed into any future Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government.

4 Provisional edition The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe Recommendation 1976 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly, with reference to its Resolution 1824 (2011) on the role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe and Recommendation 1958 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights, invites the Committee of Ministers to take steps to ensure rapid progress with regards to the signature, ratification and implementation of the revised European Social Charter (ETS No.

163) and its Protocols.


In particular, the Assembly calls on the four countries which have not yet ratified the Protocol amendment the Social Charter (ETS No.
142, “Turin Protocol”) – namely, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom – to do so as soon as possible and, regarding the election of the members of the European Committee of Social Rights by the Assembly, to ensure, in the absence of rapid progress, that the Assembly can fully discharge its appointed function in the Charter’s monitoring machinery by adopting a unanimous decision to that effect.

The Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers to draft a new Protocol to the revised European 2.
Social Charter on the right to health, including the right to a healthy environment.

The Assembly recalls the importance of involving parliaments in the early stages of the preparation of 3. international treaties.
With a view to improving parliamentary oversight of international institutions and agreements reached at international level, the Committee of Ministers is called on to: 3.1. ensure that national governments submit early drafts of forthcoming agreements to parliament for comment; 3.2. continue to involve the Assembly in the process of drafting new conventions at different levels, from representation on the drafting committee to the timely submission of the draft text for opinion to the Assembly, and reconsider the possibility of introducing co-decision making on such texts in line with Recommendation 1763 (2006) on the institutional balance at the Council of Europe; 3.3. continue to ensure participation of the Assembly at the ministerial conferences and other high- level events organised by the Council of Europe on a regular basis in the field of social rights, social cohesion, public health, etc.
4.

In light of recent trends in the areas of social cohesion and public health policies in member states, the Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the Council of Europe remains present in these policy fields by maintaining strong intergovernmental and standard-setting activities despite ongoing reform processes within the Organisation.

1 Assembly debate on 23 June 2011 (25th Sitting) (see Doc.
12632, report of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mrs Ohlsson, and Doc.

12658, opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Sir Alan Meale).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2011 (25th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Provisional edition More women in economic and social decision-making bodies Recommendation 1977 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the resolve of the Ministers responsible for Equality between Women and Men meeting at the 7th Council of Europe Ministerial Conference (Baku, 24-25 May 2010) and the adoption of the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality”.
Referring to its Resolution 1825 (2011) "More women in economic and social decision-making bodies", 2. the Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to pursue and develop its efforts to: implement the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto 2.1.
Gender Equality”; 2.2. analyse and gather statistics, particularly concerning women’s position in economic and social life; 2.3. highlight best national practices; 2.4. establish qualitative indicators of women’s participation in economic and social decision-making bodies.

3.
3.

In the context of the implementation of the Baku Action Plan, the Assembly asks the Committee of Ministers to address two recommendations to member states, respectively on ensuring equal opportunities for women and men in access to employment and promotions, and on equal opportunities and the reconciliation of private and professional life.

1 Assembly debate on 23 June 2011 (26th Sitting) (see Doc.
12540, report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Ms Gautier, and Doc.

12637, opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, rapporteur: Ms Naghdalyan).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2011 (26th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 2 Provisional edition Towards a European framework convention on youth rights Recommendation 1978 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly has long given high priority to issues of youth rights and policies.

In its Recommendation 1585 (2002) on youth policies in the Council of Europe, as well as in its Recommendation 1844 (2008) and Resolution 1630 (2008) on refreshing the youth agenda of the Council of Europe, the Assembly encouraged the Committee of Ministers to step up intergovernmental co-operation in youth matters and support the activities of the Council of Europe’s youth sector.
The resolution called upon “young people in general and on youth organisations in particular to insist on the possibilities that exist for interaction with the Council of Europe and in particular with the Parliamentary Assembly”.

2.
Other texts adopted by the Assembly concern specific aspects of youth policies, such as Recommendation 1552 (2002) on vocational training of young asylum seekers in host countries, Recommendation 1632 (2003) on teenagers in distress: a social and health-based approach to youth malaise, Recommendation 1717 (2005) on education for leisure activities, as well as a series of recommendations and recently, Recommendation 1930 (2010) on prohibiting the marketing and use of the “Mosquito” youth dispersal device called on governments to ban the use of this high-frequency sound device used to chase young people from places where they might gather.
resolutions concerning higher education and training.

Most 3.

With respect to the present European context, the Assembly acknowledges that due to the demographic and cultural changes that have taken place in Europe over the last few years, young people across the continent face increasing difficulties in accessing and exercising their rights.

Their autonomy is increasingly threatened as a consequence of economic, geographical and socio-cultural inequalities.
Youth policies are also particularly vulnerable to economic recess, as they are often relegated to a secondary place in governmental priorities and resource allocation.

Young people have often been at the centre of action for democratic change and progress, as 4. illustrated by the recent popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and in other countries on the African continent.
In the above-mentioned Recommendation 1585 (2002), the Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers to re- launch the Euro-Arab youth dialogue, and work in this area has been brought forward by the Council of Europe’s Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (“North-South Centre”), in partnership with the European Commission and youth organisations, since the First Africa-Europe Youth Summit in 2007.
Young people’s energy and ideas should be used to the full by giving young people better access to personal autonomy and democratic participation, including voting rights.

It is therefore necessary to provide opportunities for youth to effectively benefit from their rights, while 5. raising awareness of them in society and among young people themselves.
Positive and tangible measures should be taken at national and international levels to help young people take advantage of existing possibilities and to build upon them, as well as to harmonise access to rights.

6.

Many of the rights to which young people are entitled are covered by existing legislation, but a stronger legal basis allowing for systematic implementation and monitoring is needed to protect them.

It is necessary to find direct, rapid and effective solutions.
Young people all over Europe are expecting policymakers to produce concrete visible results, a change of reality that will make all the difference.

1 Assembly debate on 24 June 2011 (27th Sitting) (see Doc.

12629, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Ms Kovács).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 24 June 2011 (27th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Rec.
1978 The Assembly is convinced that the transition period between childhood and adult life is crucial for the 7. development and self-fulfilment of individuals and that the specific challenges of this period require specific solutions.

Therefore, the Assembly adopts the principles in the Appendix to the present recommendation and calls on member states to: take measures to facilitate access of young people to fundamental rights as enshrined in the 7.1.
European Convention on Human Rights and the revised European Social Charter, in particular opposing multiple discrimination against young people; 7.2. sign and ratify, if they have not yet done so, the Council of Europe Convention on Transnational Voluntary Service for Young People (ETS No.
175); 7.3. step up measures in their countries to implement: 7.3.1. local and regional life; the Council of Europe Revised European Charter on the participation of young people in 7.3.2. the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship; 7.3.3. councils information; the Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2006)1 on the role of national youth in youth policy development and Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)8 on youth 7.4. prioritise measures allowing young people individual autonomy and full European citizenship by promoting their rights to: 7.4.1. take part in democratic processes and in cultural life; 7.4.2. participate in and contribute to intercultural dialogue, thereby enhancing the cohesion of multicultural societies; 7.4.3. free access to information and to the Internet; 7.4.4. non-discrimination; 7.5. consider adopting the new “youth centre label” for national youth centres, thereby ensuring that these centres become multipliers of the fundamental values upheld by the Council of Europe.
National parliaments have an essential responsibility.
The Assembly therefore calls on the parliaments 8. of member states to: 8.1. encourage and give added value to the participation of young parliamentarians in parliamentary work, enhancing their status and public awareness of their contribution, and submit the present recommendation to national youth parliaments, or their equivalents, and constituent organisations for their consideration and comments; 8.2. promote the participation of young people in democratic processes and in real decision- making, especially by offering opportunities for dialogue between the national representatives of youth associations and the relevant parliamentary committees, and encouraging the establishment of youth parliaments; 8.3. personal autonomy and democratic participation and by considering lowering the voting age; encourage the participation of young people in society by giving them better access to 8.4. positively to requests for support for projects which will be led by these young people at local levels.
follow closely the Council of Europe’s “Youth Peace Ambassadors” project and respond The Assembly welcomes the Committee of Ministers’ support for the activities of the Council of 9.

Europe’s youth sector, including its unique model of co-management by representatives of governments and youth non-governmental organisations and current youth projects such as ENTER!

and Youth Peace Ambassadors.

It calls on the Committee of Ministers to: 2 Rec.
1978 continue its support for the work of the youth sector, as well as other Council of Europe 9.1. activities such as Education for Democratic Citizenship and the work of the North-South Centre on global education and on Euro-African co-operation; 9.2. include the present recommendation and its appendix in the documents submitted to the participants in the Conference of Ministers of Youth to be held in 2012 on the themes of the social inclusion of young people, democracy, participation and living together in diverse societies; 9.3. instruct the co-management bodies of the Council of Europe’s youth sector to compile a comprehensive handbook of instruments, programmes and policies for the use of young people, youth leaders and organisations, as well as policymakers, as a guide to youth rights; 9.4. step up Council of Europe co-operation with the European Union and its Flagship Initiative “Youth on the Move” beyond the successful Youth Partnership Joint Programme, and with the United Nations, in particular in the context of the International Year of Youth 2010-2011 and its follow-up; 9.5. instruct the relevant intergovernmental instances to study the possibility of drafting a framework convention on the rights of young people, based on the ten principles below, which include common indicators as tools for monitoring the implementation of youth rights.
Ten principles for a European framework convention on youth rights Youth rights are those rights which enable young people to successfully make the transition between childhood and adulthood, to become informed, independent, autonomous, responsible and committed citizens at local, national and international levels.

Ensuring young people’s access to their rights is a means of ensuring both cohesive, sustainable societies and is an investment in the future of European construction.
An instrument for the implementation of youth rights should serve as a framework for modelling national youth policies and should be based on the following ten principles: 1.

Definitions What is missing at the moment is a clear and comprehensive definition of the meaning of youth.

Member states should define the age groups concerned by their youth policies, which should be coherent with other legal provisions concerning young people and as far as possible correspond to those of other European countries.
A framework convention on youth rights should seek to provide common definitions to facilitate the implementation of rights and the monitoring of their implementation through statistics.

2.

Education and training States should provide education that is universal, free and accessible.

Beyond economic considerations, education should be valued as a means of self-fulfilment and of empowerment for young people.

As well as equipping young people for employment, education should promote values.
Education systems need to be reorganised to better correspond to rapid economic changes and the skills and sectors of the economy of the future.

Moreover, educational policies should be characterised by flexibility and allow for vocational retraining and mobility Member states should adopt measures which enable academic mobility of youth and establish validation procedures for recognition of academic achievements and professional qualifications across Europe.
To this end, they should promote the effective use of the European Higher Education Area, Bologna Process implementation and other mechanisms for recognition of qualifications.

Non-formal education, intercultural learning and volunteer work should also be recognised as part of young people’s qualifications.

Quality vocational training should be provided as an alternative or accompaniment to university education.
Young people also need to be given opportunities to gain language proficiency throughout their education, especially when their mother tongue is other than that spoken in their community.

3.

Employment Employment is the primary means of ensuring young people’s autonomy.

Across Europe, the highest unemployment rates are among young people.
Member states should take concrete measures to favour the entry of young people into employment (active employment policies and encouragement of the recruitment of young people through tax and financial benefits granted to companies linked to agreed training programmes 3 Rec.

1978 and on-the-job certification), thereby facilitating the transition between education establishments and the labour market and preventing the excessive use of non-paid work experience or low paid employment.
Policies should aim to encourage businesses to accompany young people’s transition from precarious to stable jobs.

National systems and bilateral agreements should ensure that gaps in social security protection systems and problems with labour market integration are identified and closed.

4.
4.

Housing Young people have a right to decent, affordable housing of good quality, benchmarked against European standards, to enable them to achieve a stable environment for their development as adults and their relations with the community.

The ability to become independent by leaving one's parental home should promote access to housing of an adequate standard.
Member states should ensure that higher educational institutions provide affordable student lodgings, especially in areas with high rents; social housing should enable young people to live independently at the beginning of their professional career and states should insist on the implementation of percentage quotas for such housing in all regions.
Secure and sustainable financial facilities should be made available to aid the granting of mortgages and loans to young individuals and families and ensure that low-interest opportunities are open to them.

5.

Health and the right to a healthy environment Health education must be taught at all educational levels.
At the same time, prevention and protection policies against sexually transmitted diseases, undesired pregnancies, sexual abuse or violence, alcoholism, nicotine poisoning and drug abuse must be implemented.

Comprehensive and age-appropriate sexual and reproductive health education should be provided as part of the school curriculum.
Member states should conduct health-awareness campaigns directed at young people about health risks and their avoidance, including practical information such as on access to care and confidentiality.

Young people should be associated in environmental policies as they are directly concerned by their consequences, and are a more certain source of forward-thinking, idealistic and creative ideas concerning environment preservation and sustainable development.
Young people can serve as highly efficient multipliers of good individual and group practices.

6.

Participation In order for young people to understand their rights, accept the accompanying responsibilities and be given opportunities to express themselves, full and effective participation of youth in the life of society and in decision-making must be encouraged from an early age.
States should promote the implementation of the European Congress of Local and Regional Authorities’ revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life, and Recommendation Rec(2006)1 of the Committee of Ministers on the role of national youth councils in youth policy development.
The Council of Europe’s 2010 Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education should also serve as a policy guideline for training youth leaders and for member states to foster the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and youth organisations in education for democratic citizenship and human rights education.
Youth parliaments serve to emphasise the importance of developing the capacity of youth for the purpose of preparing them to assume responsibilities, to engage in dialogue, exchange ideas and introduce them to democratic processes.

Young people should not, however, be relegated into youth parliamentary structures to the detriment of their participation in the core decision-making procedures.

It is important that young people participate in democracy by voting.
Therefore, member states should consider lowering the voting age.

7.

Culture and sport Policies must ensure young people’s access to cultural activities and exchanges, as well as the right to maintain cultural and personal identity; state spending on culture should not be sacrificed during periods of economic downturn.
Universities should recognise the need for students’ cultural development and cultural institutions should have the means to use modern, interactive methods of communication and awareness raising.

Spaces for artistic creation need to be provided to young people for all cultural activities, including art and music.

4 Rec.

1978 Everyone should have the right to maintain their cultural heritage.

School students speaking a minority language should be offered lessons in the language in question.
Optional courses on minority language and culture should also be offered to students representing the majority population.

Particular attention should be paid to ensuring the right to freedom of expression of every young person without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers.

Adequate measures should be adopted in order to facilitate the access of young people to the media and, in particular, to the Internet.
Sport is an important way for young people to explore and use their physical capacities, and a potential factor of greater social cohesion and integration.

Sports facilities should be provided free of charge in all regions and in both rural and urban areas.

Young people must be allowed to develop their personal abilities and identities as they wish.

8.
8.

Non-discrimination Member states should ensure that young people are not discriminated against because of their age, for instance in assuming political or professional responsibilities.

The specific problems of young people in vulnerable population groups such as Roma, migrants and refugees or other minority groups in society should also be addressed, as well as gender and racial discrimination and homophobia, to which young people are particularly exposed.
Positive measures adopted by member states in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective implementation of youth rights, taking due account of the specific conditions of young persons within the society and having regard to their particular needs in relation to their age, should not be considered to be discriminatory against the rest of the population.

9.
9.

Communication on youth policies It is necessary to raise awareness of the existence and importance of youth rights by increasing, centralising and harmonising the information available to policy and decision-makers and to the general public.

Youth policies in member states should be disseminated through the most up-to-date communication channels, and be made available in as many languages as are necessary to ensure they are understood by all.

Young people should get their rights known.


Their rights should be protected and implemented so they are able to act according to them.

10.

Implementation A European framework convention on youth rights would serve as a tool for the effective implementation of national and international provisions applicable to young people.

The instrument should contain a set of common indicators, based on concrete statistics for the age groups concerned in each of the above areas.
It should also provide guidelines for co-operation between member states in the same areas and common goals to be attained, and regular shared stocktaking exercises should be part of the follow-up to the convention.

An arrangement should be found to allow national youth parliaments or their equivalents to undertake an assessment of progress on youth rights and give further guidance on future programmes.

What is needed is better recognition and implementation of the rights of young people in Europe.
5 Resolutions 1817 to 1827 Provisional edition Expenditure of the Parliamentary Assembly for the financial years 2012-2013 Resolution 1817 (2011)1 1.

In pursuance of Resolution (53) 38 of the Committee of Ministers and Article 24 of the Financial Regulations, the Parliamentary Assembly issues an opinion each year concerning the appropriations relating to its operation.
The amounts allocated to the Assembly appear in the ordinary budget of the Council of Europe and cover its expenditure on staff and the costs associated with its own functioning and the functioning of its political groups.

2.
2.

In Resolution 1783 (2011) on the follow up to the reform of the Council of Europe, the Assembly declared its “commitment to a relevant and effective Council of Europe that is a natural guarantor of ‘soft’ security in a Europe based on the fundamental values and principles of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law”.

In so doing, it reiterated its support for the reform process undertaken by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Thorbjørn Jagland.

3.
3.

However, the Assembly believes that the Council of Europe’s core business should not exclude the “enabling factors” of culture, education and social cohesion and migration issues, as they contribute to the realisation of the Organisation's core values.

4.

The Assembly recognises that it must play its part in the general reform process at the Council of Europe.

In this connection, it has set up an ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Assembly.
The aims of the committee are to: 4.1. strengthen the Parliamentary Assembly’s political relevance and effectiveness; 4.2. make the Assembly more visible; improve Assembly members’ participation, while reinforcing interaction between the Assembly 4.3. and national parliaments.

Over the last sixty years, the Assembly has gained significantly in influence within the Council of 5.

Europe’s institutional system.


In addition to its two major powers (electing the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General and the Secretary General of the Assembly, as well as the judges of the European Court of Human Rights), it is a vital instrument in parliamentary democracy.

In this respect, it must continue to constitute the pan-European forum for discussion and reflection and thereby help to identify the best responses to the challenges facing European citizens.

6.
6.

To be more political and more efficient, the Assembly could take measures which would lead to changes both in its practices and also in its working methods and structures.

That is the whole point of the terms of reference of the ad hoc Committee on the Reform of the Assembly.

Any measures taken could enter into force in January 2012.

7.
7.

Without waiting for the conclusions of the ad hoc committee, the Assembly has already taken major steps in recent years to rationalise its work and reduce its expenditure.

As recently noted by the external 1 Assembly debate on 20 June 2011 (20th Sitting) (see Doc.

12623, report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, rapporteur: Mr Cebeci).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 20 June 2011 (20th Sitting).
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1817 auditors, who examined the management of the Assembly in 2009 and 2010, the Assembly’s overall budget on a constant basis fell by 2% from 2005 to 2010.

In particular, operational expenditure declined by 16% over the same period.

8.
8.

The Assembly has taken note of the results of the initial phase of reforms launched in 2010 by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, of which the first measure consisted in merging the programme of activities and the budget so as to present a more readable, better structured and more streamlined document.
While understanding the thrust of the programme of activities, the Assembly continues to have reservations about being included under the democracy pillar – which does not properly reflect its importance as a statutory organ of the Organisation – as it already underlined in Opinion 279 (2010) on the budgets and priorities of the Council of Europe for the 2011 financial year.

9.
9.

With regard to the second phase of the reforms, the Assembly welcomes the decision by the Secretary General and the Committee of Ministers to draw up the budget and programme of the Council of Europe on a biennial basis for 2012 and 2013.

This new approach is in line with the calls made many times by the Assembly in its previous opinions.

However, the Assembly is disappointed that the decision is too inflexible regarding the carrying forward of unspent appropriations from year N to year N+1.

10.
10.

The Assembly finds it regrettable that the new biennial programming remains subject to the strict current rule of zero real growth imposed by Council of Europe member states.

It believes that maximum flexibility must be ensured in budget management for 2012-2013 and therefore would like unspent appropriations for 2012 to be carried forward to 2013.

11.
11.

With regard to its own expenditure, the Assembly has taken note of the request by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the Assembly’s budget proposals for the years 2012 and 2013 be reduced by 0.75% (that is to say €109 100), of which 0.5% for 2012, in order to take account of compulsory adjustments.
It should be noted that following the decisions taken during the initial phase of the reforms concerning 12. containment of staff expenditure, the compulsory adjustments to be covered in 2012 and 2013 are much lower than in recent years.

13.
13.

Wishing to contribute to the joint efforts and taking account of the budget difficulties affecting certain member states, the Assembly can agree to reduce its expenditure once again and decides that the reduction will be confined solely to expenditure on temporary staff.

This measure will mean the Assembly secretariat having to revise its working methods, in particular concerning the operation of its four part-sessions.

14.
14.

In view of the major efforts already made, the Assembly does not wish to reduce its operational appropriations any further, in order to ensure that it is able to respond to the many political problems and find the best solutions to the challenges facing European citizens.

15.
15.

Noting the substantial share of extra-budgetary funds used for implementing the Council of Europe’s programmes of activities, and building on the experience acquired in recent years with the co-operation programme for the parliaments of Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Moldova (funded with the support of the European Commission), the Assembly is considering stepping up its parliamentary assistance work.
To this end, it has instructed the secretariat to draw up a proposed co-operation programme designed to attract voluntary contributions and respond more effectively to the specific needs of the parliaments of member states (or of states with "Partner for Democracy" status).
In keeping with the external auditor’s recommendations, the Assembly has decided to include in its 16. budget appropriations for information technology modernisation expenditure so as to ensure the development and maintenance of certain computer applications required for its specific needs.

The relevant development work is carried out by the Assembly's Information Technology Unit in close co-operation with the central services of the Directorate of Information Technology.
In this connection, a “charter” laying down the respective tasks of the two services could be drawn up.

17.

Lastly, the Assembly welcomes the work done in the Assembly Chamber to equip it with modern communication technology and to restore this symbol of parliamentary democracy to its original splendour, while enabling substantial savings in electricity, heating and air-conditioning costs to be made in the medium term.

2 Res.

1817 18.
2 Res.

1817 18.

The Assembly believes that these investments greatly enhance this unique forum for meetings and dialogue, and hopes that the modernisation and upgrading work will be continued in future in line with the funds available in the Council of Europe’s investment plan.

Appended to this resolution are: i. a table of the requests for 2012 and 2013, compared with the appropriations allocated in 2011; ii.

a brief explanation of the main items of expenditure; iii.
a table setting out the Assembly’s work programme according to the results-based budgeting method.

3 Res.
1817 Appendix 1 Parliamentary Democracy – Expenditure of the Assembly Démocratie parlementaire – Dépenses relatives à l’Assemblée HEAD 0310 – Functioning of the Assembly CHAPITRE 0310 – Fonctionnement de l’Assemblée Dépenses de personnel/Staff expenditure Sub-heads/Articles Expenditure foreseen as at 01/05/2011 Dépenses prévues au 01/05/2011 Appropriations for 2012 Appropriations for 2013 Crédits demandés au budget de 2012 Crédits demandés au budget de 2013 € € € 0000001 – Remuneration of staff recruited on established posts Rémunération du personnel recruté dans le cadre des emplois permanents.…… 8 321 200 € 8 339 400 € 8 352 300 € 0000003 – Remuneration and accessory charges of temporary staff Rémunération et charges accessoires du personnel temporaire………………….. 583 800 € 511 100 € 474 700 € 0000046 – Remuneration of staff on position Rémunération du personnel sur fonction à durée déterminée……………………… 455 400 € 455 400 € 455 400 € 0000005 – Salary, allowances and social charges of the Secretary General of the Assembly Rémunération, indemnités et charges sociales du Secrétaire Général de l’Assemblée …………………………………………………………………………….. 261 600 € 261 600 € 261 600 € 0000016 – Recruitment, arrival and departure expenses – Home leave Frais de recrutement à l’arrivée et au départ – congé dans le pays d'origine…… 27 000 € 27 000 € 27 000 € 0000379 – Contribution to the Pension budget Contribution au budget des pensions………………………………………………….. 1 308 400 € 1 308 400 € 1 308 400 € Total dépenses de personnel Total staff expenditure………………………………………………………………… 10 957 400 € 10 902 900 € 10 879 400 € Supplies, services and other operational expenditure Dépenses de matériel et autres dépenses de fonctionnement Sub-heads/Articles 0000054 – Equipment Equipement …………………………………………………………………………….. 11 000 € 11 000 € 11 000 € 0000080 – Official journeys Frais de missions………………………………………………………………………… 261 400 € 261 400 € 261 400 € 0000085 – Journeys of the Table Office reinforcement staff Frais de déplacement personnel de renfort – Service de la
 séance……………….
200 000 €.
200 000 € 200 000 € 0000095 – Representational expenditure, other official expenditure and travelling expenses of members of the Assembly / Dépenses de représentation, frais de fonction et déplacement des membres de l’Assemblée…………………... 160 000 € 160 000 € 160 000 € 0000114 – Prepress Pré-presse……………………………………………………………………………….. 43 000 € 43 000 € 43 000 € 0000115 – Interpretation Interprétation……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 897 200 € 1 866 600 € 1 866 600 € 0000116 – Translation Traduction……………..………………………………………………………………….. 484 500 € 484 500 € 484 500 € 0000124 – Publishing and printing Publications et impressions…………………………………………………………..... 314 400 € 285 800 € 285 800 € 0000125 – Outsourced production of documents Production externalisée de documents……………………………………………..... 25 000 € 25 000 € 25 000 € 0000129 – Consultation of experts Consultation d’experts……………………………………………................................ 148 600 € 150 000 € 150 000 € 4 Res.
1817 0000162 – Expenditure pertaining to the Private Office of the President of the Assembly Dépenses du Cabinet du Président de l’Assemblée…………………...................... 61 700 € 70 000 € 70 000 € 0000163 – Official expenses of the President of the Assembly Frais de fonction du Président de l’Assemblée………………………....................... 92 500 € 92 500 € 92 500 € 0000171 – Organisation of ad hoc conferences Organisation de conférences ad hoc….…………………………….......................... 87 700 € 87 000 € 87 000 € 0000204 – Modernisation of the Assembly’s equipment Modernisation de l’équipement de l’Assemblée……………………………………… 20 000 € 35 600 € 35 600 € 0000205 – European prizes Prix européens…………………………………………………………………………… 80 000 € 80 000 € 80 000 € 0000206 – Operating and maintenance costs of the electronic voting system Coûts de maintenance et d’exploitation du vote électronique……………………… 39 000 € 39 000 € 39 000 € 0000250 – Co-operation and monitoring programme Programme de coopération et du suivi des engagements ………………………… 540 100 € 536 300 € 536 300 € 0000370 – Allocation to Assembly’s political groups Dotation des groupes politiques de l’Assemblée…………………………………...... 732 200 € 732 200 € 732 200 € 0000392 – Other expenditure not specifically provided for in this vote Autres dépenses non spécialement prévues au présent titre………....................... 80 000 € 70 000 € 70 000 € Total supplies, services and other operational expenditure Total dépenses de matériel et autres dépenses de fonctionnement………….
5 278 300 € 5 229 900 € 5 229 900 € TOTAL Parliamentary Assembly TOTAL Assemblée parlementaire…………………………………………………………… 16 235 700 € 16 132 800 € 16 109 300 € 5 Res.

1817 Appendix 2 Expenditure of the Assembly – Staff expenditure This appropriation corresponds to the basic salaries, allowances (non-recurring and periodic) and 1. social cover of the permanent staff of the secretariat of the Assembly (87 posts, including 1 specially appointed official) and of temporary staff (including 6 positions).
In 2012 and 2013, the Secretary General of the Assembly will continue the reorganisation of the 2. secretariat in line with the decisions taken by the Assembly as part of its reform.

In particular, some measures could have an impact on the structure of the Assembly and the number of committees.
The information given at present is based on the current structure of the Assembly comprising ten committees: nine of these committees have 84 members (and 84 alternates, apart from in the Monitoring Committee), and the remaining one has 27 (with no alternates).
As at 1 November 2011, the secretariat will comprise 87 permanent posts, 6 positions and 1 specially appointed official, breaking down as follows: 1 C4 Permanent posts: 1 specially appointed official 1 A7 2 A6 9 A5 10 A4 23 A2/A3 1 B6 5 B5 12 B4 16 B3 7 B2 Positions: 4 A2/A3 1 B3 1 B2 At present, the secretariat of the Assembly is organised so that the ten Assembly committees have 52 3. staff members working for them, including 30 A-grade permanent staff, 20 B-grade permanent staff and 2 A- grade permanent staff on fixed-term positions.
The remaining 41 staff members (37 permanent posts and 4 permanent staff on fixed-term positions) 4. work for the Bureau of the Assembly, the Private Office of the President of the Assembly, the Table Office, the Interparliamentary co-operation and election observation Unit, the Parliamentary Assistance Unit, the Administration, Human Resources, Finance, Research and Documentation Division, the Communication Division and the Information Technology Unit.
– Supplies, services and other operational expenditure 5.

Since 1975, following a decision by the Committee of Ministers, these allocations have been voted in the form of a single appropriation, which nonetheless continues to be divided into sub-heads.
If the Assembly wished to change the relative amounts in the package at a later date, either because of an overall reduction or for any other reason dictated by the implementation of the budget, such a change would be carried out by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe at the Assembly’s request and in accordance with Article 31 of the Financial Regulations.

6.

In recent years, the Assembly has made substantial savings by rationalising its work to reduce its operational expenditure.
In particular, the Assembly’s overall budget on a constant basis fell by 2% from 2005 to 2010, while operational expenditure declined by 16% over the same period.

7.

The experience acquired through joint programmes with the European Commission, such as those for the parliaments of Serbia and Montenegro (2006-2009) and more recently Moldova (2010-2011) should enable the Assembly secretariat to draw up a proposed assistance and co-operation programme suited to the needs of parliamentary institutions.
The goal pursued is clearly to attract extra-budgetary funding (voluntary and/or European Union contributions) so as to respond appropriately to the specific needs of the parliaments of Council of Europe member states or partnership for democracy states.

6 Res.
6 Res.

1817 In keeping with the external auditor’s recommendations, the Assembly has included in its budget 8. appropriations to meet expenditure for the development and maintenance of certain computer applications required for its specific needs which is not covered by the Council of Europe’s Directorate of Information Technology (DIT).

9.
9.

In order to clarify the areas of responsibility of the DIT and the Assembly's Information Technology Unit, a document (“charter”) laying down their respective responsibilities will be drawn up, as recommended by the external auditors.

The Assembly’s committees will not cease to hold thematic hearings and conferences, which provide 10 essential input for their work.
The Assembly will also continue to co-operate closely with other European parliamentary assemblies (the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), etc), or international parliamentary assemblies (Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), Pan-African Parliament, Parlatino, etc).

11.
11.

The Sub-Committee on the Middle East will continue its co-operation with representatives of the Knesset and the Palestinian Legislative Council, pursuant to Assembly Resolution 1420 (2005) on prospects for peace in the Middle East and the decision of the Assembly Bureau on 18 March 2005.

12.
12.

The Assembly will also continue to support its political groups through their allocation, which is based on a lump sum for secretarial assistance paid to each of the existing groups along with an additional per capita amount which varies according to their membership.

13.
To sum up, the draft budget for 2012 and 2013 in real terms (not including inflation and salary adjustments), which includes the pension costs for staff as well as a new article for prepress activities, amounts to: 2012: €16 132 800 2013: €16 109 300 The appropriations can be analysed as follows: 2012 €9 594 500 €1 308 400 €1 866 600 €484 500 €285 800 €732 200 --------------- €14 272 000 €1 860 800 --------------- € 16 132 800 Permanent and temporary staff Contribution to the pension budget Interpretation Translation Printing of documents Allocation to the political groups Sub-total Activities: Total 2013 €9 571 000 €1 308 400 €1 866 600 €484 500 €285 800 €732 200 --------------- €14 248 500 €1 860 800 --------------- € 16 109 300 14.
The reduction in the Assembly’s appropriations will lead it to make further changes to its working methods, procedures and structure so as to enhance its activities’ relevance and effectiveness.

15.

Lastly, although the financial situation is difficult, the Assembly wishes the work to modernise the Assembly Chamber to be continued in the coming years, depending on the funds available in the Council of Europe’s investment plan.
The modernisation should concern, in particular, installing sockets for portable computers on desks, refurbishing the presidential rostrum and changing the seats.

In this respect, it wishes to thank the Council of Europe’s central services, in particular the Directorate of Logistics, for the work already done in 2010 and early 2011 to renovate and modernise the Assembly Chamber.

7 Res.
7 Res.

1817 Appendix 3 Functioning of the Assembly Intervention logic Performance indicators Expected result 1 At least 50% of registered speakers have been able to take the floor.

The part-sessions are efficiently organised and executed in line with Assembly members’ expectations.

Adopted texts are transmitted to organisations concerned within the specified deadlines.

Expected result 2 Committee meetings are planned.


Committee meetings, seminars and conferences take place in conformity with members’ decisions.

Meeting agendas, documents and reports are available in time.

Expected result 3 Inter-parliamentary co-operation, observation of elections and assistance to parliaments are managed according to the political events.

Co-operation activities are organised according to needs and requests.
Election observation missions are organised in accordance with decisions of the Bureau of the Assembly.

Expected result 4 The visibility of the Assembly is improved in the different member states Activities of the Assembly are reflected in the media, with at least 10 000 articles in print media.

Increase in the external audience of the Assembly’s website.
8 Provisional edition Request for Partner for Democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly submitted by the Parliament of Morocco Resolution 1818 (2011)1 In adopting Resolution 1680 (2009) on the establishment of a “Partner for Democracy” status with the 1.
Parliamentary Assembly, the Assembly resolved to establish a new status for institutional co-operation with parliaments of non-member states in neighbouring regions wishing to benefit from the Assembly’s experience in democracy building and to participate in the political debate on common challenges which transcend European boundaries.
A new Rule 60 in the Assembly's Rules of Procedure, setting forth the conditions and modalities for granting such a status, including formal political commitments that the Parliament concerned must undertake, came into force in January 2010.

Less than two months later, on 22 February 2010, the Speakers of the two Chambers of the 2.

Parliament of Morocco addressed to the President of the Assembly an official request for Partner for Democracy status.
The Parliament of Morocco thus became the first parliament to make such a request.

The Assembly takes note that, in their letter, the Speakers of the two Chambers of the Parliament of 3.
Morocco, in line with the requirements set out in Rule 60.2, reaffirmed that “the Parliament [they] represent shares the same values as the Council of Europe, namely pluralist and gender parity-based democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms”, and committed themselves to: “continuing [their] efforts to raise the awareness of the public authorities and the main players in 3.1. politics and civil society of the need to make progress in the discussion of issues relating to the death penalty and [to continuing] to encourage the authorities concerned to maintain the de facto moratorium that has been established on executions of the death penalty since 1993.
[They] intend to base [their] institutional and legislative work on the experience of the Assembly and of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), bearing in mind that Morocco has been a member of the Venice Commission since 2007”; “continuing their efforts to raise the awareness of the public authorities and politicians so that 3.2. favourable conditions can be established for the holding of free, fair and transparent elections”; 3.3.
“encouraging the balanced participation of women and men in public life and politics”; “encouraging the authorities concerned to accede to relevant Council of Europe conventions 3.4. and partial agreements that can be signed and ratified by non-member states, in particular those dealing with human rights, the rule of law and democracy, bearing in mind that Morocco is – in addition to its participation in the Venice Commission – already a member of the North-South Centre, a member state of the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement (EUR-OPA) and also a Contracting Party to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats”; 1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (21st Sitting) (see Doc.
12625, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Volontè; Doc.

12646, opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Díaz Tejera; and Doc.

12647, opinion of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Ms Memecan).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (21st Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.
1818 “inform[ing] the Assembly regularly on progress made in implementing Council of Europe 3.5. principles in [their] country”.

The Assembly therefore considers that the request by the Parliament of Morocco meets the formal 4. criteria set forth in its Rules of Procedure.
Furthermore, the Assembly acknowledges that the Parliament, political forces, state and public 5. officials and civil society of Morocco broadly share the objectives of the partnership for democracy, which aims to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country.

6.
6.

At a time when the people in a number of Arab and Mediterranean countries have clearly expressed the wish to acquire fundamental political and social rights, the Assembly deems it important that Morocco, with its well-established political institutions and traditions of political pluralism, continues on the path of democratic transformation.

7.
7.

The Assembly welcomes Morocco’s commitment to deep constitutional, institutional, political and legal reforms, and encourages the state authorities to make full use of the Council of Europe expertise and draw inspiration from Council of Europe standards in carrying out such reforms.

It further welcomes a new draft Constitution as an important step towards consolidating the principles of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
It notes with satisfaction, in this context, that co-operation between Morocco and the Council of Europe has increased significantly in recent times, following Morocco's accession to the North-South Centre in July 2009.

It considers that the Partner for Democracy status provides an appropriate framework for a stronger involvement of the Parliament of Morocco in the process of reforms.

8.
Against this background, the Assembly considers that the following specific issues are of key importance for strengthening democracy, the rule of law and the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Morocco: 8.1. holding free and fair elections in accordance with relevant international standards; 8.2. enhancing public interest in, and awareness of, the democratic process, as well as ensuring a higher level of participation in elections; 8.3. strengthening public monitoring of elections by independent observers, including strengthening the capacities of domestic observer networks; 8.4. conducting the constitutional reform, in particular by consolidating the separation of powers and strengthening the role of the parliament; involving and consulting civil society organisations in legislative and other decision-making 8.5. processes; 8.6. ensuring equal opportunities for women and men in political and public life; 8.7. strengthening local and regional democracy; 8.8. abolishing the death penalty set forth in the Penal Code, going beyond the de facto moratorium on executions which has been established since 1993; 8.9. fighting corruption; 8.10. implementing justice reform with a view to ensuring the independence and impartiality of the judiciary; 8.11. adhering to and effectively implementing relevant international instruments in the field of human rights, including full co-operation with United Nations’ special mechanisms and implementation of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review recommendations; 8.12. providing better training of judges, prison staff and law-enforcement agents as regards respect of international human rights standards; 2 Res.
1818 8.13. preventing torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of persons deprived of their liberty; fighting impunity for crimes of torture and ill-treatment; 8.14. improving conditions of detention, in line with the United Nations prison-related norms and standards; 8.15. fully implementing the recommendations of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission (Instance Equité et Reconciliation); 8.16. fighting racism, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination; 8.17. ensuring full respect for freedom of conscience, of religion and belief, including the right to change one’s religion; 8.18. guaranteeing and promoting freedom of expression and media independence and plurality; removing censorship; introducing a new Code of the Press that effectively guarantees press freedom; 8.19. guaranteeing and promoting freedom of association and of peaceful assembly; ensuring strict implementation of the law on associations; 8.20. fighting all forms of discrimination (in law and in practice) based on gender; ensuring effective equality between women and men, including as regards inter-religious marriages and inheritance law and, where necessary, initiating a process of legislative revision; fighting all forms of gender-based violence; actively promoting equal opportunities for women and men; 8.21. ensuring that the Family Code is fully implemented while initiating a public and political debate with a view to reviewing the provisions which are at variance with international human rights standards, including on the issue of polygamy.
9.

The Assembly expects that Morocco will accede in due course to relevant Council of Europe conventions and partial agreements, in particular those dealing with human rights, rule of law and democracy issues, in accordance with the commitment included in the joint letter of 22 February 2010 from the Speakers of the two Chambers of the Parliament.

10.
10.

The Assembly encourages the Council of Europe and Morocco to incorporate these priorities in their current discussions on a bilateral programme of co-operation.

The fact that Morocco is a member of several Council of Europe partial agreements, such as the Venice Commission, the North-South Centre and the Pompidou Group, is in this respect clearly an added advantage.

11.
11.

Furthermore, the Assembly expects that Morocco will continue to seek the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

In this context, it particularly calls on the Parliament of Morocco to enhance its contribution to solving the Western Sahara problem in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

12.
Noting that the Parliament of Morocco has reiterated its determination to work to ensure full implementation of the political commitments contained in Rule 60.2 and entered into by the joint letter of the Speakers of its two Chambers on 22 February 2010, the Assembly resolves to: 12.1. grant Partner for Democracy status to the Parliament of Morocco as from the moment of the adoption of the present resolution; 12.2. invite the Parliament of Morocco to appoint a Partner for Democracy delegation consisting of six representatives and six substitutes to be composed in accordance with Rule 60.4 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure.
13.

The Assembly believes that progress in taking forward reforms is the prime aim of the partnership for democracy and should constitute the benchmark for assessing the efficiency of this partnership.

It accordingly resolves to review, no later than two years from the adoption of this resolution, the state 14. of progress achieved in implementing the political commitments taken by the Parliament of Morocco, as well as the reforms in areas mentioned in paragraph 8 above.

3 Res.

1818 15.
3 Res.

1818 15.

The Assembly stresses the importance of free and fair elections as a cornerstone of a genuine democracy.

It therefore expects to be invited to observe parliamentary elections in Morocco as from the early elections expected in 2011.

16.
16.

The Assembly is confident that granting Partner for Democracy status to the Parliament of Morocco will contribute to intensifying co-operation between this country and the Council of Europe and promoting Morocco’s accession to Council of Europe conventions.
It therefore encourages the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in co-ordination, as appropriate, with the European Union, to mobilise the Organisation’s expertise, including that of the Venice Commission, with a view to contributing to the full implementation of democratic reforms in Morocco, in particular in the framework of the forthcoming constitutional reform.

4 Provisional edition The situation in Tunisia Resolution 1819 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 1791 (2011) on the situation in Tunisia, adopted in January 2011 at the end of a debate held under the urgent procedure only two weeks after the Jasmine Revolution that put an end to the Ben Ali regime.

It again pays tribute to the courage and determination of the Tunisian people who, despite violent repression, have clearly shown the will to put an end to authoritarian rule and to transform Tunisia into a free, open and democratic country.

2.
2.

Five months after the revolution, the Assembly notes with satisfaction that the process of democratic transition in Tunisia is well under way and steps have already been taken to dismantle the structures of the former regime and put in place elements of a democratic political system.

The Assembly pays tribute to the courage, competence and determination of the members of the 3. interim government, the newly established authorities and the representatives of civil society.

4.
4.

The Assembly reaffirms its readiness to put its experience of accompanying democratic transitions and establishing new institutions in young democracies in Europe at the disposal of Tunisia’s transition institutions, future permanent institutions and civil society.

It has no intention of giving lessons or imposing models, however, and respects the sovereign choices of the Tunisians.

Any support and assistance must be governed by respect for the Tunisian people and their dignity.

5.
5.

The Assembly supports the intention of the transition authorities to organise elections to a National Constituent Assembly as soon as possible in order to ensure the democratic legitimacy of the transformations under way.

It congratulates the authorities on drafting a legal framework for the elections and entrusting their organisation to an independent authority.

It is aware, however, that the material organisation of the elections presents a great many practical problems.
It notes that, following a proposal from the Independent High Authority for the Elections and the consultation between the transitional government and the main political forces of the country, the elections originally scheduled for 24 July 2011 should be held on 23 October 2011.

6.

At the same time, the Assembly is concerned about the considerable deterioration of the economic and social situation of the country, including a substantial increase in the unemployment rate.
It takes note of the efforts of the provisional government to stimulate the economy and create jobs, but considers international solidarity is needed to support Tunisia in transition.

The revolution created much enthusiasm and high expectations in the Tunisian population.

If there is 7. no concrete economic improvement, support for the revolution may quickly wane and give way to feelings of disillusion and disappointment.
The sudden rise in political tension in early May 2011 showed that the apparent stability of the political 8. situation in Tunisia is still very fragile and that the discontent of a considerable part of the population can easily be exploited to destabilise the country on the eve of the elections.

The Assembly urges all Tunisian political and civil forces to act responsibly and not endanger the transformation process under way.

1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc.
12624, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Ms Brasseur).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting).

See also Recommendation 1972 (2011).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1819 9.

The authorities must make it a priority to strengthen internal security, which is very fragile.

10.
10.

The Assembly welcomes the fact that the setting of priorities and the development of the reform programme are essentially taking place in an inclusive political climate with the broad participation of civil society players.

It notes with satisfaction that contacts have been established between the European Commission for 11.
Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Higher Authority for Realisation of the Objectives of the Revolution, Political Reform and Democratic Transition, and encourages the Higher Authority to avail itself fully of the experience and expertise of the Venice Commission in the preparation of the new constitution.

12.
12.

The Assembly is ready to contribute to the organisation and observation of the elections to the National Constituent Assembly and welcomes the intention of the authorities to invite it to observe those elections.

13.

The Assembly reiterates the importance of taking steps to curb corruption and nepotism and to investigate abuses of power committed by the former ruling elites of Tunisia.

It notes that a trial in absentia of the former President Ben Ali took place on 20 June 2011.
It encourages the Commission of Inquiry into misappropriation of funds and corruption to shed all possible light on the abuses committed by the former rulers of Tunisia and those close to them.

It calls upon the transition authorities and the future Tunisian authorities to put in place an effective anti-corruption mechanism.

14.
The Assembly calls on the Tunisian transition authorities to: 14.1. guarantee, in the framework of the election campaign for the National Constituent Assembly, respect for fundamental political freedoms such as freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of expression and media freedom, as well as individual rights; 14.2. ensure that the essential democratic principle of separation of the temporal and spiritual powers is respected; 14.3. ensure that all state security forces observe strict neutrality and do not interfere in the electoral process; 14.4. create fair and transparent conditions for the election campaign, and in particular guarantee equal access to the media for the different political forces and the citizens’ right to access to information in order to be able to make informed political choices; 14.5. ensure that the funding of political parties and the election campaign is transparent; 14.6. create the conditions for national and foreign observers to follow the electoral process in complete transparency; 14.7. ensure speedy and objective examination of any possible challenge.
15.

The Assembly calls on the Tunisian political and civil forces to: 15.1. conduct the election campaign in an atmosphere of calm and mutual respect; 15.2. refrain from any attempt to provoke or exacerbate political, economic or social tensions, or to disturb public order; 15.3. comply with the electoral legislation and with the decisions of the institutions responsible for organising the elections; 15.4. accept and respect the results of the vote.

16.
16.

The Assembly encourages civil society players to remain actively involved in the organisation and follow-up of the electoral process and, after the elections, in the promotion of democratic principles and values in the framework of the reforms.

2 Res.

1819 17.
After the election of the National Constituent Assembly, the Assembly invites the future Tunisian authorities to: 17.1. ensure that the positive achievements of Tunisian society, in particular the high level of education and the status of women, are safeguarded; 17.2. put in place conditions enabling Tunisian youth to be actively involved in public life and political action and in this way give effect to its wish to be an active force for change; 17.3. continue the political reform process, taking inspiration from universal principles and values and the experience of democratic transition accumulated in the Council of Europe; 17.4. deepen for this purpose the dialogue with the appropriate bodies, mechanisms and structures of the Council of Europe.
To this end, the Assembly reiterates the elements contained in paragraph 13 of Resolution 1791 (2011), and again invites the future Tunisian authorities to: 17.4.1. accede to those Council of Europe legal instruments which are open to non-member states, in particular to those in the fields of democracy, human rights and the rule of law; 17.4.2. avail themselves fully of Tunisia’s membership of the Venice Commission in the future constitutional reform process; 17.4.3. accede to the Council of Europe’s enlarged partial agreements, such as the North- South Centre and the European and Mediterranean Major Hazards Agreement; 17.4.4. establish contacts between the Council of Europe and the authorities in Tunisia responsible for questions of justice, sustainable development, culture, education and higher education, youth and sport, gender equality and the rights of the child; 17.4.5. study and use, in their respective activities, the experience of the Council of Europe human rights institutions and monitoring mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights and the Commissioner for Human Rights; 17.4.6. representatives; foster contacts between Tunisian and European parliamentary and civil society 17.4.7. consider the prospects for parliamentary dialogue offered by the Partner for Democracy status recently established by the Assembly.
18.
The Assembly invites the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to: 18.1. strengthen contacts and consider support measures for Tunisian civil society; 18.2. examine the extent to which Tunisia could benefit from the experience of the Council of Europe Schools of Political Studies; 18.3. examine ways of involving representatives of Tunisian youth in the activities of the Council of Europe in the youth field; 18.4. examine the possibility of inviting Tunisian representatives to the Summer University for Democracy; 18.5. raise, in his contacts with the Council of Europe’s international partners, above all the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the need for effective co- ordination of efforts to assist the democratic transition in Tunisia.
19.

The Assembly invites the European Commission to reconsider its decision to withdraw its financial support for the existing network of Council of Europe Schools of Political Studies.

20.

The Assembly calls on the main international partners of Tunisia, in particular the European Union, to demonstrate genuine solidarity towards this country in transition, and speedily provide real support to stimulate the economy and tourism and improve the social situation.

3 Res.

1819 21.
3 Res.

1819 21.

It considers it entirely inappropriate to tarnish the image of Tunisia, a country that has just freed itself from an authoritarian regime and chosen democracy, to that of a country that is a source of irregular migrants.

22.

The Assembly confirms its determination, already expressed in Resolution 1791 (2011), to follow political developments in Tunisia closely and strengthen its dialogue with the country’s political forces and civil society players.
It is ready to establish contacts with the future National Constituent Assembly, and to invite its representatives to be present in Strasbourg during its plenary sessions, on the basis on its Resolution 1598 (2008) "Strengthening co-operation with the Maghreb countries".

23.

The Assembly decides to invite representatives of the future National Constituent Assembly and of the future Tunisian Parliament to participate in the Forum for the Future of Democracy.

24.
24.

The Assembly asks national parliaments of Council of Europe member and observer states and parliamentary supported foundations to foster contacts with Tunisian parliamentary bodies.

4 Provisional edition Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe Resolution 1820 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly believes that further measures are needed to ensure that responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers are shared fairly in Europe and that those seeking international protection have access to fair and efficient systems for the processing of their claims.

2.

The recent conflicts in North Africa have once again put the issue firmly on the agenda.
By 10 May 2011, a new wave of arrivals had brought 34 460 to Italy comprising about 23 000 irregular migrants and 11 000 asylum seekers/refugees, and 1 106 to Malta (almost all asylum seekers or refugees).

Notwithstanding the relatively high numbers in Europe, they should be put in the context of the experience of Libya’s North African neighbouring countries which have received approximately 750 000 refugees.
The Assembly notes that the number of asylum seekers in Europe, and in particular those arriving 3. from the southern Mediterranean, should not pose an insurmountable problem for Europe as a whole, although their concentration in certain regions will pose a much greater problem for those countries or regions in the country concerned.

Malta in particular, because of its size and population, and the tiny island of Lampedusa, risk the greatest strain.

4.
4.

This Assembly believes that it is a paramount responsibility of each member state of the Council of Europe to meet its own international legal and humanitarian obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

5.

The effective protection of asylum seekers and refugees across the world cannot be achieved without countries sharing responsibilities.
One example of this has been the requests from front-line Mediterranean countries for a greater sharing of responsibility in response to large-scale arrivals of asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s southern shores.

6.
6.

All member states of the Council of Europe should be participating fully in the programmes of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the resettlement of refugees and should accept that, because of the uneven geographical distribution of refugees, fair sharing of responsibility for resettlement is essential.

7.
7.

To encourage such fair sharing of responsibility, more information should be given to national parliamentarians to enable them to put pressure on their governments to meet their moral duties.

For example, in 2010 European countries resettled only 5 824 refugees compared with 54 077 resettled by the United States and 6 732 by Canada.

It is of the utmost importance that the interests of refugees and asylum seekers are kept distinct from 8. those of economic migrants.
Porous external borders facilitate racketeering and international people smuggling.

Therefore, more 9. effective measures must be taken by member states to maintain the integrity of their own national borders.

1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc.

12630, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, rapporteur: Mr Chope).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting).

See also Recommendation 1973 (2011).


F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1820 In order to deter people smugglers from using the high seas for their heinous trade, member states 10. should consider the use of coastguard vessels.

These vessels should be sufficiently equipped to enable them to identify anyone with potential international protection needs, something that has been done effectively by the United States Coast Guard.

11.
11.

The Assembly notes that within the 27 member states of the European Union, there is a vigorous debate about what each one should be doing by way of sharing responsibility.

The Dublin II Regulation system, which was designed to prevent forum shopping and duplicate applications for asylum, is no longer fully effective because of the inability of a number of countries, notably Greece, to meet their obligations to provide fair and efficient systems for processing asylum applications.
It is unacceptable, however, that the situation in Greece, especially in its detention centres, continues to be below international standards.

The European Union should have made it a condition of the financial help to Greece that it should comply with its international obligations on the protection of refugees and asylum seekers.

In the view of the Assembly, the current situation and status quo is not sufficient and action has to be 12. taken, primarily for three reasons.
The first is that a number of member states are not coping with the current situation and there exists a real threat of ongoing arrivals creating further pressure and problems.

Secondly, the Dublin System has been shown to be unfair and in need of reform.

The most recent condemnation by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment earlier this year (M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece) attests to this.
The third reason is that the issue of responsibility sharing is beginning to create collateral damage and that further friction within the European Union member states is focused on those countries which are within the Schengen zone.

The actions of some countries in allowing irregular migrants to receive documentation entitling them to travel anywhere within the zone has created tensions which have now reached the level of intergovernmental European Union discussion.

These issues need to be resolved.

13.


From the perspective of the Council of Europe, it is important that countries within the European Union are not regarded as having special status.

The same principles should be applicable in all 47 countries.
It would therefore be inappropriate for the Assembly to give definitive advice about what the European Union should do in respect of each of its current problems relating to Schengen, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex), and aspirations to create a common immigration and asylum policy for the European Union, except in the context of human rights.

14.
14.

The European Union does, however, have financial resources and material resources which should be made more widely available to Council of Europe member states.

For example, Frontex has access to satellite intelligence which should enable it to identify vessels which are leaving North Africa loaded with migrants, so that they can be intercepted in a co-ordinated way.
The European Union also has the ability to help facilitate bilateral and multilateral arrangements to help reduce the pressure on particular points of entry such as the border between Turkey and Greece.
In order to tackle the issue of responsibility sharing in Europe, taking into account the responsibilities 15. which exist at the moment and foreseeing future developments, the Assembly calls on all member states to: 15.1. encourage reform of the Dublin system to achieve more flexibility, where necessary, on the application of the principle of asylum determinations being carried out in the first arrival country; 15.2. provide direct assistance to countries in need, in particular those currently receiving large-scale mixed migration flows in the southern Mediterranean, including by: 15.2.1. assisting with border controls, interception of boats and rescue of people in need; 15.2.2. facilitating reception, including by providing support for infrastructure and its operation; 15.2.3. providing assistance for screening those with possible international protection needs; 15.2.4. helping with asylum determination and fair and efficient asylum procedures; 15.2.5. individuals held in detention who wish to return to their country of origin); facilitating returns (both of irregular migrants and of failed asylum seekers, including 2 Res.
1820 15.2.6. accepting, as a priority, relocation within Europe from countries under strain, prior to or after the asylum determination process, and resettlement from countries outside of Europe in full co-operation with the UNHCR; 15.2.7. irregular migrants; taking steps to tackle the root causes of flows of asylum seekers, refugees and 15.2.8. promoting co-operation between countries of reception and countries through which irregular migrants and asylum seekers have passed in transit since leaving their country of origin; 15.2.9. offering prompt assistance to countries receiving civilians fleeing from persecution and military action in neighbouring states as in the case of Turkey; 15.3. put greater reliance upon intelligence-led interceptions at sea, so as to co-ordinate their response to people smugglers.
16.
The Assembly recognises that further responsibility sharing cannot be effective without a commitment from the countries at the forefront of the current asylum flows to: 16.1. guarantee access to their territory to any person that might be in need of international protection; 16.2. provide the necessary reception conditions in accordance with relevant human rights and humanitarian standards; 16.3. provide a prompt and fair asylum process and ensure the quality and consistency of decisions; 16.4. ensure the integrity of their borders and control the irregular migration flows.
17.
Recognising the particular responsibility, resources and mandate of the European Union in this matter, the Assembly calls on the European Union to: 17.1. modify, as necessary and as early as possible, the Dublin system, in particular in the light of the judgment in the case of M.S.S v. Belgium and Greece, both to ensure fair treatment and appropriate guarantees for asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection and also to assist individual member states to face possible situations of exceptional pressure; 17.2. ensure that its funds are flexible and easy to mobilise, to be able to react quickly in the case of unforeseen events and emergency, and consider the possibility of financing infrastructure in particular to ensure adequate reception facilities; 17.3. ensure that in respect of its members there are accurate and consistent statistics relating to applications for international protection, the granting of refugee status and asylum, detection and return of irregular migrants and realistic estimates of the number of illegal entrants into the European Union; 17.4. rapidly find an agreement on the European Commission’s proposal for the establishment of a European Union joint resettlement programme, to be implemented in close co-operation with the UNHCR; 17.5. in revising the Frontex regulations, ensure that full human rights guarantees are included; 17.6. address the alarming increase in the number of forged travel documents circulating in Europe, the forecasts by Frontex of increased irregular migration and the concerns of Europol as to the security threats resulting therefrom.
18.

Finally, the Assembly commends the work of the UNHCR, congratulates it on its 60th anniversary and calls on all members of the Council of Europe to mark the anniversary by taking greater responsibility for resettling refugees and addressing the challenge of asylum seekers in Europe.

3 Provisional edition The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants Resolution 1821 (2011)1 1.

The surveillance of Europe's southern borders has become a regional priority.
The European continent is having to cope with the relatively large-scale arrival of migratory flows by boat from Africa, reaching Europe mainly through Italy, Malta, Spain, Greece and Cyprus.

2.

Migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other persons risk their lives to reach Europe's southern borders, mostly in unseaworthy vessels.
These journeys, always undertaken illicitly, mostly on board flagless vessels, putting them at risk of falling into the hands of migrant smuggling and trafficking rings, reflect the desperation of the passengers, who have no legal and above all no safer means of reaching Europe.

3.
3.

Although the number of arrivals by sea has fallen drastically in recent years, resulting in a shift of migratory routes (particularly towards the land border between Turkey and Greece), the Parliamentary Assembly, recalling, inter alia, its Resolution 1637 (2008) "Europe's boat people: mixed migration flows by sea into southern Europe", once again expresses its deep concern over the measures taken to deal with the arrival by sea of these mixed migratory flows.
Many people in distress at sea have been rescued and many attempting to reach Europe have been pushed back, but the list of fatal incidents – as predictable as they are tragic – is a long one and it is currently getting longer on an almost daily basis.

4.

Furthermore, recent arrivals in Italy and Malta following the turmoils in North Africa confirm that Europe must always be ready to face the possible large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on its southern shores.
The Assembly notes that measures to manage these maritime arrivals raise numerous problems, of 5. which five are particularly worrying: 5.1.

Despite several relevant international instruments satisfactorily setting out the rights and obligations of states and individuals applicable in this area, interpretations of their content appear to differ.
Some states do not agree on the nature and extent of their responsibilities in specific situations and some states also call into question the application of the principle of non-refoulement on the high seas; 5.2.

While the absolute priority in the event of interception at sea is the swift disembarkation of those rescued to a "place of safety", the notion of "place of safety" does not appear to be interpreted in the same way by all member states.
Yet it is clear that the notion of "place of safety" should not be restricted solely to the physical protection of people, but necessarily also entails respect for their fundamental rights; 5.3.

Divergences of this kind directly endanger the lives of the persons to be rescued, in particular by delaying or preventing rescue measures, and are likely to dissuade seafarers from rescuing people in distress at sea.
Furthermore, they could result in a violation of the principle of non-refoulement in respect of a number of persons, including some in need of international protection; 1 Assembly debate on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting) (see Doc.

12628, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, rapporteur: Mr Díaz Tejera).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 21 June 2011 (22nd Sitting).

See also Recommendation 1974 (2011).


F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1821 5.4.
1821 5.4.

Although the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member states of the European Union (Frontex) plays an ever increasing role in interception at sea, the guarantees of respect for human rights and obligations arising under international and European Union law in the context of the joint operations it co-ordinates are inadequate; 5.5.
Finally, these sea arrivals place a disproportionate burden on the states located on the southern borders of the European Union.

The goal of responsibilities being shared more fairly and greater solidarity in the migration sphere between European states is far from being attained.

6.

The situation is rendered more complex by the fact that these migratory flows are of a mixed nature and therefore call for specialised and tailored protection-sensitive responses in keeping with the status of those rescued.
To respond to sea arrivals adequately and in line with the relevant international standards, the states must take account of this aspect in their migration management policies and activities.

7.
7.

The Assembly reminds the member states of their obligations under international law, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, and particularly of the principle of non- refoulement and the right to seek asylum.
The Assembly also reiterates the obligations of the States Parties to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue.
Finally and above all, the Assembly reminds the member states that they have both a moral and legal 8. obligation to save persons in distress at sea without the slightest delay, and unequivocally reiterates the interpretation given by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which states that the principle of non-refoulement is equally applicable on the high seas.
The high seas are not an area where states are exempt from their legal obligations, including those emerging from international human rights law and international refugee law.

9.
Accordingly, the Assembly calls on the member states, when conducting maritime border surveillance operations, whether in the context of preventing smuggling and trafficking in human beings or in connection with border management, be it in the exercise of de jure or de facto jurisdiction, to: 9.1. fulfil without exception and without delay their obligation to save people in distress at sea; 9.2. ensure that their border management policies and activities, including interception measures, recognise the mixed make-up of flows of individuals attempting to cross maritime borders; 9.3. guarantee for all intercepted persons humane treatment and systematic respect for their human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement, regardless of whether interception measures are implemented within their own territorial waters, those of another state on the basis of an ad hoc bilateral agreement, or on the high seas; 9.4. refrain from any practices that might be tantamount to direct or indirect refoulement, including on the high seas, in keeping with the UNHCR's interpretation of the extraterritorial application of that principle and with the relevant judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; 9.5. carry out as a priority action the swift disembarkation of rescued persons to a "place of safety" and interpret a "place of safety" as meaning a place which can meet the immediate needs of those disembarked and in no way jeopardises their fundamental rights, since the notion of "safety" extends beyond mere protection from physical danger and must also take into account the fundamental rights dimension of the proposed place of disembarkation; 9.6. guarantee access to a fair and effective asylum procedure for those intercepted who are in need of international protection; 9.7. guarantee access to protection and assistance, including to asylum procedures, for those intercepted who are victims of human trafficking or at risk of being trafficked; 9.8. ensure that the placement in a detention facility of those intercepted – always excluding minors and vulnerable categories –, regardless of their status, is authorised by the judicial authorities and occurs only where necessary and on grounds prescribed by law, that there is no other suitable 2 Res.
1821 alternative and that such placement conforms to the minimum standards and principles set forth in Assembly Resolution 1707 (2010) on the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe; 9.9. suspend any bilateral agreements they may have concluded with third states if the human rights of those intercepted are not appropriately guaranteed therein, particularly the right of access to an asylum procedure, and wherever these might be tantamount to a violation of the principle of non- refoulement, and conclude new bilateral agreements specifically containing such human rights guarantees and measures for their regular and effective monitoring; 9.10. sign and ratify, if they have not already done so, the aforementioned relevant international instruments and take account of the Guidelines of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on the Treatment of Persons rescued at Sea; 9.11. sign and ratify, if they have not already done so, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No.
197) and the so-called "Palermo Protocols" to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000); 9.12. ensure that maritime border surveillance operations and border control measures do not affect the specific protection afforded under international law to vulnerable categories such as refugees, stateless persons, women and unaccompanied children, migrants, victims of trafficking or at risk of being trafficked, or victims of torture and trauma.

10.
10.

The Assembly is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the respective responsibilities of European Union states and Frontex and the absence of adequate guarantees for the respect of fundamental rights and international standards in the framework of joint operations co-ordinated by that agency.
While the Assembly welcomes the proposals presented by the European Commission to amend the rules governing that agency, with a view to strengthening guarantees of full respect for fundamental rights, it considers them inadequate and would like the European Parliament to be entrusted with the democratic supervision of the agency's activities, particularly where respect for fundamental rights is concerned.

11.
11.

The Assembly also considers it essential that efforts be made to remedy the prime causes prompting desperate individuals to risk their lives by boarding boats bound for Europe.

The Assembly calls on all the member states to step up their efforts to promote peace, the rule of law and prosperity in the countries of origin of potential immigrants and asylum seekers.

12.
Finally, in view of the serious challenges posed to coastal states by the irregular arrival by sea of mixed flows of individuals, the Assembly calls on the international community, particularly the IMO, the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Council of Europe and the European Union (including Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office) to: 12.1. provide any assistance required to those states in a spirit of solidarity and sharing of responsibilities; 12.2. under the auspices of the IMO, make concerted efforts to ensure a consistent and harmonised approach to international maritime law through, inter alia, agreement on the definition and content of the key terms and norms; 12.3. establish an inter-agency group with the aim of studying and resolving the main problems in the area of maritime interception, including the five problems identified in the present resolution, setting clear policy priorities, providing guidance to states and other relevant actors and monitoring and evaluating the use of maritime interception measures.
The group should be made up of members of the IMO, the UNHCR, the IOM, the Council of Europe, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office.

3 Provisional edition Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1822 (2011)1 The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is a unique interparliamentary assembly which 1. can look back on a number of achievements during its sixty years of existence.
Looking to the future, the Assembly has decided that it is a good moment to take stock of the current 2. context within which it operates and to reaffirm its mission.

The persisting challenges and unresolved conflicts in Europe, and the events over the last few months in the Middle East and northern Africa have been a reminder of the continuing, inspirational force of the fundamental values upheld by the Council of Europe and its Assembly, namely democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
In addition, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe has himself, with the strong backing of the member states, embarked on an ambitious reform programme of the Organisation in October 2009.

The aim of the Assembly’s reform is to strengthen its political relevance and effectiveness, to make it 3. more visible and to improve its members’ involvement.
In addition, the objective is also to reinforce the interaction between the Assembly and national parliaments and to strengthen inter-parliamentary co- operation, including with the European Parliament.

To this end, the Assembly has decided to take a number of measures, ranging from policy actions, 4. which imply a change of practice and not necessarily a change of rules, to modifications of its working methods and structures, which will imply a change of its Rules of Procedure.

5.
5.

The Assembly therefore decides, as regards policy actions: 5.1.
Motions for a resolution or a recommendation: 5.1.1. of the Council of Europe, in Warsaw in May 2005, as selection criteria for motions; to use the four lines of action adopted at the Summit of Heads of State and Government 5.1.2. to allow committees to table motions under Rule 24.2 of the Rules of Procedure and the Bureau to propose reports for debate in the Assembly (constituting references), while at the same time being more selective in the topics they propose; 5.1.3. by requiring 20 signatories belonging to six national delegations and two political groups; to modify the requirements for tabling an application to initiate a monitoring procedure, 5.1.4. when a motion is referred to them for information; to make explicit in the Rules of Procedure the various options which committees have 5.2.
Follow-up to adopted texts: 5.2.1. to allow rapporteurs for report, together with the relevant committee, to continue to be seized for one year after the adoption of the text to ensure its follow-up, and to report back to the committee at the end of that period, as well as to proceed, when appropriate, in accordance with the mechanism set out in Resolution 1640 (2008); 1 Assembly debate on 22 June 2011 (24th Sitting) (see Doc.

12627, report of the ad hoc Committee on the Reform, rapporteur: Mr Mignon).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 22 June 2011 (24th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1822 to invite committees to draw up an annual report on the follow-up given to adopted texts 5.2.2. by the national parliaments and/or the Committee of Ministers and, where necessary, to make a public statement when the follow-up is not satisfactory; 5.3.
Debates in the plenary Assembly: 5.3.1. to introduce one “free debate” during each part-session; 5.3.2. with explanatory notes; to allow amendments to draft resolutions and/or recommendations to be tabled together 5.4.
Grouping and long-term planning of committee meetings: 5.4.1. outside part-sessions, to group committee meetings during fixed periods of the year known one year in advance; 5.4.2. during part-sessions, as far as possible to avoid simultaneous committee meetings involving the same members; 5.4.3. to invite the committees of the Assembly, except the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, to use their "annual ticket" to organise a joint meeting with their counterpart committees in the national parliaments of the member states; 5.5.
Assembly communication tools: to review the Assembly’s communication tools, in particular its website, with a view to making them more user-friendly and interactive, and thus more useful to members and the Europeans; 5.6.

Fundraising: to diversify the funding of the Assembly's actions (other than statutory activities) and new initiatives through external sources compatible with the values and principles of the Council of Europe; 5.7.
Follow-up on structural issues regarding election observations: to establish an advisory group on election observation, preferably under the President and appointed by political groups, with the responsibility of summing up and systematising structural experiences with other international election observation institutions.

Furthermore, the Assembly decides, as regards the modification of its working methods and 6. structures: 6.1.
Organisation of Assembly part-sessions, to invite the Bureau of the Assembly: 6.1.1. minutes or, where necessary, to three minutes; to reduce the maximum speaking time for members on the speakers’ lists to four 6.1.2. debates which remain limited to an hour and a half; to foresee, in principle, a minimum of two hours for debates, except current affairs 6.1.3. political distribution; in principle, not to cut any list of speakers and to seek to ensure a fair geographical and 6.1.4. from 2 pm to 3.30 pm; to have committee meetings in the afternoons of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday 6.2.
Substitutes and alternates: to eliminate the requirement that committee chairpersons or vice-chairpersons must be full members of the committee, not alternates; 2 6.3.

Sub-Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights: to invite the sub-committee to give positive reasons for its recommendation in favour of a given candidate; 6.4.

Committee structure: Res.
1822 6.4.1. to merge the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development (AS/Ec), the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee (AS/Soc) and the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (AS/Ena) into one Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development (AS/CSD); 6.4.2. as a result, to transfer budgetary and financial matters from the Committee AS/Ec to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (AS/Pro), and the preparation of the reports on the activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Political Affairs Committee (AS/Pol); 6.4.3. taking account of the new responsibilities of the Committee AS/Pro, to nominate as ex officio members the chairpersons of the Assembly’s five political groups and to increase the number of members with a view to ensuring an equitable geographical representation of members.
With this in mind each member state shall not have more than one member on this committee; 6.4.4. the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination (AS/Ega); to transform the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (AS/Ega) into 6.4.5. as a result, to transfer issues related to the rights of national and other minorities and to discrimination on any ground from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to the new Committee AS/Ega; 6.4.6. to transfer the issue of population from the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population (AS/Mig) to the new Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development and, consequently, to modify the title and the terms of reference of AS/Mig; 6.4.7. to limit each member of the Assembly to full membership of two committees, with the exception of the committees whose members are nominated by the political groups; 6.4.8. to prepare revised terms of reference for the following eight general committees: 6.4.8.1.
Political Affairs Committee (AS/Pol); 6.4.8.2.

Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (AS/Jur); 6.4.8.3.

Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development (AS/CSD); 6.4.8.4.

Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons (AS/Mig); 6.4.8.5.

Committee on Culture, Science and Education (AS/Cult); 6.4.8.6.

Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination (AS/Ega); 6.4.8.7.
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) (AS/Mon); 6.4.8.8.

Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (AS/Pro).

The Assembly decides that the measures contained in this resolution shall come into effect at the 7. opening of the 2012 Session of the Assembly, on 23 January 2012.
A separate report by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs will be submitted to the Assembly or the Standing Committee in good time before the opening of the 2012 Session concerning the necessary modifications of the Rules of Procedure, which shall include: revised terms of reference of committees, including the 3 Res.
1822 the proposal implementation of to consider “deep security” issues, transitional arrangements and recent issues relating to the interpretation of the Rules such as committees' standing mandates and deadlines for the preparation of reports.

As regards standing mandates, it will be necessary to give them a firm legal basis in the Rules.

the Assembly should be able that 4 Provisional edition National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe Resolution 1823 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly recalls that Council of Europe member states are responsible for the effective implementation of international human rights norms they have signed up to, in particular those of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5) (hereafter "the Convention").

This obligation concerns all state organs, whether executive, judicial or legislative.

2.

National parliaments are often overlooked in this context.

Their potential needs to be further explored.


They are key to the effective implementation of international human rights norms at national level and fulfil their duty to protect human rights through legislating (including the vetting of draft legislation), involvement in the ratification of international human rights treaties, holding the executive to account, liaising with national human rights institutions and fostering the creation of a pervasive human rights culture.
The members of the Assembly, having a double mandate – as members of the Assembly and of their 3. respective national parliaments – are under a particular duty to contribute to such action.

4.

The Assembly notes that the United Nations “Paris Principles” of 1993 have become the internationally accepted benchmark for core minimum standards for the role and functioning of independent national human rights institutions; similar benchmarks should be drawn up for parliamentary bodies.

5.
With respect to the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter "the Court"), the Assembly: 5.1. believes that national parliaments are uniquely placed to hold the governments to account for swift and effective implementation of the Court’s judgments, as well as to swiftly adopt the necessary legislative amendments; 5.2. regrets that the post-Interlaken debate on the future of the Convention system does not sufficiently take into account the potentially important role of parliaments and deplores the silence of the Izmir Declaration in this respect; 5.3. points to the positive examples in several member states, notably the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Finland and Romania, which have set up parliamentary structures to monitor the implementation of the Court’s judgments.
6.

Furthermore, the Assembly: 6.1. encourages parliamentarians to monitor the determination and enforcement of human rights standards by the domestic judicial and administrative authorities; 6.2. urges parliamentarians to exercise their responsibility to carefully scrutinise the executive in their countries when it comes to the implementation of, in particular, international human rights norms; 1 Assembly debate on 23 June 2011 (25th Sitting) (see Doc.
12636, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Pourgourides).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2011 (25th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.
1823 6.3. calls on governments to involve national parliaments in the negotiation process of international human rights agreements and in the process of implementation of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights; 6.4. calls on all member states to provide for adequate parliamentary procedures to systematically verify the compatibility of draft legislation with Convention standards and avoid future violations of the Convention, including regular monitoring of all judgments which could potentially affect the respective legal orders; 6.5. urges parliaments to step up their efforts in contributing to the supervision of the Court’s judgments by overseeing steps taken by the competent authorities to execute adverse judgments, including scrutiny of the actual measures taken; 6.6. calls on parliaments to set up and/or to reinforce structures that would permit the mainstreaming and rigorous supervision of their international human rights obligations, on the basis of the principles below.
The Assembly therefore invites parliaments to implement the following basic principles for 7. parliamentary supervision of international human rights standards.

Basic principles for parliamentary supervision of international human rights standards 1.
Appropriate framework and responsibilities National parliaments shall establish appropriate parliamentary structures to ensure rigorous and regular monitoring of compliance with and supervision of international human rights obligations, such as dedicated human rights committees or appropriate analogous structures, whose remits shall be clearly defined and enshrined in law.
These remits should include, inter alia: – – – – the systematic verification of the compatibility of draft legislation with international human rights obligations; the requirement for governments to regularly submit reports on relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and their implementation; the initiation of legislative proposals and amendments to laws; subpoena powers over witnesses and documents concerning their remit; Such committees shall have the responsibility to ensure that parliaments are properly advised and informed on human rights issues.
Human rights training should also be provided for parliamentarians and their staff; 2.

Independent advice Human rights committees or appropriate analogous structures shall have access to independent expertise in human rights law.

Adequate resources shall also be made available to provide specialised secretariat support.

3.
Co-operation with other institutions and civil society Co-operation and regular dialogue shall be maintained, as appropriate, with relevant national (for example, national human rights institutions, parliamentary commissioners), and international bodies (for example, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, European and other international human rights monitoring bodies), as well as with representatives of well-established non- governmental organisations which have significant and relevant experience.
2 Provisional edition The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe Resolution 1824 (2011)1 1.

The Parliamentary Assembly deplores the recent decisions in a number of European countries to introduce massive cuts in welfare programmes that were designed to secure access to social rights, and notes that the consequences of such decisions may be dramatic, in particular for the poorest and most disadvantaged categories of the population.
The Assembly believes that parliaments have a vital role to play in consolidating and developing 2. social rights in Europe to counter such developments.

Emphasising the principles of indivisibility and interdependence of human rights (including social rights), the Assembly calls on the parliaments of member states to take into account international social rights standards in the exercise of their main functions, namely legislation, representation and oversight.

3.
3.

The Assembly underlines, in particular, the importance of securing the right to health, including the right to a healthy, clean and safe environment, as one of the fundamental social rights directly related to the right to life.

4.
4.

The Assembly thus calls on parliaments of member states to: 4.1. take measures to implement the recommendations contained in Assembly Resolution 1792 (2011) on the monitoring of commitments concerning social rights, and, in particular, continue promoting, at European and national level, the signature, ratification and implementation of the European Social Charter’s Amending Protocol of 1991 (ETS No.

142, the “Turin Protocol”), the Additional Protocol of 1995 (ETS No.
158) Providing for a System of Collective Complaints, and of the revised European Social Charter of 1996 (ETS No.
163); 4.2. include, as part of parliamentary debates on human rights, a regular review of the implementation of social rights, ensuring, in particular, that governments take the appropriate measures to follow-up on the decisions taken by the European Committee for Social Rights with regard to the implementation of the articles of the revised European Social Charter; 4.3. regularly scrutinise government policies implementing the right to health, and keep abreast of new developments to ensure that scientific progress is respectful of human rights and dignity; 4.4. take the human rights perspective into consideration as a primary criterion when conducting parliamentary scrutiny of public policies and deciding on budgets, in particular in the social and health field; 4.5. ensure parliamentary oversight of the implementation of international agreements, programmes and budgets that may have an impact on social rights, in accordance with Assembly Resolution 1289 (2002) and Recommendation 1567 (2002) on parliamentary scrutiny of international institutions; 1 Assembly debate on 23 June 2011 (25th Sitting) (see Doc.
12632, report of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mrs Ohlsson, and Doc.

12658, opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, rapporteur: Sir Alan Meale).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2011 (25th Sitting).

See also Recommendation 1976 (2011).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.
1824 4.6. raise awareness amongst parliamentarians and parliamentary research staff on social rights, including through the provision of specialised training and general induction courses for newly elected parliamentarians; 4.7. create an all-party group on the development of human rights with a view to involving parliamentarians and parliamentary research staff in discussions on the development of a third generation human of rights with respect to a healthy, clean and safe environment; 4.8. strengthen interparliamentary co-operation and improve the exchange of best practices at international level, in particular by: 4.8.1. improving co-ordination and strengthening co-operation between members of national parliamentary committees whose actions may have an impact on the consolidation and development of social rights at national and European level, including also members of national human rights committees and European affairs committees.
4.8.2. improving co-ordination and information exchange on the implementation of social rights between parliamentarians the Parliamentary Assembly, the European Parliament, the Nordic Council, the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC), the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the Parliamentary Network on the World Bank (PNoWB); the same country international including from fora, in 4.8.3. taking an active part in the Council of Europe Conference on the environment, climate change and human rights to be held in Strasbourg in October 2012, with a view to discussing the development of a third generation of human rights with respect to a healthy, clean and safe environment and to exchanging best practices at local, regional and national levels; 4.8.4. taking an active part in international campaigns aimed at the promotion of human rights, including, inter alia, the Network of contact parliamentarians of the Parliamentary Assembly committed to combating violence against women and the Network of contact parliamentarians of the Council of Europe’s "ONE in FIVE" campaign to combat sexual violence against children; 4.8.5. establishing co-operation with the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union (COSAC) to exchange best practices in the field of parliamentary scrutiny of government programmes.
5.
The Assembly believes that member states also need to take urgent action in order to guarantee effective access to social rights in line with international standards, obligations and commitments, and thus calls on them to: 5.1. take the necessary measures to ensure realisation of the commitments on social rights enshrined in the Council of Europe and in the United Nations conventions; 5.2. apply the principles of equality and non-discrimination as a lever for the implementation of social rights; 5.3. make greater use of the Parliamentary Assembly in overseeing the work of international organisations whose decisions have an impact on the implementation of social rights, in particular those that do not have inbuilt parliamentary bodies, such as the World Health Organization; 5.4. ensure that national positions expressed at international level in the field of economics, finance, and trade are respectful of national commitments under international human rights treaties; 5.5. with a view to consolidating and developing the right to health, which remains a particular priority, take measures to: 5.5.1. incorporate into their national legislation and practice the principles and rights enshrined in the revised European Social Charter, paying particular attention to the principle that everyone has the right to benefit from any measures enabling him or her to enjoy the highest possible standard of health attainable; 2 Res.
1824 5.5.2. contribute to the drafting, signature and implementation of a new protocol to the revised European Social Charter on the right to health, including the right to a healthy, clean and safe environment; 5.5.3. guarantee the implementation of international treaties on the right to health with regard to specific target groups (children, women, people with disabilities, the elderly), in specific contexts (occupational health) and through the improvement of the enabling conditions with regard to the right to health (environmental effects on health); 5.5.4. implement the Council of Europe conventional instruments that have an impact on the right to health, including the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (ETS No.
164, "Oviedo Convention"), and its Protocols; 5.5.5. in line with Assembly Recommendation 1614 (2003) on environment and human rights, sign, ratify and implement the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and its Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers ("Aarhus Convention").

3 Provisional edition More women in economic and social decision-making bodies Resolution 1825 (2011)1 1.
Although women in Europe represent a high and growing share of the labour market they remain considerably under-represented in top management.

There are still too few women in the governing and supervisory boards of major companies, both in the private and the public sector, as well as in the governing structures of trade unions, professional and trade associations and administrations.

2.
2.

The Parliamentary Assembly considers that a balanced representation of women and men at all hierarchical levels, including top management, is a matter of justice, respect for human rights and good governance.

Furthermore, it notes from recognised studies that the companies in which equal opportunities are both taken into account and implemented not only provide women with better career and self- development prospects, but also achieve better productivity and business profitability.

3.
3.

Women’s limited access to top management and decision-making posts is the result of multiple forms of discrimination to which they are exposed throughout their lives.

In order to redress this state of affairs, radical changes in society should be promoted, in order to eradicate the tendency to conceive stereotyped gender roles, which confine women to subordinate posts and preclude them from accessing sectors which are erroneously considered as men’s strongholds.

4.
4.

To achieve equal opportunities and treatment between women and men in employment, it is not only necessary to set up and effectively implement far-reaching and comprehensive anti-discrimination policies, but also to introduce progressive measures to enable women to reconcile family and professional responsibilities without having to choose between them.
In addition, positive measures should be envisaged to help women break through the glass ceiling which holds them back in the area of professional competition.

5.
5.

The Assembly has on several occasions advocated the adoption of positive measures, including quotas geared to promoting access by women in the political arena, for example in its Resolution 1706 (2010) and Recommendation 1899 (2010) on increasing women’s representation in politics through the electoral system and its Resolution 1641 (2008) and Recommendation 1853 (2008) on involving men in achieving gender equality.
In the Assembly's view, gender quotas are a transitional but necessary exception to allow positive discrimination with a view to bringing about a change in attitudes and achieving de jure and de facto gender equality.

6.

The Assembly believes that the experience of quotas could be advantageously transposed to the private and socio-economic sectors.
In this context, it notes that a number of Council of Europe member states have already introduced, or are considering introducing, quotas to improve the representation of women on the governing boards of major firms.

In some cases, in the absence of legal obligations, large companies have taken similar initiatives.

7.
7.

In view of these considerations, the Assembly calls on member states of the Council of Europe to: 7.1. take strong and resolute action to combat gender discrimination in education and employment; 1 Assembly debate on 23 June 2011 (26th Sitting) (see Doc.

12540, report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, rapporteur: Ms Gautier, and Doc.

12637, opinion of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, rapporteur: Ms Naghdalyan).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2011 (26th Sitting).

See also Recommendation 1977 (2011).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.
1825 7.2. introduce progressive measures to ensure reconciliation of private and working life, in particular as regards parental leave, balanced participation of women and men in family life, flexible work arrangements, leave for family reasons, protection of workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, reintegration in the work market for women who left it to take care of family members, including the obligation for the employer to retrain the person concerned, and availability of childcare for working parents; 7.3. take prompt action to encourage employers to tackle the gender salary gap, as recommended in Assembly Resolution 1715 (2010) on the wage gap between women and men; 7.4. encourage action against gender stereotypes in education, at all levels, and at work and promote training on gender equality in schools and public administration; 7.5. support the preparation and implementation of training programmes and databases geared to supporting women in their professional careers and in access to top management and decision-making posts in the public and private sectors; 7.6. encourage women's networking initiatives and exchanges of good practices in this field; 7.7. ensure that the gender dimension is included in all calls for public tender; 7.8. award Equality Labels to actors encouraging recruitment of women and establishing support programmes for women’s careers; 7.9. promote the feminisation of post titles; 7.10. set an example by adopting action plans aimed at improving the representation of women in decision-making bodies in all branches of administration, at local, regional and central levels, as well as in state-owned companies; 7.11. adopt legislation requiring that public and private institutions achieve a minimum 40% representation of women in management and decision-making positions within a clearly defined time frame, and put in place mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of such legislation; 7.12. introduce the obligation for state-owned and large private companies to
 guarantee a minimum 40% of representation of women on their governing and management boards; 7.13. implement the Action Plan “Taking up the Challenge of the Achievement of de jure and de facto Gender Equality” adopted by the Ministers responsible for Equality between Women and Men at the 7th Council of Europe Ministerial Conference (Baku, 24-25 May 2010).
The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member states to encourage companies, firms and 8. associations operating in the private and voluntary sectors to: 8.1. promote women success models at the different hierarchical levels and decision-making structures; 8.2. promote career plans for women; 8.3. establish far-reaching equal opportunities policies and organise annual gender-equality audits; 8.4. set up effective measures to combat sexual harassment at work; introduce rules aimed at ensuring balanced representation of women and men in top 8.5. management and decision-making bodies, guaranteeing a minimum 40% representation of women on governing and supervisory boards.
2 Provisional edition Expansion of democracy by lowering the voting age to 16 Resolution 1826 (2011)1 1.

The Parliamentary Assembly has discussed the issue of lowering the minimum age for voting on various occasions, most recently in its Resolution 1630 (2008) on refreshing the youth agenda of the Council of Europe.
The demographic evolution in Europe could lead to the increasing marginalisation of young people in 2. the political process, which risks being dominated by issues primarily of interest to older people.

Such a development could endanger the stability of democracy at a time when social cohesion is more important than ever.

3.

The increasingly low turnout at elections throughout Europe, in particular of the 18 to 24 age group, is also worrying for the future of democracy.
Research indicates that the longer young people have to wait to participate in political life, the less engaged they are in their adult life.

4.

In 2007, Austria became the first member of the Council of Europe and of the European Union and the first of the developed world's democracies to adopt a voting age of 16 for all municipal, state and national elections.

Germany has also lowered the voting age in some Länder.
The canton of Glarus in Switzerland has lowered the voting age to 16 for local and regional elections.

The issue is being debated in the parliaments of several other member states.

5.
Recalling the numerous initiatives that already exist to promote the participation of young people, whether by means of specific institutions or by means of the co-management system, as laid down by Recommendation 1019 (1985) on the participation of young people in political and institutional life, the Assembly stresses the need to prepare young people for their participation in civic life and emphasises that: the larger the share of society taking part in elections, the greater the representativeness of 5.1. those elected; 5.2.
16- and 17-year-olds already have responsibilities within society, but without having the right to vote; 5.3. a better participation in voting will help to make young people more aware of their responsibility for defining their position and role in society; 5.4. better education for democratic citizenship must be provided by education systems to enable future, fully fledged citizens to exercise their new rights; schools can constitute a model for democratic participation if students are involved in their 5.5. decision-making process; 5.6. a voting age of 16 would be more conducive to a higher turnout of first-time voters, and thus to an overall higher turnout.
1 Assembly debate on 23 June 2011 (26th Sitting) (see Doc.

12546, report of the Political Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Mr Aligrudić).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2011 (26th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1826 6.
Particular emphasis must also be placed on the principle of democracy, which calls for the participation of the largest possible number of people in policymaking and in politics, on the constant concern of all democrats to extend and improve the democratic functioning of our societies, on the possibility of bringing new blood into the electorate and thus giving greater expression to the concerns of the younger generation, and on the importance of effectively combating the growing danger of the exclusion of young people and the concern to do everything possible to facilitate their integration into the structures of society.
7.

The Assembly therefore calls on member states to: create the necessary preconditions for the participation of young people in civic life through 7.1. education and the promotion of community involvement; investigate the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16 years in all countries and for all kinds 7.2. of elections; 7.3. examine the possibility of lowering the minimum ages to stand for different kinds of elections (local and regional bodies, parliament, senate, presidency) whenever advisable.
2 Provisional edition The progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (June 2010 – May 2011) Resolution 1827 (2011)1 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly acknowledges the work carried out by its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) in accompanying the ten countries currently under monitoring (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, 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 ensure full respect for democracy, the rule of law and protection of human rights.
2.

During the reporting period (June 2010 – May 2011), the committee has produced a full monitoring report on Georgia and assessments of the functioning of democratic institutions in Azerbaijan and Ukraine.

The respective rapporteurs carried out visits to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine, and submitted information notes on their findings to the committee for discussion.
Moreover, in accordance with the practice established since 2006, the committee has prepared a 3. periodic report on the third (and final) group of 11 Council of Europe member states among those members which are not subject to a monitoring procedure stricto sensu or involved in a post-monitoring dialogue, based on the findings of other Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, thus completing two full cycles of reports for each country in this category.

4.
4.

The Assembly is satisfied with the way that the committee has decided to pursue its work on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia.

Furthermore, it notes the follow-up given by the committee to the Bureau of the Assembly's request for a written opinion on the motion for a resolution on the “Serious setbacks in the fields of the rule of law and human rights in Hungary”.

5.
5.

During the reporting period, the committee has been engaged in the implementation of a number of procedural modifications regarding the term of office of co-rapporteurs on monitoring, and its composition following the adoption of Resolutions 1699 (2009) and 1710 (2010).

In particular, it proceeded with an important renewal of rapporteurships, which resulted, inter alia, in an increased percentage of women (approximately 30%).
While this should be considered only as a first step, the committee should nonetheless be commended for its efforts to comply with the Assembly’s gender equality policy.

This could serve as a good example for other parliamentary bodies, both in the Assembly and in those national parliaments with a low percentage of women.

6.
6.

Furthermore, in view of the forthcoming 15th anniversary of the establishment of the committee, and in the context of the ongoing debate on the reform of the Assembly, the committee has initiated a discussion on possible ways and means of rendering the monitoring procedure more effective, and of ensuring improved compliance of all its member states with their statutory obligations.

1 Assembly debate on 24 June 2011 (27th Sitting) (see Doc.
12634, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), rapporteur: Mr Marty).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 24 June 2011 (27th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1827 The Assembly is concerned that the two-year deadline for the presentation of a report for each country 7. under monitoring has not been systematically respected.
In one case, the Russian Federation, a period of six years has elapsed since the last report was debated in the Assembly.

8.

Furthermore, in some countries, quasi-permanent political crises have hindered the proper evaluation of the progress achieved: full monitoring reports had to be replaced on a number of occasions by reports on the functioning of democratic institutions, which were designed to enable the Assembly to react quickly to political developments of concern.

9.
9.

Free and fair elections constitute a precondition for democracy.

Regrettably, in a number of countries under monitoring procedure, serious shortcomings of the electoral process continue to be observed.
The legal framework in some countries still does not fully comply with Council of Europe standards, and insufficient political pluralism, unfair electoral campaigns, violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly, as well as shortcomings during the registration of candidates or the vote, do not always provide for an inclusive political environment.

10.

Electoral reform is under way in Armenia, Georgia and Montenegro.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina there is an urgent need to remove ethnicity-based limitations on the right to stand for elections.

The Albanian authorities have been invited by the Assembly to improve the legislative framework and enhance the capabilities of the electoral administration in a number of areas.

Azerbaijan has not addressed all outstanding concerns expressed by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) as regards its electoral code.
The recent parliamentary elections held in November 2010 revealed that some of the conditions necessary for genuinely competitive elections were still lacking.

In the Russian Federation, a number of amendments to the electoral code were adopted in 2009-2010.

However, limited political pluralism and a restrictive political environment remain serious matters of concern and a number of issues, such as restrictions on party registrations or the high threshold, still need to be addressed.
The inconsistencies in the legal framework for elections in Ukraine, and its manipulation by all contestants, underscore the need for a unified election code, as has been repeatedly recommended by the Assembly.

In “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, the electoral code was amended in April 2011, with all opposition parties boycotting the vote on the amendments, only two months before the elections foreseen for June 2011.
Electoral legislation must be further improved in the Republic of Moldova, in particular as regards the access to the electoral process of Moldovan citizens residing abroad and the introduction of electronic electoral register.

11.

Shortcomings in the electoral process have as an immediate consequence weak presence or even absence of any real opposition in the parliament, and, as a result, the lack of parliamentary dialogue with the opposition.
Regrettably, in a number of countries under monitoring procedure, parliamentary representation is monopolised by a limited number of political forces.

Furthermore, the absence of a parliamentary opposition is often accompanied by a restrictive climate for the activities of the extra-parliamentary opposition, including violations of basic freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, freedom of expression or free press.

12.
12.

In Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation, some important opposition forces remain outside parliament, and no political dialogue with extra-parliamentary opposition has been initiated.

In Georgia, efforts made by the authorities have resulted in the establishment of a dialogue between the government and a significant part of the opposition.
In Albania, the ruling party and the opposition's inability to co-operate, following the parliamentary elections of June 2009, triggered an ongoing crisis and led to the tragic events of January 2011.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the inability of the main political parties to reach a consensus triggered a serious, political crisis, with no government formed at state level since the October 2010 elections.
In the Republic of Moldova the lack of consensus between the opposition and the majority coalition has led to an institutional deadlock over the election by parliament of the President of the country.

13.

On the other hand, the abuse by opposition parties of boycott strategies, for example in Albania, or their refusal to participate in elections, does not foster the democratic process.

14.
14.

The inability of some parliaments to serve as a platform for political dialogue is directly linked to another persisting concern in some countries under a monitoring procedure, namely constitutional problems which are often at the same time the origin and the result of the lack of the representativity of elected bodies.
The main symptoms of these problems are the weakness of parliament vis-à-vis executive authorities, the lack of independence of the judiciary and, more generally, an unsatisfactory system of checks and balances.

2 Res.

1827 15.

Parliamentary oversight over the activities of the executive and the strengthening of the capacity of parliament are still needed in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Serbia and Ukraine.

16.
16.

As regards the honouring of statutory obligations by the countries which are not subject to the monitoring procedure stricto sensu, the Assembly refers to the findings of relevant (selected) Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms.

Regrettably, despite repeated calls, at the end of the second cycle of periodic reports, a number of important treaties have not been signed or ratified by the countries from this group.

As a result, they are not subject to any monitoring mechanisms in some core areas.
17.

Furthermore, in certain countries from this group, the monitoring mechanisms of the core conventions have given rise to some specific concerns.

For example, as regards the effective implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, worrying delays have arisen in Greece, Italy, Poland and Romania.

In some cases, they reveal major structural problems which lead to repetitive violations of the European Convention on Human Rights.

18.
The Assembly consequently urges: 18.1. with respect to elections and political pluralism: 18.1.1. the Parliament of Albania to introduce an improved legislative framework for the electoral process and enhance the capabilities of the electoral administration as regards the electoral register, for the regulation of media coverage and funding of campaigns, the rules of transparency relating to media ownership, the composition of electoral commissions and lists of candidates; 18.1.2. the Parliament of Armenia to pursue the process aimed at the implementation of comprehensive electoral reform, with a view to ensuring fair and equal conditions for all candidates and increasing public confidence in the electoral process, including the appeals and complaints procedure, in time for the May 2012 elections; 18.1.3. the Parliament of Azerbaijan to revise the electoral code as amended in 2010, with a view to addressing the outstanding recommendations from the Venice Commission and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR), in particular those relating to the composition of the election commissions, candidate eligibility and the complaints and appeals process; 18.1.4. the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina to revise the Constitution and electoral legislation with a view to eliminating ethnicity-based limitations on the right to stand for office in order to comply with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights; 18.1.5. on a consensus among the different political forces in time for the next parliamentary elections; the Parliament of Georgia to pursue its efforts to introduce a new election code based 18.1.6. the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova to further improve its electoral legislation with regard to the access to the electoral process of Moldovan citizens residing abroad and the development and introduction of an electronic electoral register; 18.1.7. legislation governing parliamentary elections with the new
 Constitution; the Parliament of Montenegro to pursue its work with a view to harmonising the 18.1.8. the Parliament of the Russian Federation to address outstanding concerns with regard to the electoral legislation including the elimination of restrictive provisions for party and candidate registration, and to further lower the threshold to enter parliament; 18.1.9. the Parliament of Ukraine to adopt, without further delay, a unified election code in accordance with the political commitment undertaken by the authorities, and the President to enact it; 18.2. with respect to parliamentary co-operation with the opposition: 18.2.1. work of the parliament and enter into a constructive political dialogue with other political forces; the main opposition party in Albania (Socialist Party) to terminate its boycott of the 3 Res.
1827 18.2.2. political dialogue with the opposition; the Armenian and Georgian authorities and the respective opposition forces to pursue 18.2.3. opposition, including extra-parliamentary opposition; the Azerbaijani and Russian authorities to establish a genuine dialogue with the 18.2.4. the political forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the Republic of Moldova to engage in a constructive dialogue with a view to overcoming the political and institutional crises in both countries; 18.3. with respect to the constitutional framework: 18.3.1. the Parliaments of Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine to review their constitution with a view to strengthening the role of parliamentary oversight over the activities of the executive; 18.3.2. out constitutional changes; the Parliaments of Armenia and Georgia to pursue their efforts with a view to carrying 18.3.3. while recalling the special responsibility of the international community and notably of the High Representative, the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina to pursue its efforts with a view to carrying out constitutional changes; 18.3.4. while recalling the opinions of the Venice Commission, the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova to continue its efforts in order to unlock the institutional crisis linked to the non-election of the President of the Republic and to avoid repeated early parliamentary elections; 18.4. with respect to the capacities of the parliament: 18.4.1. resources and strengthen their administrative capacities; the Parliaments of the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro and Serbia to increase their 18.5. with respect to the honouring of obligations by the states which are not subject to the monitoring procedure stricto sensu: 18.5.1.
Andorra, Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and San Marino to sign and ratify, and France, Italy, Iceland and Malta to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS No.

148); 18.5.2.

Andorra and France to sign and ratify, and Belgium, Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS No.
157); 18.5.3. the Czech Republic and Liechtenstein to sign and ratify, and Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania and Switzerland to ratify the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (CETS No.

197); 18.5.4.
197); 18.5.4.

Denmark, France, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify, and Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia to ratify Protocol No.

12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No.

177) concerning the fight against discrimination; 18.5.5.

Switzerland to ratify Protocol No.


1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Right and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No.

9) adding the right to peaceful enjoyment of property, the right to education and the right to free elections by secret ballot to fundamental rights protected by the Convention; 18.5.6.
Liechtenstein and Switzerland to sign and ratify, and Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, San Marino, Spain and the United Kingdom to ratify the European Social Charter (revised) (ETS No.

163); 4 Res.

1827 18.5.7.


Andorra, Estonia, Germany, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify, and Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia to ratify the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter Providing for a System of Collective Complaints (ETS No.

158); 18.5.8.
158); 18.5.8.

Liechtenstein, Portugal, San Marino and Switzerland to sign and ratify, and Andorra, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, and Luxembourg to ratify the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No.

174); 18.5.9.

Austria, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein and San Marino to ratify the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No.

173); 18.5.10.
173); 18.5.10.

Andorra, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Norway and Switzerland to sign and ratify, and Austria, Finland, France, Iceland, Italy, and Sweden to ratify the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism (CETS No.
198); 18.5.11. the national Parliaments of Romania, Greece, Italy and Poland to promote the progress in the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and to initiate legislative changes aimed at eliminating structural problems leading to repetitive violations of the European Convention on Human Rights; 18.5.12. the national parliaments of all the member states not subject to the monitoring procedure stricto sensu to use periodic reports as the basis for a debate on their country’s state of honouring of obligations as members of the Council of Europe and to promote compliance with recommendations made by specific Council of Europe monitoring bodies.
19.

The Assembly stresses the importance it attaches to the full independence of rapporteurs on monitoring of obligations and commitments in accomplishing their work and calls on the authorities of all countries concerned to refrain from any pressure to influence their judgment.

20.
20.

The Assembly reiterates its dedication to gender equality as one of the preconditions for developing democracies, and encourages the rapporteurs to take this aspect into account in a more comprehensive way in the countries under monitoring procedure.

21.

The Assembly commends the remarkable work carried out by the Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms, and the acquis they have established over the years.

22.
22.

The Assembly resolves to pursue a more general reflection on ways to enhance the efficiency and the impact of the Assembly monitoring procedures with regard to all Council of Europe member states.

5 Provisional edition Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment Resolution 1828 (2011)1 1.

Access to fairly remunerated employment is essential for ensuring sustainable livelihoods, shielding against poverty and socio-economic exclusion, and enabling the exercise of fundamental rights.
The effective implementation of the right to work – enshrined in the revised European Social Charter – requires European States to take action in terms of specific legislation, policies or programmes, not least in order to minimise the negative consequences and significant cost of unemployment to society.

Although unemployment and precarious work risk undermining the dignity of every individual concerned and the human progress of society at large, young people are particularly vulnerable in this respect.
2.

In Europe, youth unemployment remains twice as high as for the rest of the working-age population and the situation is further aggravated by the effects of the economic crisis.

At the end of 2010, on average one in five young people was unemployed in both the European Union countries and central and eastern Europe, with unemployment rates reaching 42% in Spain but staying below 10% in some countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Norway.
Across the globe, unemployment affected about 13% of economically active young people – the highest figure ever recorded by the International Labour Organization.
The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned that despite the fact that young people in Europe today 3. have a better level of education than their parents and that many European countries are facing labour shortages in a growing number of sectors, young workers face more difficulties in entering or re-entering the labour market than the rest of the population.
If governments fail to offer realistic solutions to youth unemployment, Europe may well have to pay a high price for a “lost generation” and compromise its competitiveness, security, social peace and future development prospects.

With the challenges of globalisation and the lingering effects of the economic crisis, Europe simply cannot afford to waste the talents, energy, mobility and creativity of its youth.

4.
4.

The Assembly believes that the mismatch between the qualifications of young people and labour market needs, rapidly changing labour market conditions, structural economic shifts and eroding public spending on integrated pro-employment strategies are the main causes of youth unemployment or underemployment.
There is therefore a need for adjustment in public policies at national and European level, with a view to fully implementing the labour-related provisions of the revised European Social Charter and promoting better qualifications and skills, more mobility, improved access to job offers and apprenticeship schemes, as well as a greater interaction between employers, state employment agencies and young jobseekers.

5.
5.

Taking into account the size and the possible implications of the youth unemployment problem, the Assembly considers that European policymakers face an imperative to better integrate the young jobseekers before resorting to bringing in high-skilled workers from non-European countries.
Enhanced inter- generational solidarity and innovative arrangements in the workplace should enable the smoother transfer of skills between the senior and young workers, whilst helping the latter to embrace gainful employment more rapidly and the former to gradually prepare their retirement.

1 Assembly debate on 24 June 2011 (27th Sitting) (see Doc.

12626, report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development, rapporteur: Ms Pejčinović-Burić, and Doc.
12665, opinion of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, rapporteur: Ms Karamanli).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 24 June 2011 (27th Sitting).

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 Res.

1828 The Assembly is convinced that the European organisations, notably the European Union and the 6.

Council of Europe, can and should do more to help their member states offer more and better jobs for the young generation.
Other partners, such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), the North-South Centre, the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), could usefully supplement both European and national action programmes.

7.
7.

In this context, the Assembly underscores the need for policymakers in Europe to take more into account the demographic reality, economic development problems and democratic challenges in Europe’s Mediterranean neighbourhood where millions of skilled yet unemployed and frustrated young people seek better living and jobs in all possible ways, including through emigration.
The Assembly sees an overarching long-term interest for European states to support the European Union and Council of Europe action – via their respective neighbourhood policies and strategies for youth, and by involving the North-South Centre – in order to help southern Mediterranean countries to fully tap their development potential and offer their youth a better future.

8.
The Assembly therefore calls on the Council of Europe member states to: 8.1. make youth employment one of the major priorities of employment policy and initiate immediate measures, drawing on best European practice in this field; foster quality job creation, social dialogue and incentives for hiring young workers, in particular 8.2. in the most promising economic sectors, notably services, and in those facing labour shortages; 8.3. improve interaction between employers, state employment agencies and young jobseekers; 8.4. strengthen links between educational institutions and businesses, with a view to better balancing the match between the qualifications of young people and labour market needs – current and future; 8.5. enhance educational orientation, skills development, professional guidance, employability training and job-search services in order to smooth the transition of young people from studies to work; 8.6. ensure additional education, training and income support in order to facilitate access to the labour market and give professional perspectives to disadvantaged or vulnerable young people, including those with an immigrant or minority background and those living in rural or remote areas, and support youth organisations with field activities in this domain; 8.7. remain vigilant regarding employers’ compliance with the obligations to ensure decent working conditions, regular training and adequate remuneration for young workers, notably with regard to temporary employment contracts; 8.8. consider setting up or strengthening, as appropriate, public-private partnerships conducive to offering start-of-career work experience and in-work training for young people; 8.9. put in place fiscal or social incentives for businesses to employ young people under long-term contracts or contracts considered to facilitate the first truly stable and quality jobs for the young people who occupy them, notably in order to assist the integration of the disabled and those most at risk of social exclusion or marginalisation;
 8.10. develop systems allowing young people, and in particular the most vulnerable amongst them, to have access to assisted employment which represents a true “gateway” between the training and working spheres; 8.11. study the policies and practices, notably "flexicurity" arrangements, of countries that are the most successful in underpinning youth employment, with a view to drawing lessons for reducing youth unemployment at home; 8.12. support, not least through voluntary contributions, the Council of Europe projects aimed at promoting youth employment, mobility, language skills and skills development schemes; 8.13. promote access of the young generation to self-employment, microcredit schemes and advisory services for entrepreneurship; 2 Res.
1828 8.14. encourage multilateral development banks, in particular the European Investment Bank (EIB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), and other relevant institutions, such as the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity ("North-South Centre"), to contribute to the implementation of the European Union and Council of Europe neighbourhood policies, in particular through projects aimed at job creation and youth employment in southern Mediterranean countries.
9.

The Assembly invites national parliaments of the Council of Europe member states to consider holding annual debates on youth problems, including youth employment challenges, and the possibility of proposing youth action plans to tackle the problems thus identified.
3 SECRETARIAT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION, REFUGEES AND POPULATION Synopsis AS/MIG/CB(2011)05 27 June 2011 The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, meeting in Strasbourg, on 21, 22 and 23 June 2011, with Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) in the Chair, ● ON TUESDAY 21 JUNE 2011, from 8.30 to 9.50 am, as regards: Living together in the 21st century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent – persons (Rapporteur for opinion, Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera, Spain, SOC): considered a report tabled by the Political Affairs Committee and approved an opinion; Asylum seekers and refugees: sharing responsibilities in Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Christopher – Chope, United Kingdom, EDG): with Mr Giacomo Santini, First Vice-Chairperson (Italy, EPP/CD) in the chair, took position on the amendments tabled to the draft resolution; The interception and rescue at sea of asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants – (Rapporteur: Mr Arcadio Díaz Tejera, Spain, SOC): was informed that no amendments were tabled to the draft resolution and to the draft recommendation; – Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly: considered a report tabled by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly and was informed by its Chair of his intention to table two amendments to the draft resolution; – Living library co-organised with the UNHCR in Strasbourg on 21-22 June 2011: heard a statement by Mr Olivier Beer, Representative of the Office of the UNHCR, and held an exchange of views with two “books” (persons involved in the living library); – Memecan, Turkey, ALDE): considered an outline for the report and heard a statement by the rapporteur; Demographic trends in Europe: turning challenges into opportunities (Rapporteur: Ms Nursuna – Undocumented migrant children in an irregular situation: a real cause for concern (Rapporteur: Mr Pedro Agramunt, Spain, EPP/CD): in the absence of the rapporteur, took note of a revised preliminary draft report; ● ON WEDNESDAY 22
 JUNE 2011, from 2 to 3 pm, as regards: – Dumery, Belgium, NR): considered an outline for the report and heard a statement by the rapporteur; The portrayal of migrants and refugees during election campaigns (Rapporteur: Ms Daphné cc.
Secretary General of the Assembly Director General, Directors and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations to the Assembly Secretaries of Political Groups of the Assembly Observers to the Assembly Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Organisation Developments and Reform Director of the Private Office of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Director of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights Director of Communication Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | e-mail: assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 – Follow-up on the humanitarian consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia: the humanitarian situation in the war-affected areas (Rapporteur: Ms Tina Acketoft, Sweden, ALDE): heard from the rapporteur a statement concerning the absence of conflict of interest, heard her communication, confirmed its agreement for her to visit Georgia, and also authorised her to make a fact-finding visit to Moscow, subject to the availability of funds; The situation of IDPs and returnees in the North Caucasus region (Rapporteur: Mr Nikolaos – Dendias, Greece, EPP/CD): heard a statement by the rapporteur on his forthcoming fact-finding visit to Moscow and to the North Caucasus region (19-24 September 2011); – Germany, UEL): postponed this item; The situation of Roma in Europe: movement and migration (Rapporteur: Ms Annette Groth, – Work programme: Appointments of rapporteurs  For report: - Controlling irregular migration and asylum claims beyond the European Union’s Eastern border: decided to postpone the appointment to its next meeting, in Paris (13 September 2011); - The arrival of large numbers of irregular migrants to Italian coastal areas as a result of tensions in the Southern Mediterranean countries: appointed Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG); Lives lost in
 the Mediterranean sea: who is responsible?
: appointed Ms Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC); -  For opinion: - “Health-care rationing : a threat to equal access to health?” and “Guaranteed access to health care for migrants/ foreign nationals” (for one report): appointed Mr Mikael Cederbratt (Sweden, EPP/CD); and heard from the appointed rapporteurs a statement concerning the absence of conflict of interest.
– Membership of sub-committees: approved the following changes: Sub-Committee on Migration  Mr Edgar Mayer (Austria, EPP/CD) to become a titular member, in replacement of Mr Kühnel, who is no longer member of the Committee;  Ms Pia Kauma (Finland, EPP/CD) to become a titular member, in replacement of Mr Jaakko Laakso (Finland, UEL) who is no longer member of the Committee; Sub-Committee on Refugees  Mr Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC) to become a titular member, in replacement of Ms Gisela Wurm, who is no longer member of the Committee;  Mr Ismo Soukola (Finland, NR) to become a titular member, in replacement of Mr Jaakko Laakso; Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s Southern shores  Mr James Clappison (UK, EDG) to become an alternate member (EDG titular member: Christopher Chope, UK); – Replies from the Committee of Ministers to texts adopted by the Assembly presented by the Committee: considered the reply to Recommendation 1925 (2010) on Readmission agreements: a mechanism for returning irregular migrants and heard a statement by Ms Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC), rapporteur; Meeting of the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum – seekers and refugees on Europe’s Southern shores (which took place in Strasbourg, on 21 June 2011): heard statements by Mr Christopher Chope, Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee and by Ms Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC) on the meeting of the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee and took note of its intention to seek the agreement of the Turkish authorities to a visit to the Turkish-Syrian border (to be confirmed and subject to the Bureau’s authorisation); - 2 - - Lives lost in the Mediterranean sea: who is responsible?
(Rapporteur: Ms Tineke Strik, Netherlands, SOC): heard a statement by the rapporteur, took note of her intention to have the assistance of a consultant, and authorised her to carry out fact-finding visits to Rome, Brussels and Geneva, in the framework of the preparation of her report (subject to the availability of funds); – Next meetings: decided to hold its next meetings as follows:  Paris, 13 September 2011  Strasbourg, during the 4th part-session 2011 (3-7 October 2011)  Paris, 7 December 2011 (to be confirmed) ● ON THURSDAY 23 JUNE 2011, from 2 to 3 pm, – took part in a joint hearing on the Council of Europe relations with the European Union (co- organised with the Political Affairs Committee and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights), with the participation of:  Ms Tonje Meinich, Chair of the Informal Working Group on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention of Human Rights (CDDH-UE);  Mr Morten Kjaerum, Director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).
* * * * * The Sub-Committee on Refugees, meeting in Strasbourg on 21 June 2011, from 9.50 to 10am, with Ms Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC) in the Chair, as regards: – by acclamation; Election of the Vice-Chairperson: elected Mr Jørgen Poulsen (Denmark, ALDE) Vice-Chairperson – Next meeting: left it to its Chair to convene the next meeting.
* * * * * The Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on the large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees on Europe’s Southern shores, meeting in Strasbourg, on 21 June 2011, from 2 to 3pm, with Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) in the chair, as regards: – Follow-up to its visit to Lampedusa (Italy) on 23-24 May 2011: held an exchange of views, heard statements by Olivier Beer (UNHCR) and by Rita Patricio (Amnesty International), and was informed by its Chair that the draft information report on the visit could be ready to be considered at the next meeting of the Committee (Paris, 13 September 2011); – Future activities of the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee: held an exchange of views; – Next meeting: decided to hold its next meeting on the Turkish-Syrian border, in Summer 2011 (subject to the agreement of the Turkish authorities and subject to the Bureau’s authorisation and the availability of funds).
Mark Neville, Ivi-Triin Odrats, Isild Heurtin - 3 - CONFIDENTIAL AS/MIG/AHLARG (2011) PV 01 16 June 2011 Amahlargpv01_2011 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees on Europe’s Southern shores DRAFT MINUTES of the meeting which took place in Lampedusa (Italy) from Monday 23 (9am) to Tuesday 24 May 2011 (7pm) 1.
OPENING OF THE MEETING Mr Santini (Italy, EPP/CD), senior member present, opened the meeting on 23 May at 9am.

2.

ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE AD HOC SUB-COMMITTEE The Ad Hoc Sub-Committee elected Mr Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) Chairperson.

3.

4.
 AGENDA [AS/Mig/AHLAMP (2011) OJ 01] The agenda was adopted FIELD VISITS AND MEETINGS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES, UNHCR, IOM AND REPRESENTATIVES OF NGOs On 23 May 2011, the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee held exchanges of views with, inter alia: - Ms Barbara MOLINARO and Ms Raffaella PASCARELLA, UNHCR - Ms Daria STORIA and Ms Simona MOSCARELLI, IOM - Ms Caroline NOEL and Ms Viviana VALASTRO, Save the Children - Mr de RUBES, Mayor of Lampedusa - Representatives of Agrigento police Immigration, - Representatives of the Prefecture of Agrigento, local authorities - Representatives of the Italian Civil Protection - Representatives of the Guarda di Finanza and of the Italian Coast Guards; and visited the reception centres of the island; F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | E-mail: mark.neville@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2341 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2797 Les documents sont diffusés sur le site web extranet de l’APCE (accès réservé aux délégations) dès qu’ils sont disponibles / Documents can be found on the PACE extranet web site (restricted area for delegations) as available : http://assembly.coe.int/extranet AS/Mig/AhLarg (2011) PV 01  On 24 May 2011, the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee held exchanges of views with, inter alia: - Representatives of the local population - Ms Francesca ZUCCARO (Field Coordinator), Médecins Sans Frontières - Lieutenent Colonel STRINATI Fabio, Italian Red Cross - Dr. Giustino STRANO INMP (National Institute for Migration and Poverty) - Representatives of the Order of Malta - local NGO Askavusa; and held a concluding meeting with the representatives of the various authorities involved 5.
OTHER BUSINESS None 6.

NEXT MEETING The Ad Hoc Sub-Committee decided to hold its next meeting in Strasbourg, on 21 June 2011.

The meeting rose on 24 May 2011 at 7pm.
2 AS/Mig/AhLarg (2011) PV 01 LIST OF DECISIONS The Ad Hoc Sub-Committee on large-scale arrival of irregular migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees on Europe’s Southern shores, meeting in Lampedusa, Italy, on 23 and 24 May 2011, with Mr Giacomo Santini (Italy, EPP/CD), senior member present, and then Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) in the Chair, as regards: – ad hoc Sub-Committee; Election of the Chair: elected Mr Christopher Chope (United Kingdom, EDG) as Chair of the On 23 May 2011 – held exchanges of views with, inter alia: - Ms Barbara MOLINARO and Ms Raffaella PASCARELLA, UNHCR - Ms Daria STORIA and Ms Simona MOSCARELLI, IOM - Ms Caroline NOEL and Ms Viviana VALASTRO, Save the Children - Mr de RUBES, Mayor of Lampedusa - Representatives of Agrigento police Immigration, - Representatives of the Prefecture of Agrigento, local authorities - Representatives of the Italian Civil Protection - Representatives of the Guarda di Finanza and of the Italian Coast Guards; – visited the reception centres of the island; On 24 May 2011 – held exchanges of views with, inter alia: - Representatives of the local population - Ms Francesca ZUCCARO (Field Coordinator), Médecins Sans Frontières - Lieutenent Colonel STRINATI Fabio, Italian Red Cross - Dr. Giustino STRANO INMP (National Institute for Migration and Poverty) - Representatives of the Order of Malta - local NGO Askavusa; – – held a concluding meeting with the representatives of the various authorities involved; Next meeting: decided to hold its next meeting in Strasbourg on 21 June 2011.
________________ APPENDIX: List of members of the Ad Hoc Sub-Committee 3 AS/Mig/AhLarg (2011) PV 01 APPENDIX List of presence / Liste de présence The names of the members present at the meeting are printed in bold Les noms des membres présents à la réunion sont imprimés en caractères gras Chairperson/Président Mr CHOPE, United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni, EDG/GDE MEMBERS/MEMBRES ALTERNATE/REMPLACANT Ms ACKETOFT, Sweden/Suède, ALDE/ADLE Ms GROTH, Germany/Allemagne UEL/GUE Mr SANTINI, Italy/Italie, EPP/PPE Ms STRIK, Netherlands/Pays-Bas, SOC Mr DÍAZ TEJERA, Spain/Espagne, SOC SECRETARIAT OF THE AD HOC SUB-COMMITTEE SECRETARIAT DE LA SOUS-COMMISSION AD HOC Ms Isild HEURTIN 4 Page 1 of 1 Home | Portail de l'Assemblée en français | Extranet | Council of Europe | Search 27/05/2011 Monitoring Azerbaijan: PACE Monitoring rapporteurs welcome the release of Eynulla Fatullayev Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Monitoring Committee co-rapporteurs for Azerbaijan, Pedro Agramunt (Spain, EPP/CD) and Joseph Debono Grech (Malta, SOC), welcomed the release of Eynulla Fatullayev, a journalist and newspaper editor of the defunct newspaper Realny Azerbaijan who was pardoned by President Ilham Alyev along with some 90 convicts ahead of the forthcoming 93rd anniversary of the founding of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.
“The release of Mr Fatullayev is a positive step in the right direction following our repeated calls on the Azerbaijani authorities including during our most recent visit in February this year”, the co-rapporteurs stated.

“We hope that it will be followed by further progress in the respect for human rights in particular with regard to recent concerns relating i.a.

to the sentencing of some youth activists including Mr Jabbar Savalan.
We call on Azerbaijan to provide for a fair and swift revision of the verdicts in these cases”, they added.

“Mr Fatullayev’s pardon can be seen as a concrete expression of the authorities’ declared will to advance on the path of democratization of the country and creates a window of opportunity for further concrete progress as well as for the establishment of a constructive dialogue with the opposition.
We call on both sides to open such a dialogue” – said the co-rapporteurs entrusted with the monitoring of the commitments Azerbaijan entered into when joining the Council of Europe.

Mr Fatullayev was arrested in 2007, and sentenced to 8,5 years in prison on charges including tax evasion and instigation of terror.

In 2010, the European Court on Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that his right to a fair trial and freedom of expression had been violated and that he should be released immediately.
The Supreme Court in Azerbaijan then overturned Mr Fatullayev’s conviction but left in place a separate two and a half year sentence handed down in 2009 for possession of illegal drugs while in prison.

The co-rapporteurs intend to visit Azerbaijan in Autumn before presenting a report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan at the beginning of next year.
Index A-Z The News Latest news Newsletter Meetings The week ahead Sessions Conferences and colloquies All meetings Documents Adopted texts Working documents Reports under preparation Verbatim records How to search?
Functioning PACE in brief (PDF) - Origin - Working structure - Procedures - Committees Rules of procedure Secretary General Organisational chart Members List from A to Z By political group By national delegation By committee Other bodies Members since 1949 Political groups (www) EPP/CD SOC ALDE EDG UEL Links Council of Europe National parliaments International parliaments International institutions Download PACE's logo Photographs Address / Contact us webmaster.assembly@coe.int ... 28/06/2011 Extract from the debates of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Thursday, 23 June 2011 – Morning Sitting Joint discussion on: 1.
The state of human rights in Europe 1.a.

National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe (Doc.

12636) Rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights: Mr Christos Pourgourides (Cyprus, EPP/CD).

1.b.

The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe (Doc.
12632) Rapporteur of the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee: Ms Carina Ohlsson (Sweden, SOC) Rapporteur of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs (for opinion) (Doc.

): Sir Alan Meale (United Kingdom, SOC) Mr GALE (United Kingdom) – I shall comment first on Carina Ohlsson’s draft resolution.

Amendment 6 is tabled in my name and those of several members of other political parties.
The amendment recognises that many member countries face dire economic challenges and that, therefore, while reductions in some welfare programmes may be regrettable, they are also, in the present climate, necessary.

We urge members to support this amendment, which presents the political reality as it is, if not as we might like it to be.
Turning to Mr Pourgourides’s draft resolution, I draw attention to paragraph 1 and the following statement: “The Parliamentary Assembly recalls that Council of Europe member states are responsible for the effective implementation of international human rights norms they have signed up to”.

The most basic human right is freedom.

Two of my constituents have been held in prison for more than 18 months without trial – one in Malta and one in France.

That is not acceptable.


I suspect that a considerable number of people have been held in prison, in countries that are signatories to the Convention on Human Rights, for far too long without proper access to justice.

In light of the emphasis that this report places on the duties of national parliaments, I urge members, on returning home, to ask this simple question: how many people have been held in our prisons for more than 12 months without trial?
I suspect that some of the answers will be very revealing.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

I now call Mr Sudarenkov from the Russian Federation.

…………………….. Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus) Rapporteur– I thank Carina and Alan for their contributions, which made the debate much more lively.

If it had been only on the legal issues and the matters that I raised in my report, it would not have been as interesting as it was.

I also warmly and sincerely thank the Federal Minister of Justice of Germany.
I also thank the Attorney General, Mr Grieve, particularly for being the son of a colleague of ours who was an outstanding member of the Assembly for many years.

I still find works by your father in the files of the committee that I chair.

I should like to respond to the comments made.

Please forgive me, Mr President, if I exceed my six minutes.

Mr Binley’s position was that judges should only interpret the law, and not usurp the role of legislators, and he is absolutely right.
We legislators are the last people who would allow others, even the Court in Strasbourg, to usurp our role.

On that we are agreed.

However, the right to vote is a universal human right.

That is where our difference comes in.

If you accept that the right to vote is a human right, as I strongly believe that it is, then every adult has the right to vote.
Of course, states can impose reasonable limitations on every right under the Convention – freedom of expression, freedom of association and so on – except the right under Article 3.

I accept, as the Court has accepted, that states can impose reasonable limitations on the right to vote, but here comes our point of disagreement: whether a limitation is reasonable or not has always been within the competence of the Court.
The Court has said that, in its view, a blanket refusal on allowing prisoners to vote is an unreasonable limitation.

One can criticise that, but surely when one finishes making that criticism, one must get to the substance and say, “Despite the fact that I disagree, that is the judgment; I must implement it.” Otherwise, the rule of law – an English concept, which the English taught to the rest of Europe – collapses.
Mrs Bemelmans-Videc, as this is your last address to the Assembly, I join the President in saying that you have been an outstanding colleague.

Your contributions to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights have always been balanced and full of wisdom.

Your politeness gives me the opportunity to say to the rest of the committee that you are a real lady, like the ladies we read about in Shakespeare; after that, I think ladies were different.

For many years, you were a pillar of the committee.
On the complaints of Mrs Postanjyan, of course we have no option but to deplore the fact that, in Armenia, the principle of the separation of powers is not fully implemented and respected.

More strongly, I must deplore the harassment of the opposition in that parliament.

Without opposition, there can be no democracy; every member state must realise that that is a cardinal principle of this Organisation.

I agree fully with my friend Mr Chope that the Court in Strasbourg is not a final court of appeal.
Unfortunately, many people think that it is and, for that reason, they make all sorts of inadmissible applications to the Court.

It is not easy to say how we can overcome that problem.

Perhaps one way to tackle it is to see if we can find ways to ensure that applicants have legal advice before they file their application.

That would reduce considerably the number of inadmissible applications.
There would, of course, be considerable costs entailed, but it is a way forward, and a way in which the number of inadmissible applications could be reduced substantially.

Unfortunately, many people think, “We have to appeal to the Court in Strasbourg,” whereas the Court is here for something else.

I agree fully with Mr Gale, and I join him in deploring the fact that in two member states of the Council of Europe, people are incarcerated for 18 months without trial.
We have said in this Chamber on many occasions that delayed justice is a denial of justice, and everybody is entitled to have the criminal charges against them examined within a reasonable period of time – 18 months is obviously an unacceptable period.
FOR THE ATTENTION OF MEMBERS OF THE SOCIAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly Synopsis N 2011 / 05 28 June 2011 The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, meeting in Strasbourg on Tuesday morning, 21 June 2011, with Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland, SOC), in the Chair: As regards: - Living together in 21st-century Europe: follow-up to the report of the Group of Eminent Persons of the Council of Europe (Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Kaufer, Hungary, SOC): considered and unanimously approved an opinion including one amendment; - Committee’s work programme: Appointment of rapporteurs: appointed Ms Kaufer (Hungary, SOC), rapporteur on “The impact of increasing social exclusion on democratic institutions and participation: need for strong action” and heard from her a declaration of absence of a conflict of interest; Appointment of committee representatives to external events: appointed:  Mr Ayva (Turkey, EPP/CD), to take part in the Committee of Experts on participation of people with disabilities in political and public life (CAHPAH-PPL), Strasbourg, 22-24 June 2011 (at no cost to the Assembly);  Mr Baghdasaryan (Armenia, ALDE) to take part in the Meeting of the Current Affairs Committee of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, Yerevan, Armenia, 29 June 2011 (at no cost to the Assembly);  Mr Volontè (Italy, EPP/CD), to take part in the Stakeholder Conference on “The Rights of the Volunteer”, Brussels, on 7 and 8 September 2011 (at no cost to the Assembly);  Mr Ayva (Turkey, EPP/CD) to take part in the 5th meeting of the European Co-ordination Forum for the Council of Europe Disability Action Plan 2006-2015 (CAHPAH), Strasbourg, 21-23 September 2011 (subject to the availability of funds); ____________________________________________ cc.
Secretary General of the Assembly Director General, Directors and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations to the Assembly Secretaries of Political Groups of the Assembly Observers to the Assembly Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Organisational Development and Reform Director of the Private Office of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Director of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights Director of Communication Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe - Combating “child pornography” as part of the campaign to stop sexual violence against children (Rapporteur: Mr Conde Bajén, Spain, EPP/CD): in the absence of the rapporteur, held an exchange of views with Ms Bissera Zankova, representative of the Steering Committee on Media and New Communication Services (CDMC); Resuming its meeting on Tuesday, 21 June 2011, in the afternoon, with Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland, SOC) in the Chair: Reversing the sharp decline in youth employment (Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Karamanli, France, - SOC): considered and unanimously approved an opinion, including 11 amendments; Putting an end to coercive sterilisations and castrations (Rapporteur: Ms Maury Pasquier, Switzerland, - SOC): prepared the hearing to be held in Paris in the afternoon of 16 September 2011; Reform of the Parliamentary Assembly: heard a statement by the Chairperson, held an exchange of - views, and asked the Chairperson to put forward one amendment regarding the title of the proposed new Committee; Resuming its meeting on Wednesday, 22 June 2011, with Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland, SOC) in the Chair: - 3rd meeting of the Network of Contact Parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children: .
held an exchange of views on “Solicitation of children through the Internet for sexual purposes (“grooming”)” with Ms Carina Ohlsson, contact parliamentarian for Sweden, and Ms Ulrika Rogland, Senior public prosecutor (Sweden); .
held an exchange of views on the progress of the Council of Europe ONE in FIVE Campaign with Ms de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe; Resuming its meeting on Thursday, 23 June 2011, with Ms Maury Pasquier (Switzerland, SOC) in the Chair: The role of parliaments in the consolidation and development of social rights in Europe (Rapporteur: - Ms Ohlsson, Sweden, SOC): took position on the amendments tabled; Unfair economic competition by third world countries: social dumping (Rapporteur: Mr Barbi, Italy, - ALDE): in the absence of the rapporteur, considered an outline report; - Update on the ONE in FIVE Campaign to stop sexual violence against children: heard a statement by the Chairperson on the 3rd meeting of the Network of Contact Parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children which took place in Strasbourg the day before, decided to ask the Bureau to authorise an appeal for voluntary contributions in support of the parliamentary dimension of the Council of Europe ONE in FIVE Campaign from national parliaments and/or governments for the years 2012 and 2013; - Committee’s work programme (continued) Appointment of rapporteurs: appointed:  Ms Rupprecht (Germany, SOC) rapporteur on “Intercountry adoption: ensuring that the best interests of the child are upheld” and heard from her a declaration of absence of a conflict of interest;  Ms Karamanli, (France, SOC), rapporteur for opinion on “The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2010-2011” in absentia; Appointment of committee representatives to external events: appointed:  Ms Rupprecht (Germany, SOC) (and, in case of unavailability of the appointee, Ms Andersen (Norway, UEL)) to take part in the 1st meeting of the Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, Strasbourg, 20-21 September 2011; 2  Mr Schennach (Austria, SOC) to take part in the Regional conference on “Stopping sexual
 violence against children”, Zagreb, Croatia, 27-28 October 2011; Reports from committee representatives to external events: heard a statement by Mr Ayva (Turkey, EPP/CD) who took part in the European Conference on the "Implementation of the Council of Europe Action Plan to promote the rights and full participation of people with disabilities in society 2006 - 2015", Odessa, Ukraine, 30-31 May 2011; - Reply from the Committee of Ministers: considered the reply of the Committee of Ministers to the Recommendation 1934 (2010) on “Child abuse in institutions: ensure full protection of the victims” and heard a statement by Ms Rupprecht (Germany, SOC), former rapporteur; - Sub-Committee on Children: heard a statement by Ms Ohlsson, Chairperson of the Sub-Committee on the meeting held on 24-25 May 2011 in Kyiv, Ukraine, on the occasion of the international conference on “Combating violence against children: from isolated actions to integrated strategies”, organised in the framework of the Ukrainian Chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers in cooperation with the State Service for Youth and Sport of Ukraine, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Violence against Children and UNICEF; Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter and Employment: in the absence of the - Sub-Committee’s Chairperson, was informed of the Sub-Committee’s decision to hold a special meeting on 6 October 2011 at 2 pm to mark the anniversary year of the European Social Charter by the Chairperson of the Plenary Committee, and endorsed that decision; - Exchange of views with Ambassador Licari: held an exchange of views with Ambassador Licari, in his capacity as President of the Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) of the Committee of Ministers, on subjects of common interest in the social affairs and health fields; - Other business: approved the following changes in Sub-Committee membership:  Ms Coleiro Preca (Malta, SOC) gave up her seat as a member
 of the Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter and Employment and becomes an alternate in the Sub-Committee on Health;  Ms Grozdanova (Bulgaria, EPP/CD) becomes a member of the Sub-Committee on Children; - Date and place of next meetings: Plenary committee: - - - Friday, 16 September 2011, Paris (Council of Europe office); Fourth part-session 2011 of the Assembly, 3-7 October 2011, Strasbourg; Friday, 18 November 2011, Florence, Italy.
Network of Contact parliamentarians to stop sexual violence against children: - Wednesday, 5 October 2011, Strasbourg (to be confirmed); - Thursday, 17 November 2011, Florence, Italy.

Sub-Committee on Children: - Sunday, 20 November and Monday, 21 November 2011, Monaco (to be confirmed, subject to authorisation by the Bureau).

Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter and Employment: - Thursday, 6 October 2011, Strasbourg (to be confirmed).
3 *** The Sub-Committee on European Social Charter and Employment, meeting 23 June 2011 with Mr Ayva (Turkey, EPP/CD) in the Chair: in Strasbourg on As regards: the 50th anniversary of Celebration of the - 15th anniversary of the Revised European Social Charter of 1995: held an exchange of views with Mr Kristensen, Deputy Head of the Department of the European Social Charter, Deputy Executive Secretary of the European Committee of Social Rights, on past and future events, and decided to organise an event open to civil society and the media on 6 October 2011 from 2 to 3 pm 2011 in Strasbourg to mark the anniversary year; the European Social Charter of 1961 and of - Date and place of next meeting: 6 October 2011, Strasbourg.
Tanja Kleinsorge, Maren Lambrecht-Feigl, Angela Garabagiu 4