Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697810263638.pdf (Malta)
Doc.

15603 13 October 2022 Fourth part of the 2022 Ordinary Session (10-14 October 2022) Agenda1 1.
Adopted by the Assembly on 10 October 2022. https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Abbreviations Bur: Bureau of the Assembly Per: Standing Committee Pol: Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy Jur: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Soc: Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Mig: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Cult: Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media Ega: Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Mon: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Pro: Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs Cdh: Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights SOC: Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group EPP/CD: Group of the European People's Party EC/DA: European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe UEL: Group of the Unified European Left NR: Members not belonging to a political group Symbols 0 Presentation, statement ¹ Deadline for tabling documents 4 % Lists (speakers, questions) Votes Meetings outside the Chamber Joint Committee Tuesday: 15:30-17:00 Bureau of the Assembly Monday: 08:00-09:30 Friday: 08:30-10:00 Committees Monday: 14:00-15:00 Tuesday: 08:30-10:00 Tuesday: 14:00-15:30 Wednesday: 14:00-15:30 Thursday: 08:30-10:00 Thursday: 14:00-15:30 Political groups Monday: 09:30-11:30 Monday: 17:00-19:00 Wednesday: 08:30-10:00 2 Monday 10 October 2022 Sitting No.
26 (11:30-13:00) 1.

Opening of the part-session 1.1.

Statement by the President 1.2.

Examination of credentials 0 List of delegations: o (Doc.

15627) 1.3.

Election of a Vice-President of the Assembly in respect of France (AS/Inf (2022) 02 rev2) 1.4.

Changes in the membership of committees (Commissions (2022) 07 + Add.)

1.5.

Requests for debate: 1.5.1.

Current affairs debate: "The military hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan" 1.5.2.
Urgent procedure debate: "Recent outrageous and inhuman activities of the Russian Federation" 1.5.3.

Current affairs debate: "Threatened bans of Pride events in Council of Europe member States" 1.5.4.

Urgent procedure debate: "Political consequences of aggression against Ukraine" the Russian Federation's 1.5.5.

Current affairs debate: "Military hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including strikes against settlements and civilian infrastructures" 1.6.

Adoption of the agenda 2.

Debate 2.1.


Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee 0 Presentation by: o Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE (Türkiye, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Bur (Doc.

15626, Doc.

15626 Add.

1) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Monday 10 October, 10:00) 3.

Prize Award Ceremony (12:30-13:00) 3.1.

Václav Havel Human Rights Prize2 Sitting No.

27 (15:00-17:00) 4.

Address (15:00-16:00) 4.1.


His Excellency Mr Confederation Ignazio CASSIS, Federal Councillor, President of the Swiss 4 Questions (deadline for registration: Monday 3 October, 15:00) 5.

Current affairs debate 5.1.

Military hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including strikes against settlements and civilian infrastructures 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Monday 10 October, 13:30) 2.

See separate programme, AS/Inf(2022)12.


3 Tuesday 11 October 2022 Sitting No.

28 (10:00-13:00) 6.

Debate 6.1.

Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans 0 Presentation by: o Mr George PAPANDREOU (Greece, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Pol (Doc.

15609) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Monday 10 October, 16:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Monday 10 October, 16:00) % Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

15609) 7.

Address (12:00-13:00) 7.1.


His Excellency Mr Michael D. HIGGINS, President of Ireland 4 Questions (deadline for registration: Tuesday 4 October, 12:00) Sitting No.

29 (17:00-20:30) 8.

Question time (17:00-17:30) 8.1.

Ms Marija PEJČINOVIĆ BURIĆ, Secretary General of the Council of Europe 4 Questions (deadline for registration: Tuesday 11 October, 12:00) 9.

Debate 9.1.
Debate 9.1.

Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, in Europe 0 Presentation by: o Mr Momodou Malcolm JALLOW (Sweden, UEL), Rapporteur AS/Ega (Doc.

15616) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Tuesday 11 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Monday 10 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15616) 10.

Debate 10.1.


Misuse of the Schengen Information system by Council of Europe member States as a politically-motivated sanction 0 Presentation by: o Mr Ziya ALTUNYALDIZ (Türkiye, NR), Rapporteur AS/Jur (Doc.

15600) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Tuesday 11 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Monday 10 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15600) 4 Wednesday 12 October 2022 Sitting No.

30 (10:00-13:00) 11.

Address (10:00-11:00) 11.1.


Communication from the Committee of Ministers 0 Presentation by: o Mr Thomas BYRNE, Minister of State for European Affairs of Ireland, Irish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 4 Questions (deadline for registration: Tuesday 11 October, 19:30) 12.

Debate 12.1.

The honouring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye 0 Presentation by: o Mr John HOWELL (United Kingdom, EC/DA), Co-Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc.

15618, Doc.
15618, Doc.

15618 Add.)

o Mr Boriss CILEVIČS (Latvia, SOC), Co-Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc.

15618, Doc.

15618 Add.)

4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Tuesday 11 October, 19:30) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Tuesday 11 October, 10:30) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15618) Sitting No.

31 (15:30-20:30) 13.

Address (15:30-16:30) 13.1.

Mr Edi RAMA, Prime Minister of Albania 4 Questions (deadline for registration: Wednesday 12 October, 12:00) 14.

Debate 14.1.
Debate 14.1.

The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Hungary 0 Presentation by: o Mr George PAPANDREOU (Greece, SOC), Co-Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc.

15619) o Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS (Estonia, ALDE), Co-Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc.

15619) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 12 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Tuesday 11 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15619) 15.

Joint debate 15.1.


Safe third countries for asylum seekers 0 Presentation by: o Ms Stephanie KRISPER (Austria, ALDE), Rapporteur AS/Mig (Doc.

15592) 15.2.

Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management 0 Presentation by: o Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Mig (Doc.
15604) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 12 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Tuesday 11 October, 16:00) % Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

15592) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15604) 5 Thursday 13 October 2022 Sitting No.

32 (10:00-13:00) 16.

Address (10:00-11:00) (by videoconference) 16.1.

His Excellency Mr Volodymyr ZELENSKYY, President of Ukraine 4 Questions (deadline for registration: Friday 7 October, 10:00) 17.
Debate under urgent procedure 17.1.

Further escalation in the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine 0 Presentation by: o Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS (Lithuania, EPP/CD), Rapporteur AS/Pol (Doc.

15631) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 12 October, 19:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Wednesday 12 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15631) Sitting No.

33 (15:30-20:00) 18.

Current affairs debate 18.1.


Threatened bans of Pride events in Council of Europe member States 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 12:00) 19.

Debate 19.1.

The impact of Brexit on human rights on the island of Ireland 0 Presentation by: o Mr George KATROUGALOS (Greece, UEL), Rapporteur AS/Pol (Doc.
15615) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Wednesday 12 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15615) 20.

Debate 20.1.

The fight for a level playing field – ending discrimination against women in the world of sport 0 Presentation by: o Ms Edite ESTRELA (Portugal, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Ega (Doc.
15611) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Wednesday 12 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15611) 21.

Debate 21.1.

The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Romania 0 Presentation by: o Ms Edite ESTRELA (Portugal, SOC), Co-Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc.

15617) o Ms Krista BAUMANE (Latvia, ALDE), Co-Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc.
15617) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 12:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Wednesday 12 October, 16:00) % Vote on a draft resolution (Doc.

15617) 6 Friday 14 October 2022 Sitting No.

34 (10:00-13:00) 22.

Debate 22.1.

The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights 0 Presentation by: o Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE (Türkiye, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Soc (Doc.
15620) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 19:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Thursday 13 October, 10:30) % Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

15620) 23.

Debate 23.1.

Preventing vaccine discrimination 0 Presentation by: o Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR (Iceland, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Jur (Doc.

15608) o Ms Carmen LEYTE (Spain, EPP/CD), Rapporteur for opinion AS/Soc (Doc.
15625) 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 19:00) ¹ Amendments (deadline for tabling: Thursday 13 October, 10:30) % Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc.

15608) 24.

Free debate 4 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Thursday 13 October, 19:00) 25.

Progress report (continued) 25.1.

Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee (continued) 0 Addendum: o (Doc.

15626 Add.

2), Doc.

15626 Add.

3) 26.


Closure of the part-session 7 Doc.

15626 Add.

2 12 October 2022 Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights Progress report Bureau of the Assembly 1.

Report of the Committee on the election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights The Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights held a meeting on Tuesday 11 October 2022 in the morning in Strasbourg, with Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN (Romania, SOC) in the chair.
The committee discussed the list of candidates to the Court in respect of Denmark.1 The committee held an exchange of views with the Minister of Justice of Denmark, Mr Mattias TESFAYE, in respect of the reasons why no woman was among the three shortlisted candidates.

2.
2.

Conclusions of the committee on the list of candidates submitted by Denmark The committee did not find “exceptional circumstances” justifying an exception from the rule that single-sex lists are only allowed when the candidates belong to the underrepresented sex (currently women).

It therefore invited the Assembly to reject the list and to ask the Danish Government to present a new list of candidates including at least one man and one woman.
See Appendix 1 for the list of candidates submitted by the Government of Denmark.

The full list and curricula vitae of 1. candidates can be found in Assembly document: Doc.

15621. https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Doc.

15626 Add.

2 Progress report Appendix 1 – List of candidates submitted by the Government of Denmark – – – Mr Mohammad AHSAN Mr Jon Esben HVAM Mr Ib Hounsgaard TRABJERG 2 Appendix 2 – Members of the Committee who participated in the meeting Doc.

15626 Add.
2 Progress report Group of the European People's Party (EPP/CD) – – – – – Mr Volker ULLRICH, Germany Mr Vladimir VARDANYAN, Armenia Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Ukraine – First Vice-Chairperson Ms Kamila GASIUK-PIHOWICZ, Poland Mr Pablo HISPÁN, Spain Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group (SOC) – – – – – – – Ms Margreet De BOER, Netherlands Ms Klotilda BUSHKA, Albania Mr Boriss CILEVIČS, Latvia Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, Romania – Chairperson Mr Constantinos EFSTATHIOU, Cyprus Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Iceland Ms Arta BILALLI ZENDELI, North Macedonia Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) – – Ms Stephanie KRISPER, Austria – Second Vice-Chairperson Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK, Norway European Conservatives Group & Democratic Alliance (EC/DA) – – – Mr Erkin GADIRLI, Azerbaijan Mr Kamal JAFAROV, Azerbaijan Lord Richard KEEN, United Kingdom Group of the Unified European Left (UEL) - Ex officio members – Mr Damien COTTIER, Switzerland – Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly – – – Ms Despina CHATZIVASSILIOU-TSOVILIS, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly Mr Mark NEVILLE, Director of Committees – Democracy and Rule of Law Mr Günter SCHIRMER, Head of the Secretariat 3 Tiny Kox President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe requests the pleasure of your company at the award ceremony of the Assembly medal and honorary member diploma to former members of the Parliamentary Assembly on Monday 10 October 2022 at 7.00 p.m. in the Restaurant of the Palais de l’Europe Palais de l’Europe Strasbourg R.S.V.P.
Council of Europe – Protocol E-mail: protocol.rsvp@coe.int Tiny Kox Président de l’Assemblée Parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe vous prie de bien vouloir lui faire l’honneur d’assister à la cérémonie de remise de la médaille de l’Assemblée et du diplôme de membre honoraire à d’anciens membres de l’Assemblée Parlementaire le lundi 10 octobre 2022 à 19 heures au Restaurant du Palais de l’Europe Palais de l’Europe Strasbourg R.S.V.P.
Conseil de l’Europe – Protocole E-mail : protocol.rsvp@coe.int Ceremony of the awarding of “Honorary Associate” titles to outgoing Assembly members Monday 10 October 2022 at 7 pm Restaurant Bleu I have now the honour to thank another long-standing and eminent member of our Assembly, going from the North to the South of Europe and this is: Mr Joseph DEBONO GRECH, from Malta, who served for 18 years as member of this Assembly, from 1999 to 2017!
Dear Joseph, We recall you as one of the most committed and active members of the Assembly, as a Vice-President of the Assembly from April 2013 to January 2014 and as a Vice-Chairperson of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group twice.

You have also held the position of Chairperson of your national delegation at the Standing Committee from April 2013 to October 2017.
Your commitment to the Assembly is also shown by your participation in the following committees: - - The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons from January 2012 to April 2013.

The former Committee on Culture, Science and Education from January 2004 to January 2012.

- The Monitoring Committee from January 2004 to October 2017.

- The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs from January 2004 to January 2014.

- As wells as in numerous sub-committees.


Dear Joseph, I would like to express my gratitude for your contributions and work in the Assembly, and I personally thank and congratulate you on your years of dedication and commitment.

I am glad that you have joined us today, and I wish you every success in your future activities!
2 / 2 Award Ceremony to Mr Joe Debono Grech, Council of Europe, Strasbourg 10 October 2022 Maltese Delegation, Permanent Representative Lorenzo Vella and Dr Francesca Camilleri Vettiger, Deputy Permanent Representative Mr Joseph Debono Grech and the Secretary General Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis President, Mr Tiny Kox, addressing former members and guests during award ceremony Mr Tiny Kox presenting award and diploma to Mr Joseph Debono Grech 10/18/22, 2:03 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15616 Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15616 Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, in Europe Assembly's voting results  74 in favor  21 against  8 abstentions Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Boriana ÅBERG EPP/CD  Lord Andrew ADONIS  Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR SOC  Ms Nerea AHEDO  Mr Ziya ALTUNYALDIZ NR  Ms Nigar ARPADARAI  Ms Sibel ARSLAN SOC  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI SOC  Ms Margreet De BOER  Ms Mònica BONELL ALDE  Mr Bertrand BOUYX  Mr Bob De BRABANDERE EC/DA  Mr Roland Rino BÜCHEL  Mr Iulian BULAI ALDE  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ  Mr Jaroslav BŽOCH ALDE  Ms Laura CASTEL  Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK NR  Mr Ahmet Ünal ÇEVİKÖZ  Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON EC/DA  Ms Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN SOC ALDE EC/DA SOC SOC ALDE ALDE NR UEL SOC SOC  Mr Jeremy CORBYN SOC  Mr Botond CSOMA EPP/CD  Ms Sabrina DE CARLO SOC  Mr Fabio DI MICCO  Mr Adnan DIBRANI SOC  Mr Mehmet Mehdi EKER  Ms Annicka ENGBLOM EPP/CD  Ms Heike ENGELHARDT NR NR SOC  Ms Arzu ERDEM NR  Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI EPP/CD  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO ALDE  Mr Peter FRICK  Mr Fabian FUNKE https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39044 SOC  Mr Paul GAVAN ALDE UEL 1/3 10/18/22, 2:03 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15616  Mr Joël GIRAUD ALDE  Ms Etilda GJONAJ  Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO UEL  Mr Martin GRAF  Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS SOC  Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI  Ms Emine Nur GÜNAY NR  Mr Pablo HISPÁN  Ms Nicole HÖCHST EC/DA  Ms Franziska HOOP  Mr John HOWELL EC/DA  Mr Andrej HUNKO  Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV ALDE  Mr Laurent JACOBELLI  Mr Kamal JAFAROV EC/DA  Mr Momodou Malcolm JALLOW  Ms Maria JUFEREVA-SKURATOVSKI ALDE  Ms Parvin KARIMZADA  Ms Hilkka KEMPPI ALDE  Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN  Mr Mikko KINNUNEN ALDE  Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND  Mr Haluk KOÇ SOC  Ms Iryna KONSTANKEVICH  Mr Christophe LACROIX SOC  Ms Hélène LAPORTE  Mr Jacques LE NAY ALDE  Ms Carmen LEYTE  Mr Pere LÓPEZ SOC  Mr Andrii LOPUSHANSKYI  Ms Marianne MARET EPP/CD  Mr Gianni MARILOTTI  Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO NR  Ms Ada MARRA  Ms María Valentina MARTÍNEZ FERRO EPP/CD  Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO  Ms Marica MONTEMAGGI SOC  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN  Mr Fazil MUSTAFA ALDE  Mr Marco NICOLINI  Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI EPP/CD  Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI  Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY UEL  Mr Julian PAHLKE  Mr Bob van PAREREN EC/DA  Mr Gianluca PERILLI  Mr Thomas PRINGLE UEL  Ms Mónica QUINTELA  Mr Roberto RAMPI SOC  Mr Alberto RIBOLLA  Ms Maria RIZZOTTI EPP/CD  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES SOC EC/DA EC/DA EPP/CD ALDE UEL EC/DA UEL EC/DA SOC ALDE EC/DA EC/DA EPP/CD ALDE SOC SOC SOC SOC UEL NR SOC SOC EPP/CD EC/DA EPP/CD https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39044  M C t i ROCHA FERREIRA EPP/CD  M A l SCHÄFER SOC 2/3 10/18/22, 2:03 PM  Ms Catarina ROCHA FERREIRA EPP/CD Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15616  Mr Axel SCHÄFER  Ms Ingjerd SCHOU EPP/CD  Ms Lise SELNES  Mr Tommy SHEPPARD NR  Mr Serhii SOBOLIEV  Ms Susana SUMELZO SOC  Ms Liliana TANGUY  Mr László TOROCZKAI NR  Ms Feleknas UCA  Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND UEL  Mr Manuel VESCOVI  Ms Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN EPP/CD  Ms Serap YAŞAR  Mr Ahmet YILDIZ NR Votes on texts and amendments Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, in Europe:  Doc.
15616 11/10/2022 - Amendment 1 SOC SOC EPP/CD ALDE UEL EC/DA NR https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39044 3/3 10/18/22, 2:09 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.

15609 Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15609 Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans Assembly's voting results  134 in favor  3 against  3 abstentions Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Boriana ÅBERG EPP/CD  Mr Knut ABRAHAM  Ms Nerea AHEDO ALDE  Mr Ziya ALTUNYALDIZ  Ms Isabel ALVES MOREIRA SOC  Ms Tonia ANTONIAZZI  Mr José BADIA EPP/CD  Ms Marijana BALIĆ  Ms Krista BAUMANE ALDE  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI SOC  Ms Arta BILALLI ZENDELI  Ms Larysa BILOZIR ALDE  Ms Margreet De BOER  Ms Mònica BONELL ALDE  Mr Chris BONETT  Mr Marek BOROWSKI EPP/CD  Mr Mladen BOSIĆ  Mr Koloman BRENNER NR  Mr Roland Rino BÜCHEL  Ms Klotilda BUSHKA SOC  Ms Zdravka BUŠIĆ  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ NR  Mr Jaroslav BŽOCH  Ms Naomi CACHIA SOC  Mr Pedro CEGONHO  Mr Ahmet Ünal ÇEVİKÖZ SOC  Mr Anastasios CHATZIVASILEIOU  Mr Irakli CHIKOVANI SOC  Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON  Ms Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN SOC  Mr Boriss CILEVIČS  Ms Alma ČOLO EPP/CD  Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN  Mr Damien COTTIER ALDE  Mr Andi-Lucian CRISTEA EPP/CD NR SOC EPP/CD SOC SOC SOC SOC EPP/CD ALDE EPP/CD ALDE SOC EPP/CD EC/DA SOC SOC SOC https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39040 1/4 10/18/22, 2:09 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15609  Ms Natalia DAVIDOVICI EPP/CD  Ms Sabrina DE CARLO  Ms Khatia DEKANOIDZE EPP/CD  Mr Adnan DIBRANI  Mr Mehmet Mehdi EKER NR  Ms Annicka ENGBLOM  Mr Piero FASSINO SOC  Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI  Lord George FOULKES SOC  Mr Bernard FOURNIER  Mr Thibaut FRANÇOIS EC/DA  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO  Mr Peter FRICK ALDE  Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ  Mr Fabian FUNKE SOC  Mr Paul GAVAN  Mr Armen GEVORGYAN EC/DA  Mr Joël GIRAUD  Ms Etilda GJONAJ SOC  Ms Blerina GJYLAMETI  Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO UEL  Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO  Ms Marta GRANDE  Ms Emine Nur GÜNAY NR NR  Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS  Ms Zita GURMAI  Mr Antonio GUTIÉRREZ LIMONES SOC  Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ  Mr Pablo HISPÁN EPP/CD  Ms Nicole HÖCHST  Ms Franziska HOOP ALDE  Ms Inka HOPSU  Mr John HOWELL EC/DA  Mr Momodou Malcolm JALLOW SOC SOC EPP/CD EPP/CD EPP/CD ALDE SOC UEL ALDE SOC EC/DA SOC SOC SOC EC/DA SOC UEL  Ms Maria JUFEREVA-SKURATOVSKI ALDE  Ms Hajnalka JUHÁSZ EPP/CD  Mr Josip JURATOVIC SOC  Mr Darko KAEVSKI  Mr Dimitrios KAIRIDIS EPP/CD  Ms Marietta KARAMANLI  Ms Hilkka KEMPPI ALDE  Mr Claude KERN  Ms Olena KHOMENKO EC/DA  Mr Mikko KINNUNEN  Mr Haluk KOÇ SOC  Ms Elvira KOVÁCS  Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK ALDE  Ms Borjana KRIŠTO  Mr Christophe LACROIX SOC  Ms Hélène LAPORTE  Mr Jacques LE NAY ALDE  Sir Edward LEIGH  Ms Carmen LEYTE EPP/CD  Mr Pere LÓPEZ SOC SOC ALDE ALDE EPP/CD EPP/CD EC/DA EC/DA SOC https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39040 2/4 10/18/22, 2:09 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15609  Mr George LOUCAIDES UEL  Mr Max LUCKS  Ms Marianne MARET EPP/CD  Mr Gianni MARILOTTI  Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO NR  Ms Ada MARRA  Ms María Valentina MARTÍNEZ FERRO EPP/CD  Mr Givi MIKANADZE  Ms Dumitrina MITREA EC/DA  Ms Marica MONTEMAGGI  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN SOC  Mr Sorin-Titus MUNCACIU  Mr Lőrinc NACSA EPP/CD  Ms Miroslava NĚMCOVÁ  Mr Zsolt NÉMETH EC/DA  Mr Marco NICOLINI  Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI EPP/CD  Ms Snježana NOVAKOVIĆ BURSAĆ SOC SOC SOC SOC SOC EC/DA EC/DA UEL NR  Mr Julian PAHLKE SOC  Ms Biljana PANTIĆ PILJA EPP/CD  Mr Bob van PAREREN EC/DA  Ms Tatjana PAŠIĆ  Mr Gianluca PERILLI SOC  Ms Maud PETIT  Mr Mihail POPSOI EPP/CD  Mr Thomas PRINGLE  Ms Mónica QUINTELA EPP/CD  Mr Roberto RAMPI  Mr Alberto RIBOLLA EC/DA  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES  Ms Catarina ROCHA FERREIRA EPP/CD  Ms Azadeh ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON  Mr Indrek SAAR SOC  Mr Axel SCHÄFER  Mr Stefan SCHENNACH SOC  Ms Ingjerd SCHOU  Ms Michaela ŠEBELOVÁ EPP/CD  Mr Predrag SEKULIĆ  Mr Serhii SOBOLIEV EPP/CD  Mr Davor Ivo STIER  Ms Jorida TABAKU EPP/CD  Ms Liliana TANGUY  Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK ALDE  Mr Nicos TORNARITIS  Ms Feleknas UCA UEL  Mr Manuel VESCOVI  Ms Tamara VONTA ALDE  Mr Morten WOLD  Ms Serap YAŞAR NR  Mr Ahmet YILDIZ SOC ALDE UEL SOC EPP/CD SOC SOC EPP/CD SOC EPP/CD ALDE EPP/CD EC/DA EC/DA NR Votes on texts and amendments https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39040 3/4 10/18/22, 2:09 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15609 Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans:  Doc.

15609 11/10/2022 - Amendment 1 11/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 11/10/2022 - Recommendation https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39040 4/4 10/18/22, 2:11 PM Vote on Amendment 8 - Doc.

15619 Vote on Amendment 8 - Doc.
15619 The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Hungary Assembly's voting results  80 in favor  28 against  3 abstentions Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Boriana ÅBERG EPP/CD  Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR  Ms Nerea AHEDO ALDE  Mr Gergely ARATÓ  Mr Viorel-Riceard BADEA EPP/CD  Mr José BADIA  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA SOC  Mr Caspar Van den BERG  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI SOC  Ms Larysa BILOZIR  Ms Margreet De BOER SOC  Mr Chris BONETT  Mr Bertrand BOUYX ALDE  Mr Bob De BRABANDERE  Mr Iulian BULAI ALDE  Ms Klotilda BUSHKA  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ NR  Ms Naomi CACHIA  Ms Laura CASTEL UEL  Mr Pedro CEGONHO  Mr Ahmet Ünal ÇEVİKÖZ SOC  Ms Mireille CLAPOT  Mr Jeremy CORBYN SOC  Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN  Mr Damien COTTIER ALDE  Ms Katalin CSÖBÖR  Mr Botond CSOMA EPP/CD  Ms Sabrina DE CARLO SOC SOC EPP/CD ALDE ALDE SOC EC/DA SOC SOC SOC ALDE SOC EC/DA SOC  Mr Adnan DIBRANI SOC  Ms Annicka ENGBLOM EPP/CD  Ms Heike ENGELHARDT SOC  Ms Christiana EROTOKRITOU  Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES UEL  Lord George FOULKES  Mr Bernard FOURNIER EPP/CD  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO SOC SOC ALDE https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39053 1/3 10/18/22, 2:11 PM Vote on Amendment 8 - Doc.
15619  Mr Peter FRICK ALDE  Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ  Mr Erkin GADIRLI EC/DA  Mr Paul GAVAN  Mr Joël GIRAUD ALDE  Mr Martin GRAF  Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS SOC  Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ  Ms Nicole HÖCHST EC/DA  Ms Franziska HOOP  Ms Maria-Gabriela HORGA EPP/CD  Mr Andrej HUNKO  Mr Bjarni JÓNSSON UEL  Mr Dimitrios KAIRIDIS  Mr George KATROUGALOS UEL  Ms Olena KHOMENKO  Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN SOC  Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND  Ms Elvira KOVÁCS EPP/CD  Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK  Ms Stephanie KRISPER ALDE  Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS  Mr Christophe LACROIX SOC  Sir Edward LEIGH  Ms Carmen LEYTE EPP/CD  Mr Max LUCKS  Ms Ada MARRA SOC  Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO  Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO EC/DA  Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA  Mr Vojislav MIHAILOVIĆ NR  Mr Asim MOLLAZADA  Ms Marica MONTEMAGGI SOC  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN  Mr Fazil MUSTAFA ALDE  Mr Lőrinc NACSA  Mr Dmytro NATALUKHA EC/DA  Mr Zsolt NÉMETH  Mr Marco NICOLINI UEL  Mr Mika NIIKKO  Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI EPP/CD  Ms Fiona O'LOUGHLIN  Ms Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN EPP/CD  Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY  Ms Biljana PANTIĆ PILJA EPP/CD  Mr George PAPANDREOU  Mr Bob van PAREREN EC/DA  Mr Gianluca PERILLI  Mr Paulo PISCO SOC  Mr Dean PREMIK SOC UEL EC/DA SOC ALDE UEL EPP/CD EC/DA ALDE ALDE ALDE EC/DA SOC SOC EPP/CD EC/DA SOC EPP/CD EC/DA EC/DA ALDE UEL SOC SOC ALDE  Mr Thomas PRINGLE UEL  Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ EPP/CD https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39053  M R b t RAMPI SOC M Alb t RIBOLLA EC/DA 2/3 10/18/22, 2:11 PM  Mr Roberto RAMPI Vote on Amendment 8 - Doc.
15619 SOC  Mr Alberto RIBOLLA  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES EPP/CD  Mr Indrek SAAR  Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA EC/DA  Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE  Mr Stefan SCHENNACH SOC  Ms Ingjerd SCHOU  Mr Frank SCHWABE SOC  Ms Lise SELNES  Mr Samad SEYIDOV EC/DA  Ms Dunja SIMONOVIĆ BRATIĆ  Mr Krzysztof ŚMISZEK SOC  Mr Serhii SOBOLIEV  Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK ALDE  Mr Attila TILKI  Mr László TOROCZKAI NR  Ms Feleknas UCA  Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND UEL  Mr Manuel VESCOVI  Ms Tamara VONTA ALDE  Mr Ahmet YILDIZ  Mr Barna Pál ZSIGMOND EC/DA Votes on texts and amendments The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Hungary:  Doc.
15619 EC/DA SOC SOC EPP/CD SOC SOC EPP/CD EC/DA UEL EC/DA NR 12/10/2022 - Amendment 1 12/10/2022 - Amendment 2 12/10/2022 - Amendment 3 12/10/2022 - Amendment 4 12/10/2022 - Amendment 5 12/10/2022 - Amendment 6 12/10/2022 - Amendment 7 12/10/2022 - Amendment 9 12/10/2022 - Amendment 10 12/10/2022 - Amendment 11 12/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 12/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 12/10/2022 - Resolution https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39053 3/3 10/18/22, 2:26 PM Vote on Sub-amendment - Doc.
15618 Vote on Sub-amendment - Doc.
15618 The honouring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye Assembly's voting results  16 in favor  90 against  7 abstentions Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Nerea AHEDO ALDE  Mr Ziya ALTUNYALDIZ  Mr Gergely ARATÓ SOC  Ms Sibel ARSLAN  Mr Kamil AYDIN NR  Mr Viorel-Riceard BADEA  Ms Theodora BAKOYANNIS EPP/CD  Ms Krista BAUMANE  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA SOC  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI  Ms Margreet De BOER SOC  Mr Marek BOROWSKI  Mr Mladen BOSIĆ EPP/CD  Mr Maurizio BUCCARELLA  Mr Roland Rino BÜCHEL ALDE  Ms Klotilda BUSHKA  Ms Zdravka BUŠIĆ EPP/CD  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ  Ms Laura CASTEL UEL  Mr Pedro CEGONHO  Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK NR  Mr Ahmet Ünal ÇEVİKÖZ NR SOC EPP/CD ALDE SOC EPP/CD SOC SOC NR SOC SOC  Mr Anastasios CHATZIVASILEIOU EPP/CD  Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON EC/DA  Ms Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN SOC  Mr Boriss CILEVIČS  Ms Alma ČOLO EPP/CD  Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN  Mr Damien COTTIER ALDE  Mr Andi-Lucian CRISTEA  Ms Andrea EDER-GITSCHTHALER EPP/CD  Mr Mehmet Mehdi EKER  Ms Arzu ERDEM NR  Mr Piero FASSINO  Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI EPP/CD  Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES SOC SOC SOC NR SOC UEL https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39050 1/3 10/18/22, 2:26 PM  Lord George FOULKES Vote on Sub-amendment - Doc.
15618 SOC  Mr Bernard FOURNIER  Mr Thibaut FRANÇOIS EC/DA  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO  Mr Peter FRICK ALDE  Mr Hannes GERMANN  Ms Etilda GJONAJ SOC  Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO  Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS SOC  Ms Emine Nur GÜNAY  Mr Antonio GUTIÉRREZ LIMONES SOC  Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ  Mr Pablo HISPÁN EPP/CD  Ms Franziska HOOP  Ms Maria-Gabriela HORGA EPP/CD  Mr John HOWELL  Mr Andrej HUNKO UEL  Mr Dimitrios KAIRIDIS  Mr Mikko KINNUNEN ALDE  Mr Haluk KOÇ  Ms Elvira KOVÁCS EPP/CD  Ms Stephanie KRISPER  Sir Edward LEIGH EC/DA  Ms Carmen LEYTE  Mr Pere LÓPEZ SOC  Mr George LOUCAIDES  Mr Max LUCKS SOC  Mr Arminas LYDEKA  Mr Gianni MARILOTTI SOC  Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO  Ms María Valentina MARTÍNEZ FERRO EPP/CD  Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO  Mr Vojislav MIHAILOVIĆ NR  Ms Dumitrina MITREA  Ms Marica MONTEMAGGI SOC  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN  Mr Sorin-Titus MUNCACIU EC/DA  Ms Miroslava NĚMCOVÁ EPP/CD ALDE ALDE UEL NR SOC ALDE EC/DA EPP/CD SOC ALDE EPP/CD UEL ALDE NR SOC EC/DA SOC EC/DA  Mr Marco NICOLINI UEL  Ms Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN EPP/CD  Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI NR  Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY  Ms Biljana PANTIĆ PILJA EPP/CD  Mr Bob van PAREREN  Ms Tatjana PAŠIĆ SOC  Mr Gianluca PERILLI  Mr Bolesław PIECHA EC/DA  Mr Paulo PISCO  Ms Catia POLIDORI EPP/CD  Mr Dean PREMIK  Mr Roberto RAMPI SOC  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES  Ms Catarina ROCHA FERREIRA EPP/CD  Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA UEL EC/DA SOC SOC ALDE EPP/CD EC/DA https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39050 2/3 10/18/22, 2:26 PM Vote on Sub-amendment - Doc.
15618  Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE SOC  Mr Stefan SCHENNACH  Mr Frank SCHWABE SOC  Ms Michaela ŠEBELOVÁ  Ms Lise SELNES SOC  Ms Nathalie SERRE  Mr Samad SEYIDOV EC/DA  Ms Dunja SIMONOVIĆ BRATIĆ  Mr Krzysztof ŚMISZEK SOC  Mr Serhii SOBOLIEV  Ms Jane STEVENSON EC/DA  Mr Ionuț-Marian STROE  Mr Evripidis STYLIANIDIS EPP/CD  Ms Susana SUMELZO  Ms Jorida TABAKU EPP/CD  Mr Attila TILKI  Mr Nicos TORNARITIS EPP/CD  Ms Feleknas UCA  Ms Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN EPP/CD  Ms Tamara VONTA  Mr Morten WOLD EC/DA  Ms Serap YAŞAR  Mr Ahmet YILDIZ NR Votes on texts and amendments The honouring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye:  Doc.
15618 SOC EPP/CD EPP/CD SOC EPP/CD EPP/CD SOC EC/DA UEL ALDE NR 12/10/2022 - Amendment 1 12/10/2022 - Amendment 2 12/10/2022 - Amendment 3 12/10/2022 - Amendment 4 12/10/2022 - Amendment 5 12/10/2022 - Amendment 6 12/10/2022 - Amendment 7 12/10/2022 - Amendment 8 12/10/2022 - Amendment 9 12/10/2022 - Amendment 10 12/10/2022 - Amendment 11 12/10/2022 - Amendment 12 12/10/2022 - Amendment 13 12/10/2022 - Amendment 14 12/10/2022 - Amendment 15 12/10/2022 - Amendment 16 12/10/2022 - Amendment 17 12/10/2022 - Resolution https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39050 3/3 Doc.
15592 07 July 2022 Safe third countries for asylum seekers Report1 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Rapporteur: Ms Stephanie KRISPER, Austria, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Summary Member States of the Council of Europe have used a certain strategy to decrease their responsibility for asylum seekers: the so-called “safe third country” concept.
By applying this concept, States delegate the responsibility for processing asylum applications to another State considered as safe.

Hence, they can transfer asylum seekers to this third country and, in cases where protection is granted, the rights deriving from the refugee or subsidiary protection status also have to be fulfilled by the third State.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees provides the right to apply for asylum.
While it does not contain the obligation to apply for asylum in the first country of arrival, the safe third country concept implies that asylum seekers should do so.

However, the practice of States remains heterogenic and divergent presumptions of safety can be observed among them.

The risk is imminent that a wrong presumption leads to undermining the right to apply for asylum.
This risk cannot be taken light-hearted, because a violation of this right can in every single case lead to a violation of ius cogens and of a non-derogable right: the right not to be refouled pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
And indeed: due to valid complaints, since the last recommendation on the application of the safe third country concept was adopted in 1997, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights evolved and has clarified that obligations deriving from the European Convention on Human Rights for its States Parties when applying the safe third country concept.
Every case identifying a violation underlines the need for clarity and the importance of an up-to-date instrument as regards the safe third country notion.

To support member States in their obligations, this report, after elaborating on current legal basis versus practice, identifies necessary measures to be taken to seek coherence in line with human rights obligations to be respected by member States.

1.

Reference to committee: Doc.


15111, Reference 4519 of 26 June 2020. https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Doc.

15592 Report Contents Page A.

Draft resolution ........................................................................................................................................ 3 B.
Draft recommendation ............................................................................................................................. 5 C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Stephanie Krisper, rapporteur ............................................................ 6 1.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.
The concept of safe third country: legal standards ..............................................................................6 2.1.

The 1951 Refugee Convention ................................................................................................... 7 2.2.

European Convention on Human Rights .....................................................................................7 2.3.
EU law ........................................................................................................................................ 8 3.

Practice ............................................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.

Application of the safe third country concept ...............................................................................9 3.2.
Burden of proof for rebuttal of the presumption of safety .......................................................... 12 4.

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2 Doc.

15592 Report A.

Draft resolution2 Recalling the right to apply for and seek asylum under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of 1.
Refugees (1951 Refugee Convention) and, for member States of the European Union, under Article 18 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly notes with concern a tendency of returning asylum seekers to third countries without clarity on the safety of the respective third country.

2.
2.

The Assembly emphasises that Article 31, paragraph 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, stipulates only that penalties shall not be imposed on account of an illegal entry or presence of refugees or asylum seekers who came directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.

Hence, asylum seekers are not required to apply for protection in the first safe country of arrival and cannot be penalised for not doing so.

3.

Referring to Conclusion No.


58 (XL) of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner’s Programme, the Assembly recognises the importance of clarifying the legal situation and protection of refugees and asylum seekers, who move in an irregular manner from countries in which they have already found protection, in order to seek asylum or permanent resettlement elsewhere.

4.
Whereas it is important for asylum seekers and member States alike to clarify in a timely manner which State is responsible for processing an asylum application, the Assembly is aware that the safe third country principle under Article 33 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive of the European Union, according to which a EU member State can declare inadmissible an application for international protection ifa country which is not a member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, does not apply among non-member States.
This situation may cause legal uncertainty to the detriment of asylum seekers.

5.

The Assembly recalls Recommendation No.
R (97) 22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States which contains Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country Concept and enumerates criteria to assess whether a country can be considered as safe, among others “observance by the third country of international human rights standards relevant to asylum as established in universal and regional instruments” and “the third country will provide effective protection against refoulement and the possibility to seek and enjoy asylum”.
Since adoption of the Recommendation, there have been many legal developments.

Welcoming the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (No.

C-564/18, 6.

Nos.

C-924/19 and C-925/19), the Assembly reaffirms that the return of an asylum seeker to a safe third country requires a connection to that country beyond the mere transit by the person concerned.

Welcoming the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Ilias and 7.

Ahmed v. Hungary (No.


47287/15), M.K.

and Others v. Poland (Nos.

40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17) and M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece (No.


30696/09), the Assembly emphasises that competent authorities in member States must analyse, before returning or expelling an asylum seeker to a third country, whether this person would have access to an asylum procedure in the country concerned without being exposed to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment or torture in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS N° 5).

8.
8.

Welcoming the work of the European Union Agency for Asylum towards a co-ordinated approach within the European Union to evaluate the safety of third countries, the Assembly believes that co-ordinated efforts should also be taken at the level of the Council of Europe.
Therefore, building on this work and taking into consideration the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly encourages the development of new and up-to-date criteria at the Council of Europe level to assess the safety of third countries.

9.

The Assembly also emphasises that no absolute presumption of safety can be made, as the situation in a safe country can deteriorate to a standard that renders the country in question unsafe.
In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights clarified in M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], No.

30696/09) that applicants must be able to challenge the presumption that a country is safe in his or her particular circumstances without bearing the entire burden of proof.

In the Chamber judgement Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.

47287/15), the Court stated that the burden of proof must not, in light of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be reversed to the applicants’ detriment.
Therefore, referring to 2.

Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 21 June 2022.

3 Doc.

15592 Report considerations of the European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly encourages the development of procedural requirements at the Council of Europe level for the asylum seeker to have a fair possibility to rebut the presumption of safety.

10.
10.

The Assembly recognises that the monitoring of safe third country decisions is essential to improve member States’ practice and to strengthen the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

Therefore, the Assembly encourages member States to establish objective and independent monitoring mechanisms to monitor national law and practice in this regard.

11.
11.

Recalling Resolution 2409 (2021) “Voluntary relocation of migrants in need of humanitarian protection and voluntary resettlement of refugees”, the Assembly welcomes the current discussion on relocation and resettlement of asylum seekers between European Union member States and beyond, while encouraging member States to undertake further efforts in this regard.

Such engagement would prioritise solidarity over the recourse to the safe third country concept.
The Assembly invites the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for 12.

Migration and Refugees to support greater co-ordination and co-operation among member States in applying the safe third country concept in the context of asylum.

4 Doc.

15592 Report B.


Draft recommendation3 The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution … (2022) “Safe third countries for asylum seekers” 1. and emphasises the need for greater co-ordination among member States, in order to effectively protect human rights of asylum seekers and the right to asylum in Europe.

Welcoming Recommendation No.

R (97) 22 of the Committee of Ministers to member States containing 2.
Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country Concept, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 2.1. review this Recommendation in the light of relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, develop new standards to enable member States to improve their assessment of the safety of third countries and regularly up-date them in accordance with legal developments to come and future jurisprudence; 2.2. consider setting standards on the transfer, return and readmission of asylum seekers and refugees, taking due account of the effective protection of their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5) and their right to apply for and seek asylum; 2.3. seek co-operation of the Council of Europe and its member States with the European Union Agency for Asylum, in order to prevent discrepancies in the application of the safe third country concept in Europe to the detriment of human rights and the right to apply for and seek asylum; 2.4. invite member States to inform the Committee of Ministers about their practice regarding the safe third country concept as well as their practice as regards procedural means available to rebut the presumption of safety of a country.
3.

Draft recommendation adopted unanimously by the committee on 21 June 2022.

5 Doc.

15592 Report C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Stephanie Krisper, rapporteur 1.

Introduction 1.

In Europe, the safe third country concept regularly finds wider public discussion when larger numbers of asylum seekers arrive at the external borders of the European Union (EU) and try to apply for asylum there or – at a later stage – in another EU country.
It is every time we debate the situation on the Greek islands, on La Palma, in Italy, but also about the Greek-Turkish land and sea border, that we are legally debating on the terrain of the safe third country concept.

Under the EU Dublin III Regulation, the first country of registration in the EU is obliged to process 2. asylum applications, for a statutory application of the safe third country concept within the EU.
In addition, the EU and its member States have signed readmission agreements with countries such as Türkiye via the 2016 “EU-Turkey-Statement”.

Further agreements are now in discussion due to the situation on the Polish- Belarussian border and the increasing arrivals of refugees and migrants, especially in Cyprus, Italy and Spain.

The discussions focus on sensitive questions: are under such agreements the core human rights of asylum seekers and refugees respected?
Are these concepts leading to sustainable asylum systems in member States?

Or do they contribute to the deterioration of refugee rights?

After the debates heating up in the last years, I signed with colleagues the motion for a resolution on 3. safe third countries for asylum seekers (Doc.

15111) with the intention to bring clarity to the issue, at the centre of concern being the human rights of asylum seekers and refugees.
Hence, this report shall present the relevant legal basis and the compatibility of practice in member States with these legal requirements.

An informed debate can then follow on the risks and the necessary steps to be taken to guarantee respect for and the protection of human rights of refugees in the region covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5).

I am particularly grateful for the substantial contributions presented at hearings of the Committee on 4.
Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons by Mr Adel-Naim Reyhani from the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights in Vienna, Ms Tineke Strik, member of the EU Parliament and former member of our committee, Ms Sophie Weidenhiller, Spokesperson of the German NGO Sea-Eye, Mr Henrik Nielsen, Head of Asylum Unit, Directorate-General Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission in Brussels, and Mr Christophe Hessels, Head of the Third Countries Research Unit, European Asylum Support Office of the EU in Valetta, Malta.
I also thank the authorities of Croatia as well as of Bosnia and Herzegovina for having organised a fact-finding visit for me together with Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez, rapporteur on pushbacks on land and sea, to their common border on 21 and 22 February 2022.

5.

Since 24 February 2022, we witness the largest movement of persons fleeing a country on European soil since the Second World War due to the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
To this day (27 May 2022), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) registered more than 6 million persons who fled Ukraine, seeking protection and safety mostly in neighbouring countries.

Ukrainian nationals and persons being recognised as refugees in Ukraine are entitled to temporary protection under the Temporary Protection Directive 2001/55/EC in EU member States.
Third country nationals fleeing Ukraine and who do not fall within the scope of this directive might however apply for asylum.

An estimated 200.000 of them already fled Ukraine.

In this context, asylum applications will potentially increase and the safe third country concept might gain further importance, both within the public debate and in practice.

2.

The concept of safe third country: legal standards 6.
As the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Refugee Convention) does not contain an explicit reference to the allocation of responsibility for asylum claims, the approach of “protection elsewhere” has been elaborated by States around the world.

Within this approach, the safe third country concept is an element.
The concept grew out of the principle of “first country of asylum”, which was later expanded to the notion of “safe third country”.4 While, according to the first, States transfer refugees back to States in which they had already found protection, the latter includes that States deny protection to refugees 4.

On first sight, a safe third country is to be easily distinguished from the “safe country of origin”: the latter is normally the country which has issued a passport or granted citizenship.
However, it should be borne in mind that, in practice, the notions of safe country of origin and safe third country can overlap in particular circumstances.

For instance when persons have not been issued a passport in their country of birth, but lived and worked in another country, which might even have issued a residence permit.

A similarly unclear situation could arise where children of refugees or migrant workers are born 6 Doc.
15592 Report who could or should have accessed protection in another country.

Hence, in applying the notion of safe third country, States usually refrain from determining the qualification of individuals as refugees.

Instead, they only assess the possibility of removal to another country.

7.

While international law is not explicitly addressing the safe third country concept, the notion has been further clarified at the regional level, including at the Council of Europe and the EU level.
While the case law of the European Court of Human Rights mainly addresses the safe third country notion through Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention, the EU’s recast Asylum Procedures Directive enumerates criteria to be fulfilled before a person seeking international protection can be returned to the third country in question.

2.1.

The 1951 Refugee Convention 8.


Neither in the text of the 1951 Refugee Convention or elsewhere in international law, a provision can be found that explicitly authorises safe third country policies.
However, Article 31, paragraph 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention stipulates: “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” Article 1 defines the term refugee and the applicability of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
9.

Looking at the formulation “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1”, it could be read to exclude persons from applying for asylum in a country that they entered from a safe third country.
But this reading would undermine the underlying purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention, hence the UNHCR and international practice have interpreted this formulation narrowly, in order not to unduly restrict the possibility to apply for asylum and receive international protection.

10.

The 1951 Refugee Convention does only require member States to not return refugees to a location where they would face persecution in violation of the non-refoulement obligation.
The UNHCR stated that the safe third country concept requires an individual assessment of whether the previous State will readmit the person; grant the person access to a fair and efficient procedure for determination of his or her protection needs; permit the person to remain; and accord the person standards of treatment commensurate with the 1951 Refugee Convention and international human rights standards, including protection from refoulement.
Where she or he is entitled to protection, a right of legal stay and a timely durable solution are also required, UNHCR states.

11.

The Executive Committee of the UN High Commissioner’s Programme (UNHCR ExCom) adopted in 1989 its Conclusion No.

58 (XL) on refugees and asylum seekers who move in an irregular manner from countries in which they have already found protection, in order to seek asylum or permanent resettlement elsewhere.5 Paragraph (f) of Conclusion No.
58 (XL) allows for the return of those persons to the latter safe third countries or countries of first asylum.

2.2.

European Convention on Human Rights 12.

While the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain a human right to enter a country and apply for asylum or international protection, it protects persons from being returned or expelled to a country where their Convention rights are not respected.
Under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, this concerns primarily the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) and the right to protection against torture (Article 3 of the Convention).

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has issued a set of Guidelines in 1997,6 which 13. similarly include, amongst others, that the third country must observe the principles embodied in the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
It must provide the possibility to seek and enjoy asylum, and it must be in another country while being considered nationals of the country of origin of their parents or, rarely but sadly, are even stateless.

Or a person might be from an unsafe country of origin but have lived in a safe country before applying for asylum in another country or, vice-versa, originate from a safe country but have lived in an unsafe country.

5.
5.

UNHCR, ExCom Conclusion No 58 (XL), ‘Problem of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Who Move in an Irregular Manner From a Country in Which They Had Already Found Protection’, 1989, available at: www.unhcr.org/excom/ exconc/3ae68c4380/problem-refugees-asylum-seekers-move-irregular-manner-country-already-found.html.

6.

Recommendation No.

R (97) 22 of the Committee of Ministers to member States containing Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country Concept.

7 Doc.
7 Doc.

15592 Report provided that the asylum-seeker has already been granted effective protection in the third country or has had the opportunity to make contact with that country‘s authorities in order to seek asylum or that there is clear evidence of the admissibility of the asylum-seeker to the third country.
The European Court of Human Rights has further clarified through its case law7 that the competent 14. authority in a member State must analyse, before returning or expelling an asylum seeker to a third country, whether this person would have access to an asylum procedure in the country concerned without being exposed to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment or torture in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Chain refoulement is also of concern.

15.

In addition, Article 4 of Protocol No.


4 to the Convention (ETS No.

46) prohibits collective expulsions of aliens and requires competent authorities in member States to “ensure that each of the aliens concerned has a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against his or her expulsion”, as the European Court of Human Rights decided.8 2.3.

EU law 16.
EU law 16.

Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights protects the right to asylum “with due respect for the rules of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”.
EU law specifies common rules for asylum procedures within the EU under the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.9 In accordance with Article 33 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, a member State can declare 17. inadmissible an application for international protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention, if the applicant has entered from a safe third country.10 18.
Article 38 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive stipulates that member States “may apply the safe third country concept only where the competent authorities are satisfied that a person seeking international protection will be treated in accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned: a. b. c. d. e. life and liberty are not threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; there is no risk of serious harm as defined in Directive 2011/95/EU; the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention is respected; the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected; the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention.” 19.
Member States shall inform the European Commission periodically of the countries to which this concept is applied in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.11 20.

Under Article 36 (3) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, the EU Commission should propose a common list of safe third countries.
However, this provision was annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (C-133/06) because this matter remained in the competence of member States.

Therefore, national legislation and practices can remain very divergent within the EU – and they do so.

Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.

47287/15); M.K.

and Others v. Poland (Nos.

40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17), 7.

M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], No.

30696/09).

8.


N.D. and N.T.

v. Spain (Nos.

8675/15 and 8697/15).

9.

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection.

10.
10.

The safe third country concept is to be distinguished from the safe country of origin concept laid down in Article 36 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive which requires that an applicant has the nationality of that country or is a stateless person and was formerly habitually resident in that country.

This means that a country of origin in this sense cannot be a mere country of residence if the resident person is not citizen of this country.
Article 36 also stipulates that EU member States shall lay down in national legislation further rules and modalities for the application of the safe country of origin concept.

Subsequently, EU member States shall regularly review the situation in third countries designated as safe countries of origin in accordance with Article 37 of the Asylum Procedures Directive.

11.

Article 38 (5) of the recast Asylum Procedure Directive.

8 Doc.

15592 Report 3.


Practice Practice is as worrying as it is heterogenic – on the application of the safe third country concept as well 21. as on the level of burden of proof that is placed on the asylum seeker to rebut the presumption of safety.

3.1.

Application of the safe third country concept 22.

While national legislation and practices already diverge between States, many countries have also signed bilateral or multilateral readmission agreements that include a safe third country provision.
Every of these ways to formalise the application of the safe third country concept has led to situations violating the human rights of asylum seekers.

3.1.1.

National legislation A report12 by the former European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of the EU, now EU Agency for 23.
Asylum (EUAA), found that all EU member States as well as Switzerland, Iceland and Norway had transposed the safe third country concept into national law in accordance with the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, with the exception of France, Italy and Poland, while Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia had not applied this concept in practice.

24.
24.

The EASO report found the following specific designations as safe third countries: – – – – – – – – – – Belgium considered as safe Switzerland.

Denmark, which is not bound by the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, considered as safe Canada and the USA.

Estonia considered as safe the EU candidate countries Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia as well as Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kosovo*13 and Ukraine.
Finland considered as safe the European Economic Area (EEA) countries as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the USA.

Germany considered as safe Norway and Switzerland.

Greece considered as safe Türkiye, regarding nationals from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia and Syria.
Hungary considered as safe the European Economic Area (EEA) countries, the EU candidate countries Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Türkiye as well as Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Kosovo*, New Zealand, Switzerland and the USA regarding States which do not apply the death penalty.

Iceland considered as safe the United Kingdom.

Ireland considered as safe the United Kingdom.

Switzerland considered as safe all EU member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
In addition to national legislation, national jurisprudence can also influence safe third country practices.

For instance, following a decision of its Constitutional Court, Croatia stopped applying the safe third country concept to Serbia.

As rapporteur, I proposed Request No.

4750 to the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and 25.
Documentation (ECPRD), which asked ECPRD members the following questions: – – – Which countries have been identified by a public authority of your country (court judgment, government agency, parliamentary decision) as not being safe, or as being safe, in the context of the return of a rejected asylum applicant or other irregular migrant during the last five years?
Which criteria and procedures are used by authorities in your country to determine the safety of another country regarding the return of rejected asylum applicants or other irregular migrants?

Which countries have concluded with your country readmission agreements regarding irregular migrants?

12.

EASO, “The concept of safe third countries applied in EU+ countries”, 5 October 2021.

13.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
*All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population shall be understood in full compliance with 9 Doc.
15592 Report The numerous replies were highly appreciated.14 The above diversity of the countries considered as safe third countries as well as the procedures 26. described by the States in their answers to the ECPRD reflect an arbitrary diversity in applying the safe third country concept, emphasising the need for common criteria and clear standards for determining whether a third country is safe.

3.1.2.

Externalisation of refugee protection being formalised: the “Dublin” system 27.
The Dublin III Regulation aims to ensure that any application for asylum made on the territory of an EU member State is examined substantively by only one State.

The Dublin procedure determines that the first country of arrival or registration is responsible for processing asylum applications.

Within the EU, member States are not considered as third countries.
However, the transfer of asylum seekers back to the country where he/she already registered as foreseen by the Dublin system relies on the safe third country concept.

Safety is presumed among EU member States.

28.

While EU member States have never challenged each other’s safety by complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, individual cases proved the safety presumption wrong.
For example, the European Court of Human Rights found in 2011 that Belgium violated its human rights obligation by transferring an asylum-seeker to Greece despite the systemic deficiencies within its asylum system.15 In fact, for years now, hundreds of human rights violations have been reported, ranging from allegations of collective expulsions over deplorable living conditions in reception centres to the placement of asylum-seeking children in detention facilities.
Pushbacks from Greece to Türkiye have been repeatedly documented over the years – Frontex being involved in many allegations and scandals, which recently even led to the resignation of its former director, Fabrice Leggeri.

Dublin transfers to Greece are still inadmissible on the basis of M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece.

Further, Greece designated Türkiye as a safe third country for nationals from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Somalia and Syria.
However, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) documented that, in practice, readmissions are not taking place.

As a result, persons whose applications are found inadmissible based on the safe third country concept remain in limbo with no access to protection or rights and can be at risk of detention.
In cases where an individual cannot be readmitted, access to an effective and fair asylum procedure must be provided.16 The systematic application of the safe third country concept by “Dublin” has had a result that the EU’s 29. external border States are bearing the responsibility in cases of mass arrivals and potentially high numbers of returns.
This is to the detriment of human rights of asylum seekers: The FRA confirmed that the treatment of persons at EU borders continues to be one of the main fundamental rights issues.17 30.
In 2019, in a similar context, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that an asylum seeker may not be transferred to the member State that has previously granted him international protection, based on the safe third country presumption, if the living conditions in the concerned member State would expose him to a situation of extreme material poverty, as that would be contrary to the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.18 31.
Another example that highlights that the conditions in an EU member State can deteriorate to such a low standard that it becomes unsafe is provided by the case of M.H.

and others v. Croatia,19 in which 14 applicants crossed from Serbia into Croatia.

Croatian police officers returned them to the Serbian border, instructing them to follow the train tracks back to Serbia, where an incoming train hit the youngest of them, a six-year-old child, and caused her death.
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously found a violation, among others, of the right to life, of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No.

4, prohibition of collective expulsions.


Shortly after this decision, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment published a report expressing many concerns regarding the treatment of asylum seekers, confirming those that had already arisen due to this case.20 14.

They are accessible on the website of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons: https://assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/MIG/Pdf/DocsAndDecs/2021/AS-MIG-INF-2021-11-BIL.pdf Ibid.

15.
15.

M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], No.

30696/09).

16.

FRA, “Migration: Key Fundamental Rights Concerns”, 17 December 2021.

17.

18.

Bashar Ibrahim and Others v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Joined Cases Nos.

C-297/17, C-318/17, C-319/17 and C-438/17).

19.

M.H.

and Others v. Croatia (Nos.

15670/18 and 43115/18).

10 Doc.

15592 Report 3.1.3.

Further externalisation by readmission agreements 32.
Many member States of the Council of Europe have signed bilateral readmission agreements regarding persons who have not entered their territory legally through the territory of the other country.

Under such agreements, persons can thus be returned to, and must be readmitted by, the concerned country.
For instance, the readmission agreement concluded by Morocco and Spain in 1992 covers readmission 33. of both Moroccan nationals and third-country nationals who transited through Morocco and entered into Spain irregularly, thus considering Morocco as safe.

In practice, this agreement has been criticised as doubts arose as to whether Morocco is a safe third country, since the asylum infrastructure is comparably inadequate.
In this scenario, expulsions of asylum seekers without processing their asylum claims, pushbacks, arbitrarily detention by the State authorities and other kinds of human rights violations have been reported on various occasions over the past decades.21 34.
Another critical example is the Statement reached in 2016 between the EU and Türkiye, that included that persons arriving irregularly from Türkiye to the EU would be returned to Türkiye and that the EU would provide financial support to Türkiye in order to cater for the needs of the persons concerned.

Following the implementation of this agreement, arrivals to Greece and the number of registered deaths in the Mediterranean decreased significantly.
However, criticism arose as whether Türkiye could be considered as safe,22 starting with the fact that Türkiye has maintained a geographical limitation to the 1951 Refugee Convention, providing refugee status only to people originating from Europe.

Complaints were brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union, challenging the legality of the 2016 Statement.
The three applicants feared to be returned to Türkiye and possibly from Türkiye to Pakistan or Afghanistan – therefore addressing an underlying risk of readmission agreements: chain refoulement.

However, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaints.23 3.1.4.
Externalisation at its worst: to arbitrarily chosen third countries After the implementation of externalised asylum processing has already caused severe damage to 35. asylum seekers in the past in offshore processing centres in the small Pacific countries of Nauru and Papua New Guinea run by Australia between 2012 and 2014,24 recent examples on European soil bear similar risks.
For instance, the Danish Parliament passed a law to allow the transfer of asylum seekers to a third 36. country outside the EU for the purposes of both asylum processing and protection of refugees in the third country.

It currently pursues negotiations with the Rwandan Government on a mechanism for the transfer of asylum seekers.
Similarly, the United Kingdom recently concluded a Memorandum of Understanding with Rwanda which foresees the transfer of asylum seekers whose claims are declared inadmissible because of their irregular entry into the United Kingdom – therefore being inconsistent with Article 31(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, as declaring an asylum claim of a person who enters irregularly as inadmissible constitutes a penalty.

Both of these cases have caused wide criticism by the UNHCR and civil society organisations.
Albeit 37.

Denmark and the United Kingdom hide behind the notion of safe third country to justify these policies, they are radically more far-reaching than the established safe third country practices.

By ignoring discussions whether Rwanda might possibly be considered as a safe country, imposing penalties on asylum seekers and systematically transferring them to a country with which they have no connection, human rights safeguards and international law are severely jeopardised.

38.
38.

A meaningful link between asylum-seekers and Rwanda, for example family ties, links to a broader community, previous residence, linguistic or cultural links, will be missed in most cases despite respective prerogatives by the UNHCR25 and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The latter clarified in two cases 20.


CPT, “Report to the Croatian Government on the visit to Croatia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, 3 December 2021.

21.

Amnesty International, “Spain and Morocco Failure to protect the rights of migrants – Ceuta and Melilla one year on”, October 2006, available at: www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/eur410092006en.pdf 22.
Asylum Information Database, “Country Report: Turkey”, 2019, available at: https://asylumineurope.org/wp-content/ uploads/2020/04/report-download_aida_tr_2019update.pdf 23.

NF, NG and NM v. European Council (Nos.

T-192/16, T-193/16 and T-257/16).

24.


All asylum seekers who arrived by boat in Australia have been sent to these centres for the determination of their claim for protection, and held there indefinitely, resulting in unlawfully detention and severely breaching the human rights of the persons concerned.

11 Doc.
11 Doc.

15592 Report concerning Hungary26 that Articles 33 (2) and 33 (2b) of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive required a connection to a safe third country or first country of asylum beyond mere transit of that country.

The Court also confirmed that the conditions of Article 38 of this Directive were cumulative.

39.

Divergent practices and decisions as regards the application of the safe third country concept can be observed among member States.
For instance, within the EU, member States have to fulfil the criteria as defined in Article 38 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.

Nevertheless, which approach is used for determining a country as safe remains in the discretion of member States.

Hence, member States can decide to make case by case assessments, create general safe third country lists or safe third country lists with exceptions.

40.
40.

Member States of the Council of Europe apply very divergent decisions on safe third countries for asylum seekers.

If procedural obligations are not upheld, people in need of international protection obviously risk being denied in an arbitrary manner the possibility to apply for asylum, which has to be avoided by all means.

For example, applicants do not necessarily have access to effective remedies with automatic suspensive effect against decisions ordering their return to a safe third country.
Thus, there remains a risk of irremediable human rights violation, especially if chain refoulement is at stake, which is why ensuring flawless procedures is essential.

3.2.

Burden of proof for rebuttal of the presumption of safety 41.

Established presumptions of safe third countries have, in practice, resulted in placing a higher burden of proof on the applicant.
Applicants have in most cases to argue that, in their specific case, the country is not safe, which shifts the burden of proof from the State to the applicant.

42.

While the UNHCR stated in general that the State in which a person claims for asylum has the burden of proving that it would be safe to transfer responsibility to a third country,27 it had to be the European Court of Human Rights to clarify in the case of Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, that such shifts must not be absolute.
In the Chamber judgement, the Court noted that the presumption of safety “involved a reversal of the burden of proof to the applicants’ detriment including the burden to prove the real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in a chain refoulement situation“.
Hence, the burden of proof cannot be reversed to the applicants’ detriment, it is to be seen as disproportionate to ask applicants to furnish prima facie evidence of their allegations of a real risk of torture or ill-treatment if returned to the third country.

However, as regards the burden of proof, “it is incumbent on the domestic authorities to carry out an assessment of that risk of their own motion when information about such a risk is ascertainable from a wide number of sources“.
In this case, Hungary failed to perform this assessment before removing the applicants to Serbia based on a safe third country list.28 The Grand Chamber confirmed the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, arguing that “it is the duty of the removing State to examine thoroughly the question whether or not there is a real risk of the asylum seeker being denied access, in the receiving third country, to an adequate asylum procedure, protecting him or her against refoulement“.29 43.
From a procedural point of view, the Court additionally emphasised the fact that, even if a country is presumed to be a safe third country, this presumption cannot be absolute and applicants must be able to challenge the latter by having a chance to put forward their arguments, in order to avoid bearing the entire burden of proof.

To be able to do so, applicants must be provided with the necessary information about the available procedure (Article 13 of the Convention).30 25.
According to the UNHCR, asylum seekers need to have a meaningful link with the third country.

It recognised that neither mere transit through a country nor a simple entitlement to enter a country, nor clear evidence of admissibility constitute such a link.
It seems reasonable that the mere transit of a refugee through a third country by plane, train, bus, lorry, car or even by walking cannot be sufficient to account for a “meaningful link”, especially because transit is often the result of fortuitous circumstances.

26.

L.H.

v. Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (No.

C-564/18), and F.M.S.

and Others v. Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság and Országos Idegenrendeszeti Főigazgatóság (Nos.

C-924/19 and C-925/19).


27.

According to the UNHCR 1998 Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, while the burden of proof lies with the asylum-seeker, the State official who examines the asylum claim carries with the asylum-seeker a shared duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts.
In its Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, the UNHCR also stated that, since the State in which a person claims for asylum has the primary responsibility for considering the claim, that country also has the burden of proving that it would be safe to transfer responsibility to a third country.

28.

29.

Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.

47287/15).

Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary ([GC], No.

47287/15).


12 In a case concerning Germany,31 the Court of Justice of the European Union furthermore clarified that 44. an interview must be conducted before an inadmissibility decision is taken, based on the safe third country principle under the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.

Doc.

15592 Report 4.

Conclusions 45.


With a view to the widely divergent approaches of the member States when applying the safe third country concept, the treatment of asylum seekers in the context of safe third country decisions remains a major human rights concern.
Bearing in mind that the determination of safe third countries may decide over the fate and suffering of refugees and asylum seekers, these human rights concerns urgently need to be addressed and should be at the core of member States’ considerations when applying this concept.

46.
46.

Elapse of time means potential human rights violations to be perpetuated, as it has needed applicants to reach a judgement in Strasbourg to have the European Court of Human Rights decide on violations of asylum seekers’ human rights by the transfer to an only presumably safe third country.

The jurisprudence of the Court confirmed that numerous persons’ human rights are at risk to be violated due to safe third country decisions until remedy can be sought.

47.
To prevent similar grave human rights violations as well as the risk of such in the future, member States of the Council of Europe should inform the Committee of Ministers on their safe third country practice and legislation in order to enable the elaboration of an up-dated Recommendation, containing a common set of minimum requirements for determining the safety of a third country that also takes into account jurisprudence, future legal developments and information provided by international courts and organisations.
48.

For the purpose of preventing this grave human rights violation and providing information on safe third country practices, member States should also provide information on the manner in which the burden of proof is handled in safe third country procedures to the Committee of Ministers.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees should also play a decisive role in this process.

49.
Hence, it is essential to improve the co-operation with relevant international organisations, in particular United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organization for Migration, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and European Union Agency for Asylum as well as with relevant regional and international NGOs such as the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, which are active on the ground and can provide real-time information on the security situation of a country and on the treatment of asylum seekers in member States.
The Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Migration and Refugees is also invited to engage in this co-operation.

50.

Further, information on national safe third country decisions would also increase transparency, while enabling the review of these decisions at European level, both from a political and legal perspective.
In this context, legal reviews by the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 38 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights or the UN Human Rights Council are particularly valuable.

National parliaments and the Assembly can play an important role in this regard, especially by monitoring national decisions and providing information on this matter.
Such reviews become particularly relevant when sudden changes in the political and legal regime of 51. safe third countries occur, as tragically demonstrated by the Russian aggression against Ukraine.

When such changes occur, reactions have to be timely to make sure that no safer third country decisions are issued to the countries concerned.

In addition, the situations in countries simultaneously affected by sudden changes, in this case by the armed conflict, have to be taken into account.
Currently, the reception centres of Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Hungary are highly overwhelmed by the large number of persons seeking shelter and protection.

Accordingly, reception conditions may not comply with human rights standards and issuing a safe third country return decision to these countries could severely undermine the rights of asylum seekers.

52.
52.

Finally, member States are strongly encouraged to establish objective and independent monitoring mechanisms to monitor national law and practice in this regard and ensure that international protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention is effectively granted to those in need.

30.

M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], No.

30696/09).

31.

Milkiyas Addis v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland (No.

C-517/17).

13 Doc.
C-517/17).

13 Doc.

15604 12 September 2022 Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Report1 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Rapporteur: Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Switzerland, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group Summary Pushbacks have taken on worrying proportions, taking place routinely on land, but also in the more deadly environment of the sea.
Allegations are no longer limited to just one or two countries, or one or two incidents, but have become widespread and, most worryingly, part of tolerated policy.

Pushbacks render the plight of migrants and refugees even harsher, heightening the risk to lose one’s life in an extremely perilous journey.

Changes to the law and practice in the Council of Europe member States to stop pushbacks at land and sea and to codify the principle of non-refoulement in national legislation are indispensable.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of its Protocol No.

4 prohibit State Parties from returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment as to whether this is safe.
Member States are called upon to take a series of measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks and to improve international co-operation and co- ordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection.

The well-functioning independent border monitoring mechanisms at national and European levels is key, European Union being often the main destination of migrants and refugees arriving to Europe.
The EU institutions should serve as guarantors of international human rights protection regarding the right to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement.

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should enhance its capacity to deal with allegations of pushbacks and allow for thorough investigation to bring those responsible for pushbacks to justice.
Given that civil society organisations play an important role in documenting cases of pushbacks, States should encourage and support their participation in the independent monitoring mechanisms at national and European levels.

Interstate solidarity is essential for making Europe stronger and more resilient to face today’s challenges.

Migration is a natural societal phenomenon and should be addressed collectively as a continent for Europe to benefit fully from its positive consequences.

1.
1.

Reference to committee: Doc.

15180, Reference 4548 of 20 November 2020. https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Doc.

15604 Report Contents Page A.

Draft resolution ........................................................................................................................................ 3 B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez, rapporteur ............................................................ 7 1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2.

The international and European legal framework on the prohibition of pushbacks ..............................7 2.1.

The United Nations ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.
The Council of Europe ................................................................................................................ 9 2.3.

The European Union .................................................................................................................12 3.

The role of civil society ......................................................................................................................14 4.
Encouraging measures at national level and domestic case law ...................................................... 15 5.

Pushbacks involving member States of the Council of Europe ......................................................... 15 5.1.

Pushbacks from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia ..............................................16 5.2.

Pushbacks to Türkiye ................................................................................................................17 5.3.
Pushbacks to Belarus ............................................................................................................... 18 5.4.

Pushbacks to Libya ...................................................................................................................18 6.

Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 19 2 Doc.

15604 Report A.
15604 Report A.

Draft resolution2 The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its Resolution 2299 (2019) and its Recommendation 2161 (2019) 1.

“Pushback policies and practice in Council of Europe member States” and the subsequent reply by the Committee of Ministers (Doc.

15088), in which it welcomed the Assembly’s continued attention to migrants and asylum seekers.
The term “pushbacks” is “in line with the violent and physical nature of the practices involved”, and it “may be applied broadly to cases of non-respect of human rights obligations related to refusal of entry into a country of persons seeking protection, the refoulement of those already within a territory, collective expulsion, obligations to carry out screenings, and other hostile action aimed to deny entry into European countries at land and sea borders”.
Pushback practices are also linked to “pullbacks”, which consist in agreements between States aiming to retain migrants on one side in exchange for financial or economic advantage.

2.

The Assembly notes that the Committee of Ministers stressed in its reply that the right to seek asylum must be respected, underscoring that asylum seekers have the right to an individual and fair examination of their applications by the competent authorities”.
The Committee of Ministers reiterated the obligation of the State receiving the asylum application to “ensure that return of the asylum seeker to his/her country of origin or any other country will not expose him/her to a real risk of the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, persecution, or serious violation of other fundamental rights which would, under international or national law, justify granting protection”.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5) and Article 4 of its Protocol No.

4 (ETS No.

46) prohibit member States of the Council of Europe returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment as to whether this is safe.

3.
The Assembly recalls its Resolution 2379 (2021) “Role of parliaments in implementing the United Nations global compacts for migrants and refugees” and Resolution 2408 (2021) “70th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention: the Council of Europe and the international protection of refugees”, where it agreed to support world efforts in protecting the right to asylum enshrined in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”) and other relevant international instruments.
4.

The Assembly deplores the profound disregard of international standards on the matter in some countries, combined with the instrumentalisation of migration flow for political purposes in others, and concludes that the right to asylum continues to be breached.

Border pushbacks have now taken on worrying proportions, taking place routinely on land and in the more deadly environment of the sea, becoming a pan- European problem which pertains to at least half of the member States.
Allegations are no longer limited to just one or two countries, or one or two incidents, but have become widespread and, most worryingly, part of tolerated policy.

Pushbacks from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina, from Greece to Türkiye, from Malta and Italy to Libya, from Hungary to Serbia, and from Poland to Belarus render the plight of migrants and refugees even harsher, heightening the risk to lose one’s life in an extremely perilous journey.
Furthermore, the Assembly calls upon the Council of Europe observer and member States, as well as 5.

States whose parliament enjoys the observer or partner for democracy status to the Assembly, to respect international obligations and to enhance interstate solidarity.

They should work together to guarantee the right to asylum, including member States from Central and Northern Europe.

Interstate solidarity is key for a stronger Europe from political, economic, social, and cultural perspective.
Migration is a natural societal phenomenon and should be addressed collectively as a continent to be more effective and to benefit fully from its positive consequences.

The Assembly welcomes the Recommendation of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human 6.

Rights, Ms Dunja Mijatović, “Pushed beyond the limits.
Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders”, where she addressed the role of members of parliament in preventing human rights violations at the borders, noting that parliamentarians can play an important role in preventing pushbacks, in line with their wider role as guarantors of human rights, both as legislators and as those responsible for carrying out democratic oversight of government action.

7.
7.

The Assembly underscores the importance of well-functioning independent border monitoring mechanisms at national and European levels.

It forewarns, however, against the risk of paying lip service to the principle of independence by those national authorities that try to undermine the independence of such bodies by making them either dependent on the government for funding, by imposing membership in 2.

Draft resolution adopted unanimously by the committee on 21 June 2022.

3 Doc.
3 Doc.

15604 Report oversight committees for government-friendly entities, by restricting their access to the border or migrant retention facilities, or by limiting their actions through other means.

It recalls the importance of democratic checks and balances and of independent monitoring in its fullest form.

8.

The Assembly notes that the European Union is often the main destination of migrants arriving to Europe.
The European Union institutions should, therefore, serve as guarantors of international human rights protection regarding the right to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement.

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should be called upon to enhance its capacity to deal with allegations of pushbacks and allow for thorough investigation to bring those responsible for pushbacks to justice.
The Assembly underscores that effective border control and the protection of fundamental rights are fully compatible.

The work of the Fundamental Rights Officer of Frontex should be, therefore, supported and its monitoring capacity enhanced.

9.

The Assembly deplores the use of anti-smuggling legislation against human rights defenders and people engaged in search and rescue operations on land and at sea, making access to asylum for people on the move harder to reach.
Right to asylum includes the right to be informed about asylum procedures, including by civil society organisations, advocacy groups, human rights defenders and specialised legal aid institutions.

States must ensure that the functioning of such bodies is not de facto prohibited by criminalising their actions.

10.
10.

The Assembly welcomes the decisions taken by regional courts in some countries, ruling in favour of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers who had been pushed back outside the European Union’s external borders, underscoring that the practice of pushing back asylum seekers gave rise to a violation of the principle of human dignity.

11.
11.

The Assembly calls for changes to the law and practice in the Council of Europe member States to stop pushbacks at land and sea and to codify the principle of non-refoulement in national legislation.
In specific terms, it asks member States to take measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks and to improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection, as follows: 11.1. as regards prevention: to prevent all forms of “pushback” and “pullback” actions regarding migrants, refugees, 11.1.1. and asylum seekers.
Priority should be given to ensuring that border management is aligned with international law and human rights obligations.

The Assembly underscores the need to ensure the individual assessment of protection needs and of the safety of a return in order to prevent violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the prohibition of collective expulsions, as enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No.
4 to the Convention; 11.1.2. to establish secured access to border checkpoints, notably representatives of national prevention mechanisms should have full access to the checkpoints and retention facilities, where such exist, to ensure full respect of international asylum norms; 11.1.3. to make the national legislation and policies human rights-compliant and to amend migration legislation with a view to prevent and prohibit pushbacks and the denial of right to asylum; 11.1.4. to make the relevant legal framework accessible, precise and clear to all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, available, as much as possible, in languages for them to understand the procedure.
Relevant and effective means of redress should be in place in cases of denial of asylum in first instance; 11.1.5. considering that the civil society’s role in upholding and advancing democratic values and fundamental rights, including the right to asylum, is crucial, especially as they play an important role in documenting cases of pushbacks, to encourage and support their participation in the independent monitoring mechanisms at national and European levels.
Independent border monitoring mechanisms should be able to verify misconduct by State border police and report on it to the competent judicial authorities.

Council of Europe member States must respect the role of non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders in conformity with their commitments, as set out in Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe; 4 Doc.
15604 Report 11.2. as regards protection: to develop specific programmes to protect the victims of pushbacks, possibly in the 11.2.1. framework of the Council of Europe Action Plan on Protecting Vulnerable Persons in the Context of Migration and Asylum in Europe (2021-2025) and to ensure that effective complaints mechanisms for the victims are in place.
Urgent measures must be taken to ensure the protection of most vulnerable migrants and refugees: children, women, people with disabilities, and elderly people.

An absolute prohibition of pushbacks of migrant children should be in place in all Council of Europe member States; 11.2.2.
States members of the European Union should take measures to bring the European Union law and practice in compliance with human rights standards, as mentioned in the Assembly Resolution 2416 (2022) “European Union Pact on Migration and Asylum: a human rights perspective”.

This should include legal guarantees clearly established in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Practices violating the right to apply for asylum should stop; 11.3. as regards prosecution: 11.3.1. to ensure that allegations of pushbacks are fully investigated and those responsible are held to account to dissuade the continuation of such practices.
The Assembly reiterates, therefore, the importance of the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the prohibition of collective expulsions, which apply also during emergency situations; 11.3.2. to comply with judgments of national courts and of the European Court of Human Rights, including their interim measures, in relation to pushbacks and refusing access to asylum and even to an asylum procedure, and to follow up recommendations of national independent bodies such as ombudspersons, as stated in Resolution 2299 (2019), keeping in mind that codifying the principle of non-refoulement in national legislation is key; 11.4. as regards international co-operation and co-ordination: 11.4.1. to strengthen international co-operation and co-ordination in the fields of border protection, on the one hand, and migration management, on the other.
This is of great relevance as regards search and rescue operations at sea which should be effective, saving lives being the primary objective.
International co-operation and co-ordination at sea should, therefore, be further enhanced to prevent human tragedy at Europe’s maritime borders; 11.4.2. co-operation between border police authorities should include specialised training on the application of international standards in access to an asylum procedure, to ensure that relevant measures are in place for any individual indicating their need to seek international protection.
New technological means can be used to improve access to relevant procedures and provide relevant information to asylum seekers in various languages; to enhance international co-operation at regional and world levels to take stock of the 11.4.3. real progress on the right to asylum.
The work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees follow-up actions to ensure full compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the actions of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and of the Special Representative of the Council of Europe Secretary General on Migration and Refugees must guide public policies, in addition to the relevant treaty bodies; to further develop international co-operation between EU and non-EU countries’ border 11.4.4. police structures, with the participation of Frontex, with the aim of upgrading the competences of border police in the Council of Europe member States as regards the right to asylum, in full compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant treaties.
Redress measures for failure to respect the law should be clearly stated and applied.

12.

The Assembly welcomes the new initiatives aimed at ensuring protection of Europe’s borders in full respect of fundamental rights and dignity of those who attempt to cross the borders.
It calls for an open and constructive discussion based on the findings of the feasibility study that was launched for setting up a robust and independent human rights monitoring mechanism at the external borders of the European Union on 4 May 2022.

5 Doc.

15604 Report 13.

Finally, the Assembly calls for stronger commitment to upholding human rights standards at Europe’s borders.
Time has come for parliamentarians to stand up against pushbacks and to follow the developments closely both at the national and European levels.

6 B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez, rapporteur Doc.

15604 Report 1.

Introduction 1.

As States tighten their border control measures, denials of entry and expulsion of individuals without any individual assessment of international protection needs have been widely documented as a growing phenomenon at the European Union’s external borders.
This lack of individual assessment is highly detrimental to the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, as it violates their right to seek asylum and the principle of non-refoulement.

These practices, which are systematic in several countries, are referred to as “pushbacks”.
In a 2. previous report of the Parliamentary Assembly released in June 2019, Ms Tineke Strik (Netherlands, SOC) clarified this notion by stating that the term “is in line with the violent and physical nature of the practices involved”, and added that it “may be applied broadly to cases of non-respect of human rights obligations related to refusal of entry into a country of persons seeking protection, the refoulement of those already within a territory, collective expulsion, obligations to carry out screenings, and other hostile action aimed to deny entry into European countries at land and sea borders”.3 Pushback practices are also linked to “pullbacks”, which consist in agreements between States aiming to retain migrants on one side in exchange for financial or economic advantage.
3.

In the continuity of the previous report released in 2019, the committee will emphasise the necessity for member States to comply with the legal framework prohibiting pushback practices and policies, and highlight numerous guidelines to help States avoid practices that are not in line with human rights and refugee rights commitments.

4.
4.

The tragic consequences of the Russian aggression against Ukraine that forced millions of people to seek refuge either in Ukraine or abroad have been covered in Resolution 2448 (2022) “Humanitarian consequences and internal and external migration in connection with the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine”, adopted on the basis of my report (Doc.

15547).

2.

The international and European legal framework on the prohibition of pushbacks 2.1.

The United Nations 5.


The non-refoulement principle, cornerstone of refugee protection guaranteed by the 1951 Geneva Convention in its Article 33.1, prevents refugees from being expelled or returned to the frontiers of territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened in consideration of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
In this regard, States have the obligation to ensure that measures at their borders provide an individual assessment of each situation.

6.

Collective expulsions are also prohibited as a principle of general international law.
Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UN Convention against Torture) extends the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention to include the prohibition of expulsion, refoulement or extradition of any person to another State where they fear to be in danger or subjected to torture.4 Moreover, the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights apply to all individuals, regardless of their legal status and documentation.5 The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea also states the duty to render assistance to any person in distress at sea.
The necessity to comply with the above-mentioned legal framework has been recalled in the UN Global 7.

Compact on Refugees6 as well as in the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.7 2.1.1.

United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) The UNHCR has been extremely active in addressing violations of refugees and asylum seekers’ 8. fundamental rights, especially in the context of pushbacks.

PACE, “Pushback policies and practice in Council of Europe Member States”, 8 June 2019, Doc.
14909. https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/committee-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-general-comment-no-20-non- 3.

4.

United Nations, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984.

5. discrimination.

6.

United Nations Global Compact on Refugees, 2018.

7.

A/RES/73/195.

7 Doc.

15604 Report 9.


Regarding the increasing practices of expulsions and pushbacks of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees at the European Union’s external borders, the UNHCR has, in January 2021, called on the European Union and its member States to end these practices urgently and to conduct independent investigations.8 Indeed, the UNHCR stated that it received numerous reports of some European States carrying out pushbacks “in a violent and apparently systematic way”.
It recalled that the 1951 Refugee Convention as well as the European legal framework require States to ensure the right to seek asylum by “undertaking an individual assessment of those in need of protection”, “even if they enter irregularly”.

It specified that the Covid-19 pandemic provided no exception to the obligation of ensuring a fair and speedy access to asylum procedures.

10.
10.

More recently, the UN Refugee Agency shared its sorrow concerning the deaths of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers occurring near the border between Poland and Belarus.

It recalled its growing concern following the reports of pushbacks carried out at the borders of Lithuania, Latvia and Belarus and stated that pushbacks are a threat to the life of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and are prohibited under international law.
The UNHCR called for the States to work collaboratively on this matter and to prioritise human rights.9 11.

In its “Recommendations for the French and Czech Presidencies of the Council of the European Union (EU)” in 2022, the UNHCR explained that it “remains gravely concerned about systematic and increasingly violent pushbacks at the EU’s external borders.

The various human rights violations they encompass are clearly at odds with EU and international law.
MS must end these practices and investigations should be conducted into credible reports”.10 In February 2022, triggered by an ever increasing number of incidents of violence and serious human 12. rights violations at various European borders, several of which have resulted in tragic loss of life, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, denounced that “Violence, ill-treatment and pushbacks continue to be regularly reported at multiple entry points at land and sea borders, within and beyond the EU, despite repeated calls...” and expressed fear that “these deplorable practices now risk becoming normalized, and policy based.
They reinforce a harmful and unnecessary ‘fortress Europe’ narrative.” He called on States to “uphold their commitments and respect fundamental human rights, including the right to life and right to asylum.

How Europe chooses to protect asylum-seekers and refugees matters and is precedent-setting not only in the region but also globally”.11 2.1.2. International Organization for Migration (IOM) 13.
The IOM has repeatedly expressed its concern about persistent reports of pushbacks and collective expulsions, particularly concerning those occurring at the EU border between Greece and Türkiye.12 It stated that priority should be given to ensuring that border management is aligned with international law and in accordance with human rights obligations.
In line with the statements released by the UNHCR, the IOM, in February 2021, also called on EU 14. member States to take urgent action to end pushback practices and the use of violence against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers at the EU’s land and sea external borders.13 Indeed, the IOM conducted direct interactions with migrants which confirmed the documented reports it received demonstrating the level of violence these persons experienced before being pushed back across maritime and land borders.
15.

The IOM underlined the prohibition of pushbacks and collective expulsion under international and European law, and welcomed recent investigations initiated by several EU Member States into allegations of pushbacks.

The IOM highlighted multiple times the need to improve migration and asylum policy, and offered its continuous support to the EU member States on implementing migration governance respecting the human rights of every individual.
8. www.unhcr.org/news/press/2021/1/601121344/unhcr-warns-asylum-under-attack-europes-borders-urges-end- pushbacks-violence.html.

9. www.unhcr.org/news/press/2021/10/6172af254/unhcr-urges-states-end-stalemate-belarus-eu-border-avoid-further- loss-life.html.

10. www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=search&docid=61d71e864&skip=0&query=UNHCR %20Recommendations%20EU%20French%20Presidency.
11. www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/2/62137a284/news-comment-unhcr-warns-increasing-violence-human-rights- violations-european.html.

12. www.iom.int/news/iom-alarmed-over-reports-pushbacks-greece-eu-border-turkey.

13. www.iom.int/news/iom-calls-end-pushbacks-and-violence-against-migrants-eu-external-borders.

8 Doc.

15604 Report 2.1.3.

Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Following the resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council in June 202014, the UN Special 16.
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Felipe González Morales, released a report on means to address the human rights impact of pushbacks of migrants on land and at sea.15 He conducted an examination on current global practices and concluded that there had been an alarming increase of pushback practices occurring in numerous States on a worldwide scale, often including the use of force.
The Special Rapporteur stated that “pushbacks manifest an entrenched prejudice against migrants” which results in the denial of access to human rights-based and individualised assessment of applications for international protection.

The Special Rapporteur expressed numerous recommendations to put an end to pushback practices.

17.
17.

First, he urged States to implement and fully respect international and regional human rights obligations, to ratify the core international human rights instruments and harmonise their domestic legislation with the prohibition of collective expulsions and refoulement.
Moreover, the Special Rapporteur called on States to ensure an individual examination and effective remedy before a judicial authority, and to set appropriate administrative and legislative mechanisms to ensure an effective access to rights to all migrants.

Finally, it encouraged States to acknowledge the role of civil society organizations in addressing and monitoring pushbacks and urged them not to criminalise private actors who carry out rescue operations to help migrants in distress.

2.2.
2.2.

The Council of Europe 2.2.1.

European Court of Human Rights 18.

Despite the absence of the right to seek asylum being expressly enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court requires member States to provide an individual assessment of protection needs and an effective access to asylum procedures to prevent the breach of Article 3 (torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No.
4 of the Convention, which prohibits collective expulsions of aliens.

Article 13 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to an effective remedy, also applies in the context of prohibition of pushback policies.
According to the former European Commission of Human Rights, collective expulsions refer to “any 19. measure of the competent authority compelling aliens as a group to leave the country, except where such a measure is taken after and on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group”.16 The need to provide individualised assessments of applications to international protection is thus at the core of the Court’s case law.
In the key case Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy,17 the Court held that automatic returns without 20. individual assessment and the lack of access to a legal redress constitutes an infringement to the above- mentioned legal provisions.

The Court found “that the transfer of the applicants to Libya was carried out without any form of examination of each applicant’s individual situation.
It has not been disputed that the applicants were not subjected to any identification procedure by the Italian authorities, which restricted themselves to embarking all the intercepted migrants onto military ships and disembarking them on Libyan soil.

Moreover, the Court notes that the personnel aboard the military ships were not trained to conduct individual interviews and were not assisted by interpreters or legal advisers.
That is sufficient for the Court to rule out the existence of sufficient guarantees ensuring that the individual circumstances of each of those concerned were actually the subject of a detailed examination.

Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the removal of the applicants was of a collective nature, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No.

4 to the Convention.

Accordingly, there has been a violation of that Article”.

While concluding on the breach of Article 4 of Protocol No.
4 by Italy due to its pushback practices in international waters together with Libya, the Court enshrined the need for States to respect the Convention’s standards while exercising their jurisdiction outside their national territory, thus prohibiting collective expulsions at sea.

14.

A/HRC/RES/43/6.

15.

A/HRC/47/30 (www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Migration/SRMigrants/Pages/Pushback-practices.aspx).

16.

European Court of Human Rights, 3 October 1975, Henning Becker v. Denmark, Application no.

7011/75.

17.
7011/75.

17.

European Court of Human Rights, 26 May 2009, Hirsi and others v Italy, no.

27765/09, para.

185-186.

9 Doc.

15604 Report 21.

In 2019, the Court ruled in the case Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary that the pushback of two Bangladeshi nationals to Serbia did not provide effective safeguards from the risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, considering the real risk, at the time, of further expulsion to North Macedonia and to Greece.
This shows the particular attention of the Court towards chain pushbacks.18 22.

In 2020, in the joint cases N.D. and N.T.

v. Spain, the Court held that migrants who had wilfully failed to comply with official asylum procedures and irregularly entered the Spanish territory as part of a large group placed themselves at risk deliberately.19 Thus, the Grand Chamber of the Court concluded there had been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol no 4 of the Convention.
The international community criticised this judgement for not following the Court’s previous case law nor the international standards regulating the prohibition of pushbacks.20 In her dissenting opinion, Judge Koskelo held that the shift in focus from the well-established requirements under the obligation of non-refoulement to the setting on a new criterion based on the “own conduct” of individuals seeking international protection will lead to uncertainties and practical difficulties in the future.

23.
23.

When the European Court of Human Rights condemns a State for a violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention, structural indications are given to the State where necessary to adapt its domestic law in accordance with the Convention.

Furthermore, several tools aiming to provide member States with guidelines relating to migration policies have been created to assist legal professionals and State authorities in this matter.
The Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP) of the Council of Europe offers online courses dealing with Asylum and Human Rights as well as Refugee and Migrant Children which can be useful for the training of migration authorities.

2.2.2.

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights 24.
The Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, has released numerous statements urging States to prevent the denial of access to asylum and the return of migrants and refugees without individual safeguards.

She has also called for an end to what has become the normalisation of pushback practices21 and deplored the regrettable building of walls and fences, the restrictions on asylum applications and pushback policies in the context of the crisis faced by the people of Afghanistan.22 25.
The Commissioner for Human Rights also corresponds directly with member States of the Council of Europe by addressing letters to public authorities.
In this regard, the Commissioner urged Malta to refrain from conducting unlawful returns of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers to Libya in 2020.23 More recently, she addressed a letter urging the Cypriot authorities to investigate allegations of pushbacks and ill-treatment of migrants due to numerous documented reports indicating that boats carrying migrants had been prevented from disembarking in Cyprus and summarily returned in a systematic manner.24 The Commissioner also addressed a letter to the Prime Minister of Lithuania to express her concern about the breach of access to fair asylum procedures and allegations of summary returns of migrants without adequate safeguards.25 The Commissioner regularly publishes third party interventions to the European Court of Human Rights.
26.

In a recent case concerning three Syrian applicants pushed back from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina,26 the Commissioner shared her concern about the existence of an established practice of collective returns of migrants from Croatia, as referred to in her observations of December 2020 (CommDH(2020)33).27 These are 18.

European Court of Human Rights, 21 November 2019, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, no 47287/15.

19.

European Court of Human Rights, 13 February 2020, N.D. and N.T.
v. Spain, nos 8675/15 and 8697/15.

20. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/66629 21. www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/european-states-must-stand-up-against-pushbacks-and-the-attempt-to-legalise- them.

22. www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/in-their-response-to-afghans-seeking-safety-council-of-europe-member-states- should-not-undermine-human-rights-protections.
23. www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/commissioner-urges-malta-to-meet-its-obligations-to-save-lives-at-sea-ensure- prompt-and-safe-disembarkation-and-investigate-allegations-of-delay-or-no.

24. www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/cypriot-authorities-should-investigate-allegations-of-pushbacks-and-ill-treatment- of-migrants-improve-reception-conditions-and-ensure-an-enabling-envi.
25. www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/lithuania-safeguards-in-asylum-procedures-and-preventing-pushbacks-should- be-central-to-response-to-migration-challenges.

26.

European Court of Human Rights, S.B.

v. Croatia, A.A. v. Croatia and A.B.

v Croatia, nos 18810/19, 18865/19 and 23495/19.

27. www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/-/commissioner-publishes-observations-on-summary-returns-of-migrants-from- croatia-to-bosnia-and-herzegovina 10 Doc.
15604 Report reportedly carried out without any assessment of the migrant’s individual situation, leading to systematic breaches of Croatia’s international obligations, as she had underscored in the exchanges of views with the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons on 2 December 2020 and on 27 April 2022.

27.

Her Recommendation entitled “Pushed beyond the limits.
Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders” identifies four concrete areas where urgent action would be required: member States must implement their legal obligations in good faith; there is a need to strengthen transparency and accountability for actions at borders; tackling pushbacks requires all member States to act together, and parliamentarians have a key role as legislators to guarantee respect of human rights standards.
Parliamentarians played an important role also by carrying out democratic oversight of government action.

I, therefore, commend Commissioner Mijatović’s efforts to enhance respect for human rights standards at Europe’s borders and her call for stronger commitment by members of parliaments in that regard.

2.2.3.

Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) 28.
As part of its role as a non-judicial preventive mechanism to protect persons against torture and ill- treatment, the CPT conducts visits in all Council of Europe member States aiming to assess how persons deprived of their liberty are treated.

29.

In 2020, the CPT published a report concerning its ad hoc visit to Greece in March of the same year.
Although it recognised the significant challenges Greece is facing in terms of the number of migrants entering the Greek territory, the committee urged the Greek authorities to comply with their human rights obligations.28 It recalled the consistent allegations of migrants being pushed back to Türkiye and the need for the Greek authorities to put an end to these practices and to prevent them from happening.
Moreover, the CPT underlined the unlawful methods carried out by the Greek Coast Guard consisting in preventing boats carrying migrants from reaching the Greek islands and questioned the role of Frontex in such actions.

2.2.4.

Special Representative of the Secretary General on Migration and Refugees 30.

Under her mandate, the Special Representative provides advice to member States on legal aspects of migrants and refugees’ human rights standards.
In 2020, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, along with the Special Representative, published a report on “Border controls and fundamental rights at external land borders”, which provides practical guidance aiming to support border-management authorities and member States to implement the fundamental rights safeguards of the EU law instruments.29 31.
Moreover, the Special Representative published a second joint note with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights in 2021.30 Focusing on effective remedies for human rights violations at EU’s external borders, the note emphasised the need for member States to conduct independent investigations, which must adequately establish the facts and be thorough and objective.
The investigations should also remain accessible to the victim and investigating authorities must co-operate with the relevant authorities of other States involved, particularly in cross-border cases.

32.
32.

Recently, the Special Representative has published a report on her fact-finding mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina.31 This report highlights structural deficiencies concerning access to asylum and emphasised the need for the relevant legal framework to be accessible, precise and clear to all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

The Special Representative also drew the attention of the authorities to the need to implement legislation in accordance with the refugee and migrants’ fundamental rights.
28. www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-s-anti-torture-committee-calls-on-greece-to-reform-its-immigration- detention-system-and-stop-pushbacks.

29. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/border-controls-and-fundamental-rights-external-land-borders.

30. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2021/legal-remedies-borders.

31.
31.

Report of the fact-finding mission by Ambassador Drahoslav Štefánek, Special Representative of the Secretary General on migration and refugees, to Bosnia and Herzegovina, 24-30 January 2021, SG/Inf(2021)19.

11 Doc.

15604 Report 2.3.

The European Union 2.3.1.

The EU legislation 33.

EU primary and secondary legislation also provides protection against pushback policies and practices.
Article 78 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that the European common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection must ensure compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.

Such guarantee is also provided by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in its Articles 18 and 19, recognising the right to asylum and the absolute prohibition on collective expulsions.
The Qualification Directive32 incorporated the 1951 Refugee Convention standards for the qualification of refugees and persons in need of international protection into EU law, thus prohibiting member States from expelling migrants, refugees and asylum seekers to a State where they face a real risk of persecution.

34.
34.

Additionally, the Directive 2008/115 on the return of illegally staying third-country nationals sets out the standard procedures applicable to their return, “in accordance with fundamental rights as general principles of Community law as well as international law, including refugee protection and human rights obligations”.
EU member States are also required to conduct an individual registration and examination of all asylum applications under the Asylum Procedures Directive.33 In the event of a massive influx of arrivals of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, Article 6 of the Asylum Procedures Directive enables the prolongation of the delay to register and examine asylum applications.

However, authorities do not have the right to deny the right to seek asylum.

35.
35.

The Schengen Borders Code, which regulates the border control of persons crossing the external borders of EU member States, also underlines the necessity to respect the principle of non-refoulement and the fundamental rights of refugees and persons requesting international protection in its Articles 3 and 4.34 Under Article 14 (3) of the same regulation, a person whose entry was refused at a border crossing point has a right to appeal.
In September 2020, the European Commission published a proposal for a New Pact on Migration and 36.
Asylum.35 The New Pact includes new instruments concerning the conduct of migration influx, such as a proposal for a pre-entry screening applicable to third-country nationals arriving at the EU external border, introducing common rules on individual identification, fingerprinting and registration of migrants.36 Although this proposal aims to provide new legal safeguards to ensure a full assessment of each individual, the proposed Pact raises significant concerns.
Indeed, a report prepared by the Assembly on the proposed pact highlights the fact that the accelerated procedure implied by the screening proposal may increase the risk of violation of the principle of non-refoulement.37 The New Pact also raises concerns in terms of access to asylum, detention and expulsion.

37.
37.

In the context of the instrumentalisation of unlawful immigration by the Belarusian regime, 12 EU member States have made a request to the European Commission expressing their wish to build fences at the EU’s external borders funded by the EU budget.38 Such an unfortunate proposal, which would lead to severe violations of European and international human rights standards, has been turned down by the Commission.

38.
38.

On 24 January 2022, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2416 (2022) “European Union Pact on Migration and Asylum: a human rights perspective”.

The resolution urged improvements to the proposed new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum.
The Assembly welcomed the EU’s commitment to integrating European human rights fully into all its policies on migration and asylum but said its proposed new Pact on Migration and Asylum was “very complex” and raised concerns that proposed accelerated asylum procedures may reduce their quality and fairness.

The Assembly recommended that EU member States agree to a mandatory relocation system, as a measure of solidarity with EU border countries, prioritising the cases of family reunion 32.
Qualification directive (2011/95/UE).

33.

Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, pp.

60-95).

34.

Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and the Council of 9 March 2016 on a Union Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code).

35.

COM/2020/609.

36.

COM/2020/612 final.

37.


Assembly report entitled “European Union Pact on Migration and Asylum: a human rights perspective”, rapporteur Mr Oleksii Goncharenko (Ukraine, EC/DA), Doc.

15438.

38. www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/twelve-member-states-ask-commission-to-finance-physical- barriers-as-border-protection-measures/?_ga=2.249979268.300093433.1637312323-950053773.1637312323.

12 Doc.

15604 Report and unaccompanied migrant children.


It also invited the EU to amend the Pact’s proposed Screening Regulation to ensure that it includes an effective suspensive remedy against incorrect screening categorisation, and to better address the needs of persons in vulnerable situations, victims of human trafficking and women victims of gender-based violence.
European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson, taking part in the debate remotely, underlined that the proposals sought to manage arrivals in an orderly way.

Not all people seeking entry to the EU have a right to stay, she pointed out, but all should have a fair assessment, a clear decision within a reasonable time, and be treated with respect and dignity.

She welcomed the Assembly’s report and pledged to take it into account.

2.3.2.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 39.
In the judgement European Commission v. Hungary, the CJEU ruled that Hungary had failed to comply with its obligation under EU law due to the lack of effective access to procedures granting international protection and the illegal pushbacks of third-country nationals to Serbia.39 Applications for international protection could only be made from one of the two transit zones at the Serbian-Hungarian border thus drastically limiting the possibility for claiming asylum.40 In addition, the Court underlined that the systematic nature of the detention regime provided in the Hungarian transit zones violated fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU legislation.
Following this judgement, the European agency Frontex suspended all operations in Hungary.

40.

However, in February 2021, an alleged number of 4 903 people were pushed back to Serbia since the Court’s judgement, according to the Hungarian Helsinki Committee along with other human rights advocacy groups.41 2.3.3.

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) 41.
Created to provide EU Member States and non-EU countries with operational and technical assistance in search and rescue operations at sea, Frontex has the duty to act in accordance with EU law and conduct actions aimed at saving lives.42 However, the European agency has been strongly criticised for operating in areas where illegal and violent pushbacks were reported by several international and European non- governmental groups, including in Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece and Malta.43 Frontex introduced an Individual Complaints Mechanism in 2016, allowing any individual whose rights 42. have been violated during a Frontex operation to submit a complaint to the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer.
Considering the alleged breaches of fundamental rights conducted by Frontex, the EU Ombudsman evaluated Frontex accountability mechanisms between 2016 and 2021.

In her report released in June 2021, she underlined that the mechanism was subject to “inadequate transparency”, even though progress was now being made.44 43.
The Frontex Scrutiny Working Group of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, constituted at the beginning of 2021, released a report summarising a four-month investigation on alleged violations of fundamental rights in which Frontex was involved or did not report.45 Following this report, in September 2021, the Committee on Budgetary Control asked for the freeze of a part of Frontex’s budget due to unresolved issues in the conduct of its operations on cross-border crime and illegal immigration.46 44.
On 28 February 2022, the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office, Ville Itälä, presented the agency’s report on Frontex at a meeting of the Committees on Budgetary Control and on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.

It looked into allegations of misconduct within Frontex in connection with human rights violations at the EU’s external borders.
According to the summary, the report, which allegedly MEPs did not have access to, revealed that Frontex’s management was aware of human rights violations and deliberately avoided reporting them.

Frontex’s management have denied any wrongdoing, pointing instead to 39.

European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, European Commission v. Hungary, 17 December 2020, C‑808/18.

40. https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/p1_3362761/en.
41. www.infomigrants.net/en/post/29944/hungary-4903-pushbacks-after-eu-court-declared-them-illegal.

42.

Regulation (UE) 2016/1624; Regulation (EU) 2019/1896.

43. www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/23/frontex-failing-protect-people-eu-borders.

44. www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/143108#_ftnref4.

45.

LIBE Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Report on the fact-finding investigation on Frontex concerning alleged fundamental rights violations, 14 July 2021.
46. www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210923IPR13401/ep-committee-asks-for-part-of-frontex-budget-to- be-frozen.

13 Doc.

15604 Report supposed ambiguities in EU regulations.

As a member of the Frontex Management Board, the European Commission was asked to decide on the action to be taken against the agency’s Executive Director.

Further to that, Mr Leggeri, the Head of Frontex, resigned on 29 April 2022.47 45.
In June 2021, Mr Jonas Grimheden took up the post of Fundamental Rights Officer for Frontex, and his work, along with that of his staff, many of whom still need to be appointed, will be important in the context of ongoing scrutiny of Frontex’s border actions.
At its meeting of 28-29 April 2022, the Frontex’s Management Board clearly stated that effective border control and the protection of fundamental rights are fully compatible.48 This should now be ensured by the Frontex’s Fundamental Rights Officer and his team.

46.

On 20 April 2022, I visited Frontex Headquarters in Warsaw, Poland.

This visit was triggered because of allegations that Frontex colluded in pushbacks.
I met with Mr Jonas Grimheden and Fundamental Rights Monitors from his team: Ms Delphine Buffat, Ms Katarzyna Wencel, Ms Luana Scarcella.

I also met with Mr Lars Gerdes, Frontex Deputy Executive Director for Returns and Operations, Ms Ana Cristina Jorge, Director of Operational Response Division, Mr Dirk Vande Ryse, Director of Situational Awareness and Monitoring Division, Ms Anna Polak, Head of the Executive Affairs Unit, and Ms Eleonora Maffezzoli, Senior Policy Officer in the Executive Affairs Unit.
I regretted the fact that Frontex representatives considered that there had been allegations but no evidence (inquiries were carried out at the time of my visit).

I had a strong impression that Frontex must have known about cases of pushbacks and invited Frontex 47. to conduct serious investigations and take measures to prevent pushbacks in future.

The EU institutions should, indeed, serve as guarantors of international human rights protection regarding the right to asylum.
Frontex should be called upon to enhance its capacity to deal with allegations of pushbacks and allow for thorough investigation to bring those responsible to justice.

The work of the Fundamental Rights Officer of Frontex should be, therefore, supported and its monitoring capacity enhanced.

2.3.4.
New initiatives I am aware about the new initiatives aimed at ensuring the protection of Europe’s borders in full respect 48. of fundamental rights and dignity of those who attempt to cross them, such as the launch of the feasibility study for the setting up of a robust and independent human rights monitoring mechanism at the external borders of the European Union on 4 May 2022, voiced by a group of authors (Mr Markus Jaeger, Mr Apostolis Fotiadis, Ms Elspeth Guild and Ms Lora Vidović), with the support of the rapporteur for the Assembly’s 2019 report entitled “Pushback policies and practice in Council of Europe member States”, Ms Tineke Strik (MEP, Greens/EFA, Netherlands).
Such new initiatives should be welcomed.

3.

The role of civil society 49.

Civil society’s role in upholding and advancing democratic values and pluralism in society is crucial.

To this end, the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations of the Council of Europe is the representative body of INGOs within the Council of Europe.

50.
50.

Many non-governmental organisations, such as the Border Violence Monitoring Network, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Danish Refugee Council are engaged in monitoring, documenting and reporting existing border violence.

Many are also active in public and private advocacy, and others take part in life-saving search and rescue operations, humanitarian assistance, as well as legal aid.

51.
51.

According to the figures published by the Danish Refugee Council, from December 2019 until the end of December 2021 over 23 614 pushbacks were recorded,49 as well as a rise in the number of pushbacks accompanied by violence, torture, confiscation and destruction of personal belongings.
The unlawful actions by border police were recorded also by the Centre for Peace Studies in Croatia, which submitted five criminal complaints to the State Attorney’s Office against the unknown perpetrators’ police officials, who tortured, humiliated and pushed back refugees from the territory of Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Criminal complaints referred to a case of pushbacks that concerned 33 persons, that led to physical marking of refugees with orange spray all over their heads in June 2020, the case of torture and humiliation of 16 refugees in July 2020, a case of torture, rape and pushback after the victims were released from the Court in 47. www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/04/29/frontex-boss-leggeri-resigns-from-eu-border-control- agency_5981965_4.html.
48. https://frontex.europa.eu/media-centre/management-board-updates/management-board-conclusions-from-the- extraordinary-mb-meeting-of-28-29-april-2022-nr08YV.

49.

DRC, “Pushbacks Feature”.

14 Doc.


15604 Report December 2020, a case of a violent pushback from the railway, with refugees who were forced to undress, got beaten and humiliated, as well as a case of an Afghan family of six with a pregnant women, who were denied their right to seek international protection, put into a van, brought to the border and ordered to leave Croatian territory in August 2021.

52.
52.

In an attempt to discourage new migration flows, a disconcerting number of NGOs in Greece, Italy, Malta and Croatia have been criminalised by State authorities, often using anti-smuggling legislation and accusations of facilitating irregular migration.
Their independence, neutrality and impartiality have been in many instances questioned.50 Ignoring the humanitarian imperative, individuals and civil society organisations supporting people on the move have been in many cases (for example Greece, Croatia, Italy, Malta) heavily criminalised.

The reasoning behind this approach is that the poorest the services provided, the less people will be seeking international protection and/or residency in EU countries.

53.
53.

On 20 February 2022, during my mission to Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, I met the representatives of the Border Violence Monitoring Network: Ms Milena Zajović, Head of Advocacy Border Violence Monitoring Network and President of Are You Syrious, Ms Sara Kekuš, Project Manager, Centre for Peace Studies, and Ms Alexandra Bogos, Advocacy and Legal Coordinator, Border Violence Monitoring Network, whose contributions to my report were very valuable and timely.

4.
4.

Encouraging measures at national level and domestic case law 54.

Although an alarming pattern of increasing pushback practices can be observed among European States and more globally, on a worldwide scale, several EU Member States have recently ruled in favour of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers who had been pushed back at the EU’s external borders.
One such decision was recently adopted by an Austrian regional court in July 2021, which ruled that the practice of pushing back asylum seekers to Slovenia gave rise to a violation of the principle of human dignity.51 A similar verdict was issued by the Administrative Court of Ljubljana in July 2020, which held that the pushback of a Cameroonian asylum seeker to Croatia and the denial of his right to seek asylum violated the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.52 55.
The UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants depicted numerous promising measures aiming to prevent and condemn pushback practices in his latest report.

He noted that many States have codified the principle of non-refoulement in their domestic legislation.

This key principle has also been enshrined in some countries’ constitutions, such as in Austria and Finland.53 56.
More concretely, a secured access to border checkpoints has been established in some States such as Switzerland, where border police authorities must ensure access to the asylum procedure to any individual indicating their need to seek international protection.

It is however not just law that is important, it is also practice and the training of police and migration authorities that is essential to prevent the perpetration of pushbacks.

5.

Pushbacks involving member States of the Council of Europe 57.
The illegal practice of pushbacks has been reported in a concerning number of Council of Europe countries including pushbacks to third countries such as Belarus and Libya.

A brief presentation of the most notable case studies, namely those to Belarus and Libya, will be made here in an attempt to highlight the current situation.

People on the move are often the victims not only of a humanitarian crisis but also of political games 58. putting their lives and freedom at risk.
Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers have been instrumentalised as a means of providing political pressure.

This has happened in relation to Türkiye and Greece, together with the European Union.

It has also happened more recently with Belarus and its neighbours, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia, and the European Union.

50.

See para.

5 and 108, https://rm.coe.int/expert-council-conf-exp-2020-4-opinion-ngo-registration-greece/16809ee91d.
51. www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/austrian-regional-court-rules-that-push-backs-on-slovenian-border-are- unlawful/.

52. https://balkaninsight.com/2021/08/19/courts-chip-away-at-migrant-pushback-practices-in-eu/.

53.

A/HRC/47/30.

15 Doc.

15604 Report 59.


The majority of the Council of Europe countries engaging in such practices are also EU members neighbouring with non-EU States mandated to act as the guardians of the European Union’s external borders (for example Greece, Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Italy, Spain).
Within this framework, the EU itself or its member States with the European Union’s support, sign agreements with neighbouring countries (such as those with Türkiye and Libya) aiming to contain migratory flows from reaching EU soil in exchange for money, aid or other kinds of political favours.

This approach is sometimes referred to in the context of “pullbacks”.

5.1.
5.1.

Pushbacks from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia There are numerous reports and visual footage54 of unlawful returns, collective expulsions as well as 60. inhuman and degrading treatment of migrants taking place at the borders between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina,55 Croatia and Serbia and Croatia and Slovenia.
The NGO Danish Refugee Council, which is active in the region, documented nearly 7 000 such cases from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2019 and another 16 000 cases in 2020.56 Migrants unlawfully returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina have often experienced a series of pushbacks known as chain pushbacks starting from either Italy or Austria, passing through Slovenia and ending in Croatia from where they are being pushed back to non-EU territory being often denied the right to file an international protection request.
61.

In their endeavour to enter Croatia, to cross from Croatia to Slovenia or before they are returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina or Serbia, people have reported violence by Croatian police, including physical and sexual violence.
The CPT has also investigated some documented cases of ill-treatment and torture during their rapid reaction visit to the country in summer 2020 and a report was prepared.57 Among other forms of violence experienced by migrants, refugees and asylum seekers at the borders of Croatia, shootings have also been alleged in November 2019.58 Moreover, starting in 2017 humanitarian and human rights action has been heavily criminalised in the country with NGOs’ staff members being accused of facilitating illegal migration and smuggling.
The Croatia’s Ombudswoman has also reported about the NGOs being denied access to migration-related information in her “National Report on the Human Rights Situation of Migrants at the Borders” published in July 2021.59 62.
Following the publishing by several European media outlets of footage of illegal pushbacks in Croatia and Greece in early October 2021,60 the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, called for a thorough investigation in the two countries making clear that even though they did indeed have the obligation to protect EU’s external borders, they also had to uphold the rule of law and respect fundamental rights.61 On 8 October 2021 the Croatian authorities acknowledged that some of its police officers had participated in a pushback incident on the border with Bosnia and Herzegovina.62 The conduct of an internal investigation is indeed welcome, but the Croatian authorities’ statements also raise serious concerns over the actual responsibility around pushbacks and in particular the role of the involved States, as well as that of the Frontex.
Moreover, NGOs active in the region are concerned over the actual independence and efficiency of the proposed internal investigation.63 From 20 to 23 February 2022, I visited Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, together with Ms 63.

Stephanie Krisper (Austria, ALDE), rapporteur on “Safe third countries for asylum seekers”.64 This visit allowed for direct exchanges with both, public authorities and civil society representatives in these countries.
The issue of pushback was raised in the meetings with the border police officers in both countries, drawing their attention to the importance of preventing pushbacks and respecting international standards on the matter.

54.

Spiegel International, “Europe's Violent Shadow Army Unmasked”.

55.

Danish Refugee Council, “Bosnia and Herzegovina”.

56.

Danish Refugee Council, “Border Protection Monitoring”.
57. www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-anti-torture-committee-publishes-report-on-its-2020-ad-hoc-visit-to- croatia.

58.

Reuters, “Croatian police fire on illegal migrants near Slovenian border”.

59. https://ennhri.org/news-and-blog/croatian-nhri-presents-the-state-of-human-rights-of-migrants-at-borders-in-its-new- report/.

60.

Spiegel International, “Europe's Violent Shadow Army Unmasked”.

61.

Reuters, “EU executive demands probe into alleged migrant pushbacks in Greece, Croatia”.

62.
62.

Reuters, “Croatia confirms migrant pushback, Greece promises inquiry”.

63.

Danish Refugee Council, “Croatia/EU Border Monitoring System: Effective Mechanism Needed - Independent, Broad Mandate, Adequate Resources”.

64.

See the programme of this visit, AS/Mig/Inf(2022)07.

16 Doc.

15604 Report 5.2.


Pushbacks to Türkiye After at least 33 Turkish soldiers were killed during an airstrike carried out by Syrian government forces 64. in Syria’s Idlib province,65 Türkiye announced on 27 February 2020 that it would unilaterally open its sea and land borders with Greece to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers who wanted to cross into the rest of Europe.

This was despite an EU-Türkiye deal signed back in March 2016.
Greece responded by having its police, army, and special forces use tear gas and rubber bullets to prevent migrants and refugees from entering its territory.66 Following these developments, Greece, in breach of its international obligations,67 suspended all asylum procedures for a whole month in March 2020.68 65.
On 3 March 2020, Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, travelled to the border region of Kastanies, Evros, Greece from where she expressed in a joint press conference69 the European Union’s solidarity towards the country.

She also committed to provide Greece with financial assistance, human resources, as well as technical expertise, to address the emergency unfolding at its borders.
As a result, Frontex launched two rapid border intervention operations, the aim of which was to “co- ordinate a new return programme for the quick return of persons without the right to stay to countries of origin from Greece”.70 In the same press conference, the President of the European Commission thanked Greece for functioning as a shield for the European Union.
However, it’s important that all countries recall their relevant rights and obligations as these are listed in 66. various international treaties, conventions and agreements and outlined also in the joint report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, published in March 2020, where it is stated that “Council of Europe (CoE) and European Union (EU) Member States have an undeniable sovereign right to control the entry of non-nationals into their territory.
While exercising border control, states have a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all people under their jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality and/or legal status.

Under EU law, this includes providing access to asylum procedures.”71 As in the case of Croatia, Greece has used anti-smuggling legislation against human rights defenders and people engaged in search and rescue operations,72 making access to asylum for people on the move harder to reach.

67.
67.

Asylum procedures were suspended for a second time in spring of the same year citing Covid-19 as the reason.73 The extension of an already existing 2012 fence of 10 km length in the Evros region by an extra 26 km was completed in summer 2021 in an endeavour to discourage people from reaching the country and applying for life saving international protection.

More border guards, as well as a high-tech border security system have also been employed.74 68.
Following its ad hoc visit to Greece in March 2020 Council of Europe’s CPT published a report in November of the same year calling on the Greek authorities to halt pushbacks.75 The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights addressed a letter on 3 May 2021 to the Minister for Citizens’ Protection, the Minister of Migration and Asylum and the Minister of Shipping and Island Policy of Greece regarding allegations of pushbacks and the living conditions of people on the move in the country.
The Greek authorities responded on 11 May 2021 that they adhere to their duties as outlined in national and EU legislation mandating them to protect the national and EU borders.

They also claimed to be following “a strict and 65.

Balkan Insight, “Turkey Threatens to Release Refugee Wave After Idlib Carnage”.

66.

Human Rights Watch, “Greece Restarts Suspended Asylum Procedure”.

67.
67.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, “Fundamental rights of refugees, asylum applicants and migrants at the European borders”: see page 7, it is clearly mentioned that authorities are not allowed to deny people the right to seek asylum.

68.

Human Rights Watch, “Greece Restarts Suspended Asylum Procedure”.

69.
69.

European Commission, Remarks by President von der Leyen at the joint press conference with Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece, Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia, President Sassoli and President Michel.

70.

European Commission, Extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council: Commission presents Action Plan for immediate measures to support Greece.

71.
71.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe, “Fundamental rights of refugees, asylum applicants and migrants at the European borders”.

72.

Amnesty International, “Europe: Pushback practices and their impact on the human rights of migrants and refugees.

Amnesty International submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants”, February 2021.

73.

Human Rights Watch, “Greece Restarts Suspended Asylum Procedure”.

74.
74.

Deutsche Welle, “Greece to introduce high-tech border security system”.

75.

Council of Europe, “Council of Europe’s anti-torture Committee calls on Greece to reform its immigration detention system and stop pushbacks”.

17 Doc.
17 Doc.

15604 Report disciplinary legal framework investigating information concerning alleged incidents of ill-treatment at the borders, including allegations for unprocessed returns (pushbacks), applying the foreseen by law penalties and taking all necessary measures so that unwanted incidents are avoided.” 69.
In October 2021 Greece announced that it was about to entrust the investigation of the pushbacks claims to the National Transparency Authority following the call of the Commissioner for Home Affairs in early October of the same year, after a media investigation published visual evidence of Greek coast guards pushing people away in the Aegean sea.76 On 29 March 2022, the Greece's National Transparency Authority has announced that an in-depth investigation into claims that Greek coast guard authorities were involved in illegal pushbacks of asylum seekers had found no evidence to support the allegations.77 Civil society organisations criticised this position of the Greece’s National Transparency Authority and called for the report to be made public.78 5.3.
Pushbacks to Belarus 70.

Starting as early as spring 2021, a new migration and asylum crisis has unfolded at the borders of Belarus with Lithuania, Poland and Latvia.

Triggered, inter alia, by sanctions posed by the EU on Belarus, as well as Lithuania’s and other EU countries’ criticism of Belarus for the diversion of Ryanair flight FR4978 from Athens to Vilnius on 23 May 2021.
As a result, Belarus opened its borders with its EU neighbours in what was seen as a hybrid war against the EU using migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from various countries, in particular Iraq.

The Belarusian authorities are even said to have facilitated these movements causing an unprecedented migration crisis in the region since the three EU countries were not ready to receive a high number of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

71.
71.

This situation has resulted in growing xenophobic attitudes and policies reflected in national legislation, as well as in other measures taken to intercept these movements, raising serious human rights concerns relating to detention, dire living conditions and alleged pushbacks of people who were denied the right to file an international protection request.

Lithuania and Latvia have stated that they will only proceed with asylum applications submitted strictly at official border crossings.
In Poland, on 17 September 2021, the Sejm voted a law aimed at restricting access to territory and asylum to persons entering Poland outside the official border crossings.

All three countries introduced states of emergencies either throughout their whole territory (Lithuania) or 72. in specific areas bordering Belarus (Latvia and Poland) and initiated the construction of physical barriers alongside their borders to contain the flows.
The deployment of Frontex rapid forces alongside technical assistance and emergency assistance to be used to reinforce the border surveillance systems of the three countries were also provided by the EU in response to the steps taken by the Belarusian authorities.

Even if the weaponisation of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers is indeed a card played by the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, to destabilise the EU, people on the move should not pay the price of this political game.
States have indeed the right to protect their borders, but they also have an obligation to process asylum applications filed at their borders or within their territory.

73.
73.

The Assembly has raised its concerns on this issue in an urgent debate which took place on 30 September 2021 and adopted Resolution 2404 (2021) “Instrumentalised migration pressure on the borders of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland with Belarus”,79 based on a report by Ms Anne-Mari Virolainen (Finland, EPP/CD) prepared on behalf of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Person.

5.4.
5.4.

Pushbacks to Libya In February 2017, Italy struck a deal with Libya, which was renewed in February 2020 for a period of 74. three years, aiming at blocking migratory flows albeit that Libya is not regarded as a safe country.

To this end, the EU has provided financial assistance of about €700 million to Libya over the last few years, a large portion of which is allocated to migration-related activities including the strengthening of border management.80 76.
Spiegel International, “Europe's Violent Shadow Army Unmasked”.

77. www.infomigrants.net/en/post/39535/greek-authority-finds-no-evidence-of-migrant-pushback-claims.

78. https://eu.rescue.org/press-release/greeces-national-transparency-authority-should-publish-its-full-report-regarding.

79.

Resolution 2404 (2021) and report by Ms Anne-Mari Virolainen: “Increased migration pressure on the borders of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland with Belarus”.

80.
80.

European Union External Action Service, “EU-Libya relations”; European Commission, “EU Emergency Trust for Africa, Libya”.

18 Doc.

15604 Report 75.

According to information shared by Amnesty International with the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Felipe González Morales, “Italy and EU institutions have provided Libyan maritime authorities with at least 16 speedboats and with the training of at least 477 personnel, mostly through EU naval operation EUNAVFOR MED Sophia81.
Italy also deployed personnel and ships in Libya to assist in the coordination of maritime operations and has supported the Government of National Accord in the declaration of a Libyan Search and Rescue (SAR) region.”82 Even private vessels are instructed to disembark in Libya instead of a safe harbour.

In 2021 the first ever trial over a pushback by a private vessel to Libya took place in Italy.

The captain of Asso Ventotto, Giuseppe Sotgiu, was sentenced to one year in prison.83 76.
According to the same source, more than 60 000 people have allegedly been intercepted in the Mediterranean by the Libyan authorities and disembarked in Libya since 2016.84 Following Italy’s example, Maltese authorities have allegedly engaged in pushback practices within their territorial waters pushing people either to Italy or Libya or letting them float at the high seas.85 Moreover, they have denied conducting search and rescue missions after having been informed about the existence of boats in distress or delaying it for days.86 On 10 April 2020, Italy, Malta, Frontex and Libya received information about a boat in distress in the Mediterranean.
Three to four days later search and rescue operations were initiated and finally a Libyan- flagged vessel managed to rescue the 51 people aboard within Malta’s territorial waters on 15 April 2020.

The vessel disembarked in Tripoli, where five people were found to have died, while seven more were reported as missing; the rest were placed in detention in the centre of Trik-al-Sikka.87 The whole operation was allegedly co-ordinated by the Maltese authorities.
Reportedly, Maltese authorities have also used arbitrary detention at sea, while denying the disembarkation of boats carrying migrants at their ports.88 77.

Both Italy and Malta have been criticised for systematically hindering the work of search and rescue NGOs by criminalising them, denying them the provision of a safe port to disembark and posing administrative procedures resulting in certain ships being seized.
The Assembly has warned against such practices in its Resolution 2362 (2021) and Recommendation 2194 (2021) “Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States”.

6.

Conclusions 78.

I would like to make reference to our previous discussions in the committee on this issue and would like to highlight the need for States to respect international obligations and to enhance interstate solidarity.
The Assembly should denounce the dysfunctional approach in certain member States in terms of pushbacks.

Council of Europe member States should work together, including member States from Central and Northern Europe.

To prepare this report, the committee held an exchange of views on 24 November 2021 with the 79. participation of Mr Felipe González Morales, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants.
Prior to my fact finding visit to Croatia and to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the then President of the Assembly, Rik Daems, had asked me to visit Poland on 18-19 November 2021 to assess the situation of migrants stranded on the border with Belarus in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons.

80.
80.

On 27 April 2022, Ms Dunja Mijatović, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, presented to the Committee on Migration, refugees and Displaced Persons, her Recommendation entitled “Pushed beyond the limits.
Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders”, where she addressed the role of members of parliament in preventing human rights violations at the borders, noting that parliamentarians can play an important role in preventing pushbacks, in line with their wider role as guarantors of human rights, both as legislators and as those responsible for carrying out democratic oversight of government action.

She identified, overall, four concrete areas where urgent action would be required: Ibid.

81.
81.

Amnesty International, “Europe: Pushback practices and their impact on the human rights of migrants and refugees”, op.

cit.

82.

83.

The Maritime Executive, “Italian Captain Sentenced to Prison for Bringing Migrants to Libya”.

84.

Amnesty International, “Europe: Pushback practices and their impact on the human rights of migrants and refugees”, op.cit.

85.

86.

87.

Amnesty International, “Malta: Waves of impunity”.

88.
88.

Amnesty International, “Europe: Pushback practices and their impact on the human rights of migrants and refugees”, op.

cit.

Ibid.

Ibid.

19 Doc.

15604 Report member States must implement their legal obligations in good faith; there is a need to strengthen transparency and accountability for actions at borders; tackling pushbacks requires all member States to act together, and parliamentarians have a key role as legislators to guarantee respect of human rights standards.
In her exchange of views with the committee, she invited parliamentarians to reject the vision of a “fortress Europe” which nobody was able to enter.

There was a need to change this approach to allow future generations to be proud rather than ashamed of such a “fortress Europe”.

81.
81.

A number of other relevant issues were raised in the exchanges of views, namely questions concerning the application of pushbacks with regard to so called “illegal migrants” (some countries established legislative rules by highlighting this discrepancy), and the latest UK legislation that would allow the UK Government to off-shore the review of individual applications for asylum to Rwanda.
Commissioner Mijatović was shocked by the draft legislation of the United Kingdom and had immediately called for changes.

She highlighted that a “shift” in responsibility to a third country far away had the risk of seriously undermining the global system of international protection.

Concerning “illegal immigration”, she did not believe that there was such illegal immigration, because people crossing borders should not be punished by criminal law.

82.
82.

To conclude, I am strongly convinced that the Assembly should call for serious changes to the law and practice in the Council of Europe member States to stop pushbacks at land and sea.
In specific terms, it should ask member States to take measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks and to improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection, as reflected in the proposed draft resolution.

20 10/18/22, 12:19 PM Speakers list - Wednesday afternoon 12 October 2022 Speakers list SITTING NO.
31 - WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON 12 OCTOBER 2022 JOINT DEBATE - Safe third countries for asylum seekers - Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Speakers on behalf of group EC/DA ALDE UEL SOC Lord Richard KEEN Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK Mr George LOUCAIDES Ms Ada MARRA EPP/CD Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ Speakers list 1 SOC Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE 2 EPP/CD Ms Marijana BALIĆ 3 EC/DA 4 ALDE 5 NR 6 SOC Mr Barna Pál ZSIGMOND Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA Mr Kamil AYDIN Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ 7 EPP/CD Mr Sławomir NITRAS 8 EC/DA 9 ALDE 10 NR 11 SOC Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA Mr Fazil MUSTAFA Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI Ms Margreet De BOER 12 EPP/CD Ms Jorida TABAKU 13 Mr Allal AMRAOUI United Kingdom Norway Cyprus Switzerland Poland Türkiye Croatia Hungary Ukraine Türkiye Croatia Poland Spain Azerbaijan Türkiye Netherlands Albania Morocco 14 SOC Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS United Kingdom 15 EPP/CD Ms Zdravka BUŠIĆ 16 ALDE Ms Nerea AHEDO 17 NR 18 SOC Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ Mr Chris BONETT 19 EPP/CD Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA 20 ALDE Ms Mireille CLAPOT 21 NR 22 SOC Mr László TOROCZKAI Ms Heike ENGELHARDT 23 EPP/CD Mr Davor Ivo STIER 24 SOC Mr Stefan SCHENNACH 25 EC/DA Mr Alberto RIBOLLA 26 UEL Ms Laura CASTEL 27 Mr Francesco SORBARA 28 ALDE Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA 29 NR 30 SOC Ms Barbara NOWACKA Mr Jeremy CORBYN 31 EC/DA Ms Nicole HÖCHST 32 SOC 33 SOC Ms Sabrina DE CARLO Ms Lise SELNES Croatia Spain Türkiye Malta Ukraine France Hungary Germany Croatia Austria Italy Spain Canada Ukraine Poland United Kingdom Germany Italy Norway https://pace.coe.int/en/speakers/653 1/2 10/18/22, 12:19 PM Speakers list - Wednesday afternoon 12 October 2022 34 SOC 35 UEL 36 37 SOC 38 SOC 39 UEL 40 Mr Christophe LACROIX Mr Thomas PRINGLE Mr Éctor Jaime RAMÍREZ BARBA Mr Roberto RAMPI Ms Naomi CACHIA Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO Ms Rocío ABREU 41 UEL Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND 42 43 44 Mr Armağan CANDAN Ms Saranda BOGUJEVCI Mr Stéphane BERGERON 45 EC/DA Lord Alexander DUNDEE Belgium Ireland Mexico Italy Malta Spain Mexico Norway Cyprus* [Resolution 1376 (2004)] Assembly of Kosovo* Canada United Kingdom https://pace.coe.int/en/speakers/653 2/2 https://pace.coe.int Provisional edition Wednesday 12 October 2022, af ternoon Official report of debates Opening of the sitting No 31 Joint Debate: Safe third countries for asylum seekers / Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you, dear colleagues.
The next item is the joint debate.

We will f irst hear the presentation by Mrs Stephanie KRISPER of the report of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons entitled "Saf e third countries f or asylum seekers" (Doc.

15592).

Then Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ will present the report of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons on "Returns by sea and land: illegal migration management measures" (Doc.

15604).
15604).

We will f inish the debate on these texts, including the vote, at 8:30 p.m. We will theref ore have to interrupt the list of speakers at about 7:40 p.m. in order to allow time f or the reply f rom the committee and f or the votes.

The rapporteurs have ten minutes each to present their reports and f ive minutes each to reply to the speakers at the end of the general debate.
35 I call on Ms Stephanie KRISPER, Rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons, to present the f irst report.

You have the f loor.

Ms Stephanie KRISPER (Austria, ALDE, Rapporteur): Thank you, dear President.

As we sit here, more than 100 million people worldwide are displaced due to persecution, conf lict, violence, or other human rights abuses.

Most of these suf f ering individuals who f lee stay close to their home country.
They are also most of ten in dire and dangerous situations.

Only a small percentage of them have the resources, the strength, and the courage to continue to seek security f or themselves and their children.

What are they experiencing on their way to Europe?

They are crossing many countries that are again not saf e f or them, being denied access to a f air asylum procedure, being ref used decent living conditions, or even being violently pushed back.
When I describe this suf f ering of thousands, I talk about the current experiences, the current reality also in European states: Hungary, Greece, Italy, Croatia, and others.

When ref ugees f inally arrive in a country in Europe where they can claim asylum, what happens then?
Increasingly they are sent back by the authorities to a country that the respective state has declared as saf e. It would be a moral discussion if we were talking about solidarity, f air co-operation among states vis-a-vis asylum seekers.

Here in t he Council of Europe, we discussed, also if it ref lects beautif ully values at the same time, on a clear legal basis, the European Convention on Human Rights.
And what is in light of the Convention, the legal issue behind this practice to send asylum seekers back to a third country declared a saf e. That in every case in which this presumption of saf ety is wrong, hence a ref ugee is sent back f rom saf ety to insecurity.

This person f aces, on European soil, refoulement, a violation of Jus Cogens, a violation of the prohibition not to being tortured according to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Such cases have become uncountable.


Because in real lif e, as Hungry and Greece, and more and more states ignore the obligations vis-a-vis asylum seekers, and treat them often out of brutal populistic reason of deterrence; [it is] inhumane.

But these states are still presumed saf e by others.
It needs complaints up to the very top of the European Court of Human Rights, which takes,as we know, years, 12 judgments, like MSS vs Belgium and Greece, or Elias and Ahmed vs Hungary, to conf irm that even European countries have asylum systems with systemic def iciencies.

All these years, asylum seekers could not have challenged a wrong presumption of saf ety in their cases and were sent back into insecurity.
These cases in the European Court of Human Rights should have been a wake-up call, but they were not.

We still have, in the core of Europe, an almost systematic application of the saf e third country concept, the Dublin system.

And outside the EU, many member states of the Council of Europe have bilateral readmission agreements.
Also here, history has shown that such agreements, like the agreement between Spain and Morocco, have created an environment that f avours the occurrence of and acceptance of refoulement.

At its worst, saf e third country deals are closed, like the UK did, with states like Rwanda.

Evidently, the European Court of Human Rights has rapidly reacted to some by stopping the expulsion of an asylum seeker to Rwanda, but what an idea.
So how should member states proceed f or such violations of non-refoulement not to happen?

How can saf e third country concepts be brought in line with obligations pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

36 Well, there are recommendations by the Committee of Ministers on the application of this concept, but they are f rom 1997.

Since then, as I mentioned, the case law of the Court has greatly evolved.
Theref ore, we need up-to-date standards to support member states in f ulfilling their obligations.

Here, the Committee of Ministers is urged to react.

In addition, states should immediately re-evaluat e both the presumptions of saf ety for every state af ter t he other and their practice.

To put it politically, at the end: we have to decide.

Do we opt for pushbacks, chaos and human suff ering, or do we choose human rights, order and control?
To our colleagues f rom the right and f ar right, when many people seek protection it's an undeniable challenge.

But we can show [we can cope with] this challenge while upholding human rights at the same time.

How Europe received millions of Ukrainian ref ugees who thankf ully f ound protection, illustrates that perf ectly.

I, theref ore, invite you, dear colleagues, to support this resolution and recommendation.
It is our legal, moral duty to stand up for the rights of asylum seekers and to uphold the human rights regime guaranteeing that these vulnerable individuals are treated with dignity.
I f inally want to express my gratitude to the national parliament f or delivering numerous replies to the questions I submitted and to the Secretariat of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons for organising the f act-f inding mission I went on with my colleague Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, whic h both greatly contributed to the elaboration of this report.

Thank you dear members of the Assembly.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you, Madam Rapporteur.
I now give the f loor to Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons, f or the second report.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC, Rapporteur): Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

If you don't mind, I'm going to speak sitting down because I gave my sheets to the translators and then it didn't come back.
Mr Vice President, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear colleagues, In these successive reports, especially the last one entitled "Pushed Beyond the Limits", it is urgent to put an end to ref oulements at Europe's borders.

The Council of Europe Commissioner f or Human Rights, Ms. Dunja Mijatović, is concerned about the recurrent problem of push-backs of migrants at Europe's borders, a widespread phenomenon in a number of European countries.
And according to her, at least half of the member states of the Council of Europe are concerned - this is true to varying degrees.

These practices clearly contravene the higher law recognised by all our member states of the Council of Europe, for example, the 1951 Ref ugee Convention or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The 1951 Ref ugee Convention requires states to guarantee people the right to seek asylum and to make a serious individual assessment of their protection needs.
The ECHR decrees that a person cannot be returned without an individualised procedure to establish whet her or not the migrant meets the criteria for asylum; until then, he or she must receive relief and protection.

Furthermore, if a decision to return is taken, it must be ensured that the migrant will be sent back to a saf e third country and that he or she will not run any risk to his or her health, saf ety and physical integrity.
This is the essence of the report presented by my colleague Ms Stephanie KRISPER.

Although essential, these principles are in f act regularly trampled underf oot, of ten on a very large scale.

We are talking about several tens of thousands of cases per year in Europe.

The majority of migrants arrive on the coasts of southern Europe, in particular via Turkey or the Mediterranean, with the terrible tragedies at sea that 37 are all too f amiliar and that are repeated year af ter year.
The countries of arrival, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Malta and Spain, have been literally submerged by the large number of migrants they have to deal with, with all the problems that we know in some countries: crowded camps with indecent living conditions, repeated ref oulements, lengthy procedures, etc.
Agreements have been made with some surrounding countries to hold or turn back migrants: Turkey with the European Union in 2016 and Italy with Libya, the choice of the worst, a country anything but saf e f or migrants, a f ailed state where every conceivable human rights violation is perpetrated systematically with impunity.

As early as 2015, but still today, problems are noted on the Balkan route, especially on the border between Bosnia and Croatia.
One element that can be clearly put in the discharge of these different countries concerns the lack of solidarity of other European count ries against them; countries that, still today, ref use to do their part in solidarity with the countries of arrival.

And the Dublin system does not help.

Requests and efforts to relocate people, which are regularly hoped for, have too often gone unheeded.
Yet, how can we remain insensitive to this multitude of dramatic situations, to these people without hope, in particular f ragile and vulnerable people such as unaccompanied minors, large f amilies, sick and disabled people?
Ref oulements at sea and on land, violence against migrants, ref usal to register asylum applications, criminalisation of NGOs that seek to provide aid and assistance to migrants and are treated as common smugglers, detention of migrants on boats and ref usal of access to European territory, delays in providing assistance to boats in distress: the list of violations of migration rights noted by our Human Rights Commissioner is long.
And one can only regret the rise of xenophobia in various countries that have welcomed migrants, the most striking example being that of Germany af ter Angela Merkel welcomed, in 2015, one million Syrian ref ugees f leeing war.

In this regard, we can only welcome the exemplary reception of Ukrainian ref ugees by our various states following the Russian aggression, while regretting that depending on the origin of the victims of a conf lict, European generosity can be variable geometry.
Recently, migrants have begun to be used as a means of pressure against a neighbouring state, in the sense of a hybrid war.

Think of the borders between Belarus, Poland and the Baltic States; between Turkey and Greece on the river Evros; in Ceuta between Morocco and Spain.

Some states have worked to amend their national legislation to allow for the justif ication of push-backs.
And, as a f inal novelty - if one dares to use the expression - the proposal by some countries to outsource the management of their migrants to Af rican countries.

In this story of migration, two rights, two diff erent logics are conf ronting each other.
On the one hand, the right to borders, and some countries put in the f oreground the responsibility they have been given to protect the external borders of Europe - of the European Union - with the construction of walls or more or less systematic ref oulements, often with the support, moreover, in any case, of the passive attitude of Frontex.
On the other hand, the right of the migrants we have just spoken about in respect of the higher law, in particular the right of protection and the right to have access to a f air and equitable and, above all, individualized asylum procedure.

Two very diff erent logics, two interpretations of the law: on the one hand, Fortress Europe, symbolized by the walls that are being erected everywhere; on the other hand, a Europe of solidarity, the Europe of the values of humanism and Christian charity.
And the example given by Europe to the rest of the world is an issue in our history.

If the land that gave birth to human rights begins to deny itself , how can we prev ent f undamental rights f rom deteriorating on all continents?

Today, we may only see the tip of the iceberg.

Today's migrations are perhaps nothing compared to tomorrow's migrations, caused by the development of misery, the consequence of global warming, with hunger and new wars to appropriate the meagre resources that will remain.
The causes of migration are multiple and all justif ied: people f leeing war; those f leeing their country f or their own saf ety and human rights violations; people migrating f or so-called economic reasons - but in f act, we are usually talking about extreme poverty, hunger, the loss of all hope of a better lif e f or their children; and f inally, migration in connection with global warming and lands that have become inhospitable.
Whatever t heir t rue motivation, every migrant who seeks relief and assistance has the right to a procedure to establish their right to asylum or not.

This is essential.

No one can arrogate to themselves the right to decide that such a person would be a f alse ref ugee and turn them away without assessing their situation and the risks they run.

Irregular migration exists because of barriers to the f ree passage of migrants or ref ugees, but it is not illegal migration.

Illegal migration does not exist.


Every person, regardless of how they entered a territory, must have the right to seek help and assistance and the possibility to apply f or asylum.

This element is not negotiable.
38 The urgency today, and I conclude, and I am only repeating here the words of the Commissioner f or Human Rights of our Council, is to implement without national interpretation the f undamental values represented by the ECHR; it is to prevent the denial of access to asylum and the return of migrants and ref ugees without individual procedures and guarantees; and f inally, it is to put an end to what has become a normalisation, a trivialisation of the practices of ref oulement.
Thank you f or your attention.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you, rapporteur.

In the general debate, I call Lord Richard KEEN, of the European Conservative and Democratic Alliance Group.

Lord Richard KEEN (United Kingdom, EC/DA, Spokesperson for the group): Thank you, Mister Vice- President.

In addressing this matter I'll make particular ref erence to the second report on pushback.
Members, Following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, international law came to recognise the territorial integrity of state borders, and the absolute right of a nation state to protect those borders.

Of course, in more recent times the international community recognised the need to mitigate the implications of that f undamental right.

That developed what became the UN Convention on Ref ugees in 1951, as amended by the 1967 protocol.
At the outset the convention sets out a very precise def inition of a ref ugee: a person who has a well -f ounded f ear of persecution in their own country.

A person is no longer a ref ugee as def ined by the convention once the basis f or that status has ceased.

The present report notes the def inition in the 1951 convention, but it then relies upon the more generalised matter of migration and migrants, merging the genuine ref ugee with the economic migrant.
Where a person has reached a country where they are saf e f rom persecution, but decides to move on f or economic or other reasons, then they cease to meet the def inition in Article One of the Convention.

This is the point that the present report very largely ignores.

The present report then goes on to use the term "refoulement", a term with a strict technical meaning under the terms of the 1951 convention, but which is employed in the present report in a very loose and, dare I say it, inaccurate way.
Refoulement is where a person is returned to their own country when they still have a well- f ounded f ear of being persecuted there.

The prohibition on refoulement in the 1951 convention does not apply more generally to the removal of a person f rom a country they have entered illegally, and certainly does not apply to the means used to prevent such a legal entry in the f irst place.
I would note that the Dublin Agreements provide that migrants should be registered in the f irst EU country they enter, and they may be returned there.

That is not refouled.

The present report also ref ers to certain prohibitions in Protocol 4 of our Convention with respect to expulsion.

Again, I venture that these are taken out of context.

In summary we are f aced with a report which proceeds upon a number of questionable assumptions regarding the present situation in international law.
There's a consequence.

I f ear that any resolution passed on the basis of this report might justif iably be ignored by member States.

It's in these circumstances that we cannot support the proposed resolution and recommendation.

Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): I call Mrs Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK, of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats f or Europe.
39 Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK (Norway, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group): Thank you, Mister President I would like to start by thanking the rapporteurs f or an excellent reports on very important subjects.

Every person has the right to seek saf ety and to have access to human rights, whoever they are, wherever they come f rom, and whenever they are f orced to flee.
Governments automatically ref using entry or returning people without making an individual assessment of those in need of protection are in breech of the 1951 Ref ugee Convention.

In regards to the "saf e third country" principle the practices in countries diff er vastly – as shown in the report.

There is a diversity of the countries considered as saf e third countries, as well as the procedures described by the states.
Big variations could pose a high risk of violations of the human rights of asylum seekers and it can undermine the right to apply f or asylum.

In regards to push-backs, as the rapport states, push-backs by member countries have become widespread and, most worryingly, part of tolerated policy.

The UNHCR inf orms that push-backs are carried out in a violent and systematic manner.

There are examples of boats with ref ugees being towed back.
People are rounded up af ter they have come ashore and forced back to sea.

Many have reported the use of violence by state security f orces.

We have seen a number of cases before the courts in regards to both the saf ety assessment of third countries and whether or not there [is] individual and f air examination of their application in regards to both push -backs and saf e third countries.
In order to eff ectively protect human rights of asylum seekers and the right to asylum in Europe, the assembly needs to work towards common solutions as well as greater co -ordination amongst member States.

There is also a need f or member states and observers and partners to respect international obligations and to enhance interstate solidarity – because there is a disproportionately big responsibility put on some states, and member states must demonstrate solidarity by supporting them.
To ensure improving of the member states practices and to strengthen the rights of asylum se ekers and ref ugees, monitoring of saf e third country decisions is also essential.

There is theref ore a need to establish objective and independent monitoring mechanisms to monitor national law and practice as regards to the "saf e third country" concept.

As well as border monitoring mechanisms both at national and European levels.
I do hope that everyone will support these reports and apply the changes that need to be done to protect the human rights of asylum seekers.

Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): I call Mr George LOUCAIDES, of the Group of the Unif ied European Lef t. Mr George LOUCAIDES (Cyprus, UEL, Spokesperson for the group): Thank you, Mister Chair.

Dear Colleagues, I want to thank Ms Stephanie KRISPER f or her report.
The f undament al aim of this report, with which we f ully agree, is that asylum seek ers who have been denied asylum in search of countries, should not in any circumstance be deported to unsaf e third countries.

I want to also thank and congratulate Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ f or an excellent and thorough report, which underlines, f irst and f oremost, that pushbacks have taken worrying proportions.
We f eel obliged to emphasise that our rapporteur is absolutely correct in underlining that these illegal activities are not real instanc es of wrongdoing, and we would like to ref er to the course of the UN Secretary General f or f ull adherence to international legal norms in the handling of asylum seekers and ref ugees wherever they are.

The idea of a Fortress Europe, dear colleagues, and its attainment at any cost cannot be justified under any circumstances.
One should rather consider how to alleviate the root causes of increased ref ugee f lows and provide people in need with saf e routes and procedures.

40 In order to achieve this, we need to consider our national policies, and those of the organisations we are members of , on issues ranging f rom sustainable development to the protection of the environment, as well as our commitment and investment to peace, instead of warmongering.
At the same time, we owe it to ourselves as members of the same European community, to expand co‑operation and take it a step f urther, towards ef f ective solidarity and to resp onsibility-sharing.

As many international organisations have already underlined, violent and illegal deportations constitute grave violations of human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has issued numerous respective rulings passing on a clear message: a state's f ailure to manage incoming f lows and address pushbacks at its borders is unacceptable.

Well - f unctioning democracies should respect international law and take all the necessary steps to not allow the deadly, at times, victimisation of people.
Even when other states, like Turk ey vis-à-vis the Republic of Cyprus or Greece, instrument alise migrants and ref ugees in order to exert political pressure, the reaction should be exactly the same.

We should not victimise anew those trying to escape the misery of conf licts, poverty, f amine, the social economic inequalities of persecution.
Likewise, the protection of external borders cannot be used as a pretext for illegal pushbacks, and increased political tensions between neighbouring states cannot justify trapping migrants and asylum seekers in deserted areas in between state borders.

As the report rightf ully also notes, we as parliamentarians must exercise oversight over governmental action and strengthen transparency and accountability.

The rights to seek asylum must be f ully respected.
Procedures must comply with recognised standards at all stages; whereas the illegality of pushbacks must be of f icially and explicitly reiterated.

In concluding, I would like to express our strong support for the report's call for serious changes to the legislative f ramework, in challenging illegal practises, adapting and implementing concrete measures, monitoring accountability, prosecution in our member States.

Thank you.
Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): I call Ms Ada MARRA, of the Socialist, Democratic and Green Group.

Ms Ada MARRA (S witzerland, SOC, Spokesperson for the group): Here you go, sorry.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam.

The issue of migration and asylum in particular a recurring theme in our states and in the Council of Europe.

Far too often it is used as a populist argument and an outlet for many political f orces.
In this Council, on the contrary, we try to give a voice to those who do not have one and who are all too of ten used as pawns in geopolitical strategies and political agendas.

This is why our Group welcomes the two resolutions presented as well as the draf t recommendations, as a reminder that people who f lee their countries have rights.
For our part, we have a clear vision: we believe f rom a general point of view that, contrary to what we hear in the mainstream media, there is no migration crisis in Europe.

The f igures conf irm this.

But, apart f rom what is happening to the people of Ukraine, we are f acing, apparently, a crisis which is related to reception and the application of the conventions and texts establishing the right of asylum.
There is reception crisis if there is a desire to remove reception and processing of applications, as is being done between Italy and Libya, as is being done between the European Union and Türkiye, and as the UK wants to do with Rwanda.

There is a crisis in the application of the principles of the right to asylum if there is no guarantee of access to an asylum application for any person requesting it and f rom any country.
There is a crisis when people are being prevented f rom crossing a territory to quite simply lodge an application or when they are turned away once they arrive.

There is a crisis when they are sent back to a third country that is not saf e. We are obviously thinking here of Libya, but also of other countries on our continent, in view of the treatment that is being inf licted on asylum seekers.
41 The various international bodies have clearly understood this in their various statements or judgments, in which they are making mention of illegal practices.

The texts we are discussing this evening are like a wake - up call to our states, which have, as the rapporteur Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ rightly says, and Ms Stephanie KRISPE R says, "become accustomed to not respecting f undamental international law".
The request to legislate, on the contrary, at domestic level seems to us to be a good way for our states to assume their responsibility f or the reception of people and the proper treatment of procedures.

The time has come for our political leaders to stop denying the inhuman existence of pushbacks and the inhuman treatment inf licted on these men, women and child ren.

It is time to enforce the existing standards already.
It is time to stop the negative rhetoric on asylum where, as one European politician said: " Wir schaffen das!"

Thank you very much indeed to our two rapporteurs f or their reports and we call on you to support the draft resolution and recommendations.

Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): I call Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSK I, of the EPP Group.

He is not here.

I call Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ to the f loor.


Mr Jacek P ROTASIEWICZ (Poland, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group): Thank you, Mister President.

And that's right.

I will be replacing Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party on the discussion on the both reports "Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management" and the second one "Saf e third countries f or asylum seekers".

Let me start with words of gratitude to both rapporteurs.
Their work is excellent.
The result is absolutely competent, and unbiased, and they are both right, that pushbacks and not off ering support to migrants or asylum seekers in a country which is recognised as saf e is against both the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of its protocol number 4, which prohib its parties f rom returning migrants and asylums seekers to another country without individual assessment as to whether this is saf e. And that kind of practice is also against the 1951 Ref ugee Convention relating to the status of ref ugees that provides them with the right to apply f or asylum in the f irst saf e country where they arrive.
However, we should remember that the reality of our times is slightly diff erent f rom times when the both conventions were prepared, negotiated, and adopted.
In recent months only, last winter, we were observing on the eastern border of Poland - the country I am f rom - that the asylums seekers, the people in poor conditions, living in unsaf e areas, such as Iraq or Syria were misused, were abused - is better to say - for political reasons by the authority of a country, in this case, Belarus, which is of course not a member of our respective organisation.

However, it is located on our eastern border.


That's why we should remember that - and now I'm saying as a Pole, not as a representative of EPP - that Poland, as a country, and Polish people, as human beings, are not reluctant, are not emotionless while thinking about those who are seeking a saf e place to live, but sometimes we should remember that those people might be abused for political reasons, for those who are against human rights, against people's f reedom, and against our meaning of democracy.
Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

We will now take over the list of speakers with Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE f rom Türkiye.

42 Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE (Türkiye, SOC): Thank you very much.

[in French] Our organisation's 73 years of shared values of democracy, rule of law and human rights is f acing signif icant challenges.
One of the most tragic of these challenges is the displacement of millions of people and the pushback and pullback phenomenon we are experiencing.

The hard truth is that those in power have collectively f ailed the millions who are f orced into mass human displacement.

Clearly, what we need is already stated in the report.

The saf ety of return to the individually assessed for everybody.

However, I'd like to also underline that we do not just need individual assessment.
We need a strong collective action.

A collective action which will ensure a collective saf ety at home for everybody who cares to live in their homelands.

That should be the core goal of whatever step we take.

We should start by ending delegation of responsibility, almost always accompanied by political bargaining, f inancial negotiations, negotiations over human lives.

We should end the inhumane and violent pushback practices.
We should end discrimination between ref ugees based on where they come f rom.

They are all human beings.

What we need is international solidarity.

What we need is co ‑operation that will produce a collective solution based on the values of this organisation: human rights, democracy and rule of law, rather than political negotiation and bargaining over human lives.
What we need, theref ore, is a strong parliamentary scrutiny over any non-transparent bargaining that might be going on wherever in the world.

In the short term, based on international law and human rights, it must be every nation's shared humanitarian responsibility.

Not only certain countries, but every nation's, to protect all who are desperately seeking asylum in other countries f or their right to live.
In the medium and long term, to stop the f low of migration and for the ref ugees to be able to return to their home saf ely, it's imperative that we end conf licts, we end instabilities, we end socioeconomic destruction, and we protect the victims right to lif e. This is actually in accordance with the very standards of international law already specif ied in the UN Geneva Convention.

If we end the f actors that are pushing people out of their homelands, then we won't have to discuss how to end pushbacks.
I think we should not forget about the structural problem at the core of this issue.

People are being pushed out because of conf lict, because their lives are being destroyed and they are seeking shelter.
If they can f ind the shelter in t heir homes, and if we support this, and we use the f unds not to create ref ugee zones with specif ic buff er areas, but we create saf e homelands for people with the f unds that we use already, to build inf rastructure, to build public services in their home countries, then we can resolve this issue.
The historic responsibility f alls upon all of us, so it's time we congratulate each other not for building walls of a f ortress, but f or building a better world f or all people.

I congratulate our rapporteurs and I hope this is the f irst step in the right direction.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I call Ms Marijana BALIĆ f or Croatia.

Ms Marijana BALIĆ (Croatia, EPP/CD): Thank you, Mister Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their efforts and advice they provided f or us, especially for the countries involved.

43 The resolutions and more importantly the exchange of views that we had during your visit to my country, Croatia, have been very usef ul f or us.

Theref ore, once more I would like to express my appreciation f or that opportunity.
I'm stressing this especially in line with our accession to the Schengen Area, which is expected to be at the beginning of next year [2023].

Your visit in February prompted the Croatian parliament to request the government to address the issues you raised.

In t his sense I'm also glad that the E uropean parliament rapporteur, on the application of the Schengen acquis in the Republic of Croatia, which recently visited Croatia, came up with a positive assessment of the situation on the ground.
As we are also discussing the review of the Schengen and the asylum system in the European Union, your reports remain very important documents in addressing a wider range of issues in many member States of the European Union.

The point is that this is a European problem.

It requires a European solution.

As the EU member State managing the longest new external land border, Croatia f aces, on a daily basis, high pressure of migrant f lows.
In addition to taking care of the security of the EU's external borders I would like to reassure you that Croatia puts the protection of human rights and human lif e f irst, as Croatia provides by undertaking measures and activities which we are and will strive f or.
These issues raised in both reports and in a particular recommendation proposed by Ms Stephanie KRISPER provide us a usef ul tool for looking for a common European solution, and also show the synergy between the Council of Europe and European Union.

I f irmly believe that the good management of our borders, the security of our citizens, and the f ull respect of international law, and protection of ref ugees, are not in contradiction with each other, but can and should be jointly achieved.

Thank you.
Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

Mr Barna Pál ZSIGMOND has the f loor f or Hungary.

Mr Barna Pál ZSIGMOND (Hungary, EC/DA): Thank you, Mister President Dear Colleagues, Today the pressure of migration is once again increasing, especially on the central Mediterranean and Western Balkan routes.

There is a modern-day population movement in progress around the world.

The waves of this have reached Europe again.


The question now is what the response of Europe will be.

The uncontrolled inf lux of migrants is a matter of serious concern f or all of us, as its consequences threaten the stability of the region.

Dear Colleagues, Migration has become a very serious problem these days, but I consider it very important that ref ugees should not be conf used with illegal migrants.
First, let me stress coming to my country, that illegal migrants violently storming our southern borders have no right to enter Hungary in our understanding, af ter crossing through several saf e countries.

One of the most important tools to take back the power f rom smugglers and criminals for justice, law, order, security and human rights is to control our borders strictly and respect international legal regulations.
Hungary's priority is to protect its external borders and to strengthen its action against abuses of the asylum system.

Illegal migration must be stopped already outside the EU.

We need to address the root causes, to bring help to the source of the crisis.

One of the most ef f ective tools is international development policy.
44 At the same time, Hungary will continue to provide protection to third ‑country nationals in genuine need, in accordance with its international, European and internal legal obligations.

Hungarian law enf orcement, local councils, government of f ices, charity groups and volunteers have done an excellent job in helping ref ugees, even though the country was of ten subjected to unf ounded attacks f rom lef t-wing political f orces.
Hungary and Hungarians stand and will always stand with the innocent victims of the war in Ukraine.

The Hungarian government is doing its utmost to help Ukrainian f amilies aff ected by the war.

They can al ways count on our country, whether they are ref ugees displaced f rom their homes or living in a war zone.

The number of people arriving to Hungary f rom Ukraine has now exceeded one and a half million.
The Hungarian government has provided various forms of assistance to these people at the borders and central assistance points.

Dear Colleagues, We are living in a time where common sense should prevail regarding the horrif ic and unpredictable war between Russia and Ukraine.

We will continue what we have started at the beginning of this conf lict.

We will continue to off er aid, help to ref ugees f rom Ukraine and support the sovereignty of Ukraine.
However, at the same time, we will always protect our country f rom illegal migrants.

I would also like to call all the countries of Europe to stand together f or the protection of our borders, f or the security of the people of Europe.

The report f avours in my understanding illegal migration.

Theref ore, I do not support the report.

Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I call Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA f or Ukraine.


Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA (Ukraine, ALDE): Dear Mr President, dear colleagues, dear rapporteurs, The resolution calls the member states of the Council of Europe to take measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks, and to improve international cooperation and coordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection.
The list of measures on prevention, prosecution, protection, cooperation and coordination being implemented in national legislation and practice are meant to solve the human rights and humanitarian system better.
So the non-ref oulement principle, the cornerstone of ref ugee protection guaranteed by the Geneva Convention, prevents ref ugees f rom being expelled, to return to the f rontiers of territory where their lives or f reedom would be threatened in consideration of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Unf ortunately, XXXhybrid ethical use of XXX ref ugees and asylum seekers f rom other countries by the Belarusian aut horities resulted in increased pressure relating to immigration and asylum at the external borders of the European Union, Belarus' borders with Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.

It was orchestrated by the Belarusian authorities in response to European Union sanctions against Belarus which were imposed f or the violation of human rights.
We agree that people that have been played as a political card by such Russian terrorist regime should no t pay the price of their lives and security.

Countries have an obligation to help and process these asylum applications.

I believe that the more ef f ective mechanism to strengthen border management and more a collaborative approach in preventing such juggling with human lives.
Today there are millions of Ukrainian displaced persons, ref ugees and seeking temporary asylum and shelter in the member states of the Council of Europe.

45 While destroying civilian inf rastructure and blocking the evacuation of civilians f rom the occupied territories to the government-controlled parts of Ukraine, Russia practised illegal detainment of Ukrainian citizens and f orced deportation to the territory of Russia, Belarus and the occupied region of Ukraine.
The European Parliament, in its resolution of 12 September, strongly condemned this practice of Russia and XXXX urgently advised to their XXXX obligation under international law.

We have to stop Russian aggression against Ukraine, stop the act of genocide and environmental violation.

One more important issue to raise.

We are witnessing thousands of Russian men f leeing the country by land, by plane and by sea, to avoid mobilisation.
Could they be considered real ref ugees or asylum seekers, and how should countries accommodate them?

Member states should be very caref ul not to let the situation become a new manipulation, destabilisation and social disruption, but at the same time f ollow international humanitarian law.

I want to emphasise that members states must implement their legal obligation in good f aith, especially in tackling pushbacks.

It requirements all member states to act together.


Thank you f or you attention, dear colleagues.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I give the f loor to Mr Kamil AYDIN f or Türkiye.

Mr Kamil AYDIN (Türkiye, NR): Dear President and dear Colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteurs f or their exclusive works on two important matters f or our continent.

I would like to raise a couple of points on the report on pushbacks.
Dear colleagues, In recent years, unf ortunately we have been witnessing a great deal of global as well as regional problems, which jeopardise and threaten human lives all around the world.

Apart f rom the bloody consequences of war and other atrocities, we can also see a dramatic increase in tragic death tolls of ref ugees, who only attempt to f ind a way out to have secure and more prosperous lives, which is granted as the f irst and f oremost right of being human.
As f ar as the ref ugee issue is concerned, while some count ries such as Türkiye are sharing such a meaningf ul burden of ref ugees regardless of their belief, identity or their colour, some others like Greece show a great resistance and reluctance to such global issues as ref ugees, as they are pushing them back into the depths of the Aegean Sea, resulting in miseries and losses.
It is quite disappointing that this report does not explicitly mention about Greece’s pushbacks on the Aegean Sea and the land border between Türkiye and Greece.

Credible international o rganisations and NGOs working in the f ield reported perpetration of pushbacks by Greek security f orces on many occasions.

Indeed, video footage and statements by witnesses and victims of ten manif est the f lagrant cases of pushbacks.
Despite the abundance of reports and evidence on Greek pushbacks, off icial Greek authorities suggest that they are merely combatting smugglers and human traff ickers, emphasising that they are protecting the borders of Europe.

Such an approach f rom the Greek side does not help put an end to this inhumane practice and to hold those responsible accountable.
Finally, I would like to emphasise the f act that pushback is a pan-European problem and requires a co - ordinated and concerted effort for putting an end to this problem.

Hence, al l countries - including all of us - must act in accordance with its human rights obligations.

Thank you.

46 Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I call Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ f rom Croatia.


Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ (Croatia, SOC): Dear Mister Speak er, Dear Colleagues, Let me start by thanking the rapporteurs for their excellent work.

I hope that your visit to Croatia was an inf ormative one, that you gathered all the inf ormation that you needed, and indeed your input is very valuable f or us.

Discussing this report, I want to discuss something else, and that is how to protect migrants but also protect our countries.

How should we do it?


How is the migratory f low to be controlled?

Some colleagues mentioned here that the best approach is to treat the problem at its core, so investing into the countries of origin of migrants.

I would put it a bit dif f erently, because this approach will take a lot of time and a lot of f unds.

We need to discourage perilous migration, dear colleagues.
By perilous migration, I mean perilous sea crossings like crossings in the Mediterranean, walking long distances, for example f rom Bangladesh to Greece, where migrants are prey f or smugglers, traffickers, other criminals, and unaccompanied minors are of ten exposed to violence and abuse.

What are the solutions that we can apply relatively quickly and ef f iciently?
Maybe extra‑territorial processing of asylums is one of those approaches, as underlined in the report that I had the honour to present to this house.

The creation of saf e zones, also, may be one of the approaches.

Also the acceptance of the help of NGOs.

This is vital, dear colleagues.

I'm not talking about NGOs that are criminal organisations pretending to be NGOs and actually traff icking in people, but NGOs that are actually assisting migrants, helping those that need help.
These NGOs should be supported and allowed to f reely exercise their activities, because they are more f lexible, more speedy and more adaptable to the situation than, maybe, some of f icial systems are.

Of course, the case to case approach is vital in this respect.

There are also other problems that we f ace, dear colleagues.

I will give you an example f rom my country, Croatia.

Migrants who come to the border and apply for asylum are then taken to the reception centres.
In over 75% of cases, af ter a f ew days they just disappear.

They continue on their way to their f inal destination.

In conclusion, much more solidarity is needed on the European level and indeed the ref orm of our asylum system should be looked into.

No one who needs help should be denied help and protection by our countries.

Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

The f loor is given to Mr Sławomir NITRAS f rom Poland.

He is not here.
He is not here.

I now give the f loor to Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA f rom Spain.

Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA (Spain, EC/DA)*: Thank you, Mister President.

I'll be speaking Spanish, my native language.

[in French] I must admit I am quite surprised by a lot of what I have heard in today's debate.

47 I haven't attended many settings of the Parliamentary Assembly, but I do see there are certain recurring issues you deal with, and this is one of them.
To the greatest satisf action, I'm sure, of all members who spoke on but after the lef t and the center-lef t, I'd like to tell you that in Spain we have a law, Law No.

15 of the 12 July 2022, article 2.

One of these laws says that discrimination on grounds of illegal residency is banned.

In other words, Spanish legislation disqualif ied or outlawed any discrimination b etween people with legal and illegal residency.

In other words, this whole concept of residency becomes meaningless.
I'm not sure if this is something you're calling for on the rest of Europe, not am I sure if people intend to rush to Spain themselves to be able to settle legally.

But it's clearly a real problem.

The type of people who might be attracted by measures such as this might well be political activists, for example.
This somewhat.. this incongruence by the Spanish government, pushed by a communist and socialist coalition, is not supported by international texts on asylum nor indeed by any legislation f rom the European Union.

For the reasons we know, we have pushed back the ref ugees.

The f act is, there's no implementation of subsidiarity here when it comes to this.

Let me repeat what I said beforehand: there's no international text with the concept of economic migration.
One of the speakers said a f ew minutes ago that human beings are entitled to migrate.

Obviously, that's the International dimension of what we call the national level of f reedom of movement, but the right to migrate has to be legal, not illegal.

If migration is illegal, that comes under international law or the national law, but we'll see that Spanish legislation has eliminated the concept of legal residency by saying that legal and illegal residents are in equal f ooting.
As a result, we have to look at what this national law says about this.

I don't think that we can af f ord to accept exceptions.

States are sovereign.

They continue to be sovereign, they continue to have borders.

It's not a matter of cruelty.

I know that some speakers today have been talking about a Christian view of lif e. I'm a Christian myself , but I can't accept this way we are eliminating borders so that we ignore the cultural nature of states.
Some states, because of their geographical situation, are not in a position to accept f ree movement of migrants unless they are f ully in line with their legal requirements.

Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I now give the f loor to Mr Fazil MUSTAFA f rom Azerbaijan.
Mr Fazil MUSTAFA (Azerbaijan, ALDE): Dear colleagues, I want to bring your attention to the f act that unanimously adapted draft resolution based on the report prepared by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ and discuss that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of its protocol prohibit state parties f rom returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment as to ways that this is saf e. Member states are called upon to take a series of measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks, and to improve international cooperation and coordination between border authorities, police f orces, and other bodies in charge of border protection.
It is necessary to pay attention to the f act that dozens of migrants around the world risk their lives to cross international bodies to saf ety.

Also states have the right to decide whether they grant non-European Union nations access to their territory.

They must do this in accordance with the law and uphold individuals' f undamental rights.
48 We understand that the European Union objectives in the f ield of external border protection are to saf eguard f reedom of movement within the Schengen area, an area without internal borders, and to ensure eff icient mentoring of people who cross both external Schengen borders and the E uropean Union's external borders, these countries that are not part of Schengen area.
Border surveillance operations carried out at the European Union's external border must respect international and European human rights and humanitarian law, as well as the sea.

But despite it, pushbacks have taken on worrying proportions taking place routinely on land but also in the more deadly environment of the sea.

We must come to a mutual solution for this problem.

European Union member states must adhere to the rules established earlier f or the protection of human rights.

Thanks.
Thanks.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I would like to give the f loor to Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI f rom Türkiye.

Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI (Türkiye, NR): Dear President, Dear Colleagues, I would like to congratulate both rapporteurs f or their timely and comprehensive reports.
Although detailed information is given in the report about the legal f ramework on the prohibition of pushbacks and what needs to be done legally to prevent it, unfortunately, there is no information about why people leave their homeland at the risk of their lives and become ref ugees, and why they seek asylum.

I think understanding why people become ref ugees is as important as understanding why they were pushed back.
Back to the report, although Türkiye is the country most aff ected by pushbacks, it is extremely unf ortunate that the report mentions Türkiye as a country that uses ref ugees as political pressure.

On the contrary, Türkiye is the country that provides shelter to the largest number of ref ugees in the world today and this situation has been going on f or 11 years.

Could you please tell me which country of yours can provide shelter for 4 or 5 million ref ugees f or 11 or 12 years?
Besides, unfortunately, there is no inf ormation given about the ref ugees pushed back by Greek security f orces in the Aegean Sea and on the land border.

I think there is no need to say that today Greece is the country which pushes back most ref ugees in the world.

According to the Turkish Ombudsman institution, between the years 2020 and 2022 – I mean in the last three years – 41 000 ref ugees were pushed back in the Aegean Sea and on the land border.
And 400 of these people – innocent people – lost their lives.

Some of these them died by drowning and some f roze to death on land.

Videos of ref ugees who were pushed back, beaten or even killed by exploding their inf latable boots by the Greek security f orces goes viral on social media and can be seen almost every week on TV screens.

In the light of this inf ormation, not mentioning Greece's role in pushback incidents is the most missing part of this report.
Dear colleagues, right to asylum is recognised in the United Nations Univ ersal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and supported by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Ref ugees and the 1967 P rotocol Relating to the Status of Ref ugees.

According to these international conventions, pushbacks are a form of denial of the right to asylum.
If we aim to stop pushbacks, we need international collaboration and instruments and, as parliament arians, we also need to address these challenges in our countries.

Thank you f or your attention.

49 Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I call Mrs Margreet De BOER f or the Netherlands.

Ms Margreet De BOER (Netherlands, SOC): I thank both rapporteurs f or their important work.

I have a f ew remarks and questions on saf e third countries.
We should not only f ocus on a def inition of saf ety as the report does but also on the question – what can be regarded as a country of origin or third country?

Can we really force an asylum seeker to return to a saf e third country, in which they have, in f act, never lived bef ore as it is a standard practice in many member states?

Can you speak of a country of origin to which someone should return on the mere connection of nationality if the person in question has never resided there?
And with regard to pushbacks, I do not only call on member states on the European border to end all pushbacks, all states should take responsibility and protect asylum seekers f rom these actions.

Do the rapporteurs agree that states that commit pushbacks cannot be considered saf e enough for Dublin returnees and that other states should suspend Dublin returns to these countries as long as prospects are carried out?

Migration and assignment policies are among the most pressing issues in Europe.
The asylum situation is often ref erred to as a ref ugee crisis but in many countries, it is not so much the number of incoming ref ugees that creates this crisis situation, it is the deliberate political choice t o allocate insuf f icient resources leading to a lack of capacity on all f ronts.

A lack of capacity which is then wrongf ully used to argue that we as North -Western European countries cannot handle the number of asylum seekers arriving.
Take the example of the Netherlands where it is a structural lack of capacity in asylum reception shelters due to continuous downscaling in asylum reception, and processing.

The situation dropped so low below the minimum standards with hundreds of people sleeping outside some nights that recently a Dutch NGO successf ully sued the state in order to ensure improvements of the reception conditions.
However, rather than accepting these judgments, the Dutch state has appealed and meanwhile extended the maximum term f or asylum decisio ns f rom six to 15 months and the maximum term f or f amily reunif ication to 15 months as well.

I f eel really f eel ashamed of my country, I have to say.

Political decisions create crises and asylum seekers and ref ugees pay the price and this deliberat e violation of their rights must stop at our borders and in all our countries.

Thank you.
Thank you.

Mr Bertrand BOUYX (France, ALDE, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

The f loor is given to Ms Jorida TABAKU, f rom Albania.

She is not here.

I now give the f loor to Mr Allal AMRAOUI, f rom Morocco.

Mr Allal AMRAOUI (Morocco): Thank you, Mr President.

Dear colleagues, First of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs f or their excellent work.
For my part, I would like to highlight the efforts of my partner country for democracy here, Morocco, a country of origin, transit and increasingly a country of destination for migrants.
It continues t o invest f ully in the migration issue, with operations to regularise tens of thousands of irregular migrants with better int egration and, consequently, better management of migratory f lows at the Af rican level through the mandate of leadership on migration entrusted to His Majesty the King, or the establishment of the Af rican Migration Observatory in Morocco and, at the international level, through an intense and voluntary engagement – the Global Forum on Migration and Development, the adoption of the Global Compact for Saf e, Orderly and Regular Migration in Marrakech.
50 You are right, dear colleague Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, to underline the importance of making borders an axis of co-operation and not of division, as well as the shared inter-state responsibility.

This is ref lected in the exemplary co-operation between Morocco and Spain as well as with other EU countries.

The EU's f inancial support of €500 million over seven years to combat irregular migration f alls f ar short of Morocco's efforts and does not cover its expenses, estimated at €427 million per year.
This year alone, through July, Moroccan services have aborted more than 40 600 attempts to emigrate to Spain, 11 000 more than in 2021, helped more than 7 000 migrants attempting to cross the sea, and dismantled 124 migrant smuggling networks.

Morocco, as a responsible state, does not make f inancial aid a condition for maintaining its migration efforts: whether there is aid or not, Morocco will continue to do what it has to do.
But the operational imperative of border control is not limited to one country.

It must be understood in terms of the indivisibility of security and its inseparable corollary of regional co -operation and solidarity among all partners.

Migrants are victims not only of humanitarian crises but also of political manoeuvring, as is the case with Morocco's eastern borders.
Algeria has kept its land borders closed since 1994, dashing hopes of a possible regional integration that would be benef icial to the entire Maghreb and even to the continent.

These same borders become porous when it co mes to migratory f lows and they have no choice but to pass through Libya and then Algeria bef ore entering Moroccan territory.

These are outdated practices, where migrants are forced, voluntarily and deliberately, by the Algerian army to reach Morocco.
This is an indirect strategy decried by several observers, which consists of using the migration crisis as a political weapon against Morocco and more broadly against other European countries such as Spain.

The migration f lows f rom Algeria to Morocco are there.

If there is no sincere and good -f aith co-operation between neighbours along the migration routes, we cannot stop these f lows.

Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.
I call next Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS, f rom the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, the United Kingdom.

Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS (United Kingdom, SOC): Chair and Colleagues, I f ind it a little f rustrating standing here and having heard so many people with wilf ul or wilf ully self -deluding understandings of the def inition of a ref ugee.
I thought that we all knew what that meant, and that we all knew that we had our various countries subscribed to laws incorporating them within our domestic law, to accept the right of individuals as ref ugees to reach our shores.

I'm delighted that refoulement is receiving the accent that it is receiving, the three poles of the Geneva Convention are non-penalisation, non-discrimination, and non-refoulement.

Too of ten we have neglected the last one.


I'm resisting with every sense of myself an opportunity given at this late hour to say something rude about the British government and its own policies at this minute on the very question we are talking about.

But having had one exposure to an over-the-top presentation earlier today, I am being terrif ically well disciplined.
What I really want to suggest is that the one bit of this report that perhaps we could give greater attention to and really bring out in prof ile is the f act that although everybody has the right to come, they have to be assessed.

What's missing, as I discovered f rom my own compilation of the report on the anniversary of the Geneva Convention, is that our countries are ill prepared in general for the mechanisms that assess the claims of those who seek ref uge.
If that were clearer, if that were ef f icient, then the f ears of those small-minded countries who want to reject everybody simply because they're f rom somewhere else could be addressed.

Saf e evaluation of those who present themselves as ref ugees needs greater prof ile to allay the f ears of those who have exaggerated the situation on the one hand, and to give greater clarity to the meaning of refoulement on the other.
Thank you so much, those who've done all the hard work to bring these issues bef ore us.

51 I wish that our response to your work were worthy of the ef f orts that you've made.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I call next Ms Zdravka BUŠIĆ, Group of the European People's Party, f rom Croatia.

The f loor is yours.

Ms Zdravka BUŠIĆ (Croatia, EPP/CD): Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam.


Let me thank the rapporteurs f or the report and their ef f orts to tackle this very sensitive issue.

As a member State of the European Union, Croatia has the obligation to protect the external borders of the European Union.

In doing so, we take all the necessary measures and implement relevant recommendations with the aim of protecting the rights of migrants and ref ugees.
As a Schengen candidate, Croatia continuously optimises its capacities and technical equipment for integrated land and sea border management, and inf ormation systems with regional co‑ordination centres with the most modern technological equipment precisely in order to improve necessary procedures in every possible way.
Within the f ocus of planned activities and programmes, education of police off icers in co ‑operation with civil society and international organisations is considered to be the most important issue.

While special prof essional programmes in the f ield of human rights protection are being implemented within the f ramework of secondary and higher education.
The Croatian Ministry of Internal Aff airs elaborated and distributed, on its own initiative, a special manual and rights of migrants, and also organised various meetings.

All these meetings were really required by European Commission standards for the protection of f undamental rights of migrants and asylum seekers, as well as under judgments of the European Court of Human Fights of the Council of Europe.
In addition to the obligation to monitor the European Union's longer external land border, and prevent illegal entry, as well as possible threats and criminal acts, especially f rom the aspect of armed conf licts of which we spoke all this week, Croatia mainly strives to preserve and protect human rights and has zero tolerance f or any f orms of violence against migrants and ref ugees.
Isolated cases, I must admit, of transgression of power by police officers, which, unfortunately, did happen, where immediately processed, and they were only really a f ew.

Allow me to conclude that in addition to taking care of the security of the European Union's external border, longest border, the protection of human rights and human lif e is at the f oref ront of our interest.

Thank you very much.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.
Dear colleagues, I was asked by the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly to inf orm you that we know that we are f eeling that it's too hot here, but the Secretary General and the technicians are doing their best.

Please, we are asking f or your understanding, this hemicycle is witho ut windows and this af ternoon was a really heated one with emotional debates, please.

We will continue.

The next on the speaker list is Ms Nerea AHEDO, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats f or Europe, f rom Spain.
The f loor is yours.

Ms Nerea AHEDO (Spain, ALDE)*: I'll be talking in Spanish.

I'd like to start by thanking the rapporteurs f or the two reports they've submitted.

52 I'd like to remind everybody that we're all t alking here about a Fortress Europe which we try to make ever stronger.

That seems to be the primary objective of our immigration policy.
Either we externalise our borders to do this and afterwards we pay countries, countries which don't always have a very good reputation when it comes to democracy and respective human rights.

The idea is we would pay those countries to make sure either they don't reach our borders, or they take them back.

That leaves us with a clean conscience.

Or, we stop them getting in.

If they do get in, we expel them, we push them back, of ten using violence.
We've seen lots of examples in Melilla, North Af rica most recently.

The problem is that this policy of collective pushback is becoming increasingly widespread both on our coast and our North Af rican coasts.

The problem is that we are normalising this, and we're becoming increasingly tolerant of it despite the f act that it's illegal and immoral.

I must ask myself : why are we doing this, what are we af raid of ?
Are we unaware of the f act that people are being instrumentalised in this process and the more we try to push people back, the more we'll push migrants to seek dangerous routes onto our continent, trusting their lives to the hands of the maf ia.

Despite everything we do, some people do succeed in entering Europe.

In that case they need protection.

I'd like to tell you about two examples.

People often reach the f irst country; that's the country which is obliged to deal with their asylum request.
In many cases, the people don't want to stay in those countries.

These are transit countries f or them.

But these transit migrants are increasingly complicated, not just because their requests aren't accepted, but also because they want to get into the Schengen Agreement, so the border in the Pyrenees f or example, between France and Spain, is closed in many places, despite the f act that it is in Schengen.

Once again, the people who arrive in the initial country of ten don't want to stay there.
There's another issue.

I don't know if it is f air that the countries of entry are expected to bear 100% responsibility simply because they are located there where they are, the entrance to Europe.

I think we have to give some very serious thought to a sharing of responsibility, and reviewing and revising Dublin.

Either we can do that or we c an delegate our responsibility to so -called saf e third countries.

That's very easy isn't it: let's make them responsible.
I'd like to know what the def inition of a saf e third country is.

Is it acceptable that we designate Rwanda a saf e country, as some countries have done?

Is it legitimate to do that?

Is it legitimate to send them back?

I don't think it is.

I'll be supporting these two reports; I think they are a step f orward.

But I think we have to start thinking in a comprehensive and structured way.
We have to ensure that we have a humane and humanitarian migration policy based on human rights and the respect of people.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you [in Spanish].

Next in the debate, I call next to Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ f rom Türkiye.

Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ (Türkiye, NR): Dear President, Dear Colleagues, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs f or their comprehensive works.
Regarding the report on pushbacks, the rapporteur and the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe have rightly stated that pushbacks have become a pan-European problem encompassing more than half of the member states.

Sadly, this inhumane practice systematically and regularly prevails in many countries.

Considering the magnitude of the problem and its violent and systematic nature, combatting pushbacks require a rather concerted and co-ordinated approach which must also include EU institutions.
53 Unf ortunately, Frontex was involved in pushbacks on many occasions either by turning a blind eye or aiding the security f orces in perpetrating pushbacks.

In f act, as both rapporteurs have stated in their reports, internal investigations and the inquiry of the European Parliament have not produced tangible results as Frontex did not act in a transparent and accountable manner.
In f act, investigations by European Commission and the E uropean P arliament revealed that the organisation was aware of the inf ringements and deliberately did not report them.

The migration committee in here have invited representatives f rom Frontex, but no representative has participated in the committee meetings f or hearing.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ has contacted number of officers f rom the organisation and managed to acquire some inf ormation.
However, it is a shame that the committee was unable to ask questions directly to the concerned officers regarding the allegations of complicity of the organisations in pushbacks.

I hope that all these investigations would yield some solid results in the protection of lives and rights of migrants travelling on land and sea.

And that Frontex would take a path that would render the organisation transparent, accountable, and human rights-complaint.

Thank you.
Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

Next in the debate, I call next Mr Chris BONETT f rom Malta.

The f loor is yours.

Mr Chris BONETT (Malta, SOC): Thank you, Madam President.

Dear Colleagues, This resolution deals with the very sensitive subject of migration.
It is a subject that has plagued my country for many years, which good or bad, has tried to deal with it by striking a balance between the rights of every person, notwithstanding the background, is given the opportunity to leave areas of oppression and settle in a country where these persons can be protected and start a new lif e with a much better quality, and the exigencies of the actual space available in order f or everyone in that country to lead a good lif e. However, although I understand the scope of the resolutions, I do have to admit that now that apart f rom the Balkan route and the Mediterranean route, we have a Ukranian route f or migration, it is really t he time not to have a discussion limited to pushbacks and refoulement, but to open the scope of this discussion to a wider debate on how as European countries, who share the principles of solidarity between our peoples, start taking serious action on how we can help each other to carry this responsibility together.
Unf ortunately, I have seen many occasions where discussions have been held on what an individual state has to do or not to do, but rarely has there been a serious discussion on how collectively we are to tackle this phenomenon, which will not leave us any time soon.
Whilst I do commend the governments bordering Ukraine f or dealing with the inf lux of migrants so stoically in the past f ew months, I urge you all to speak in your respective parliament s on the need to assist not only the persons leaving their countries, but also those states who have the legal obligation to give them a home.
I think it is saf e to say that the concept of voluntary relocation did not leave the desired results, and the number of migrants arriving on our shores f ar outweighs the number of those who have been received and given asylum by other states in Europe.
For over 70 years, this Council of Europe has been an institution in which member States with diff erent backgrounds, diff erent problems, have come together to legislate, to create treaties, that provide the vital balance between the f undamental human rights of persons and the responsibilities of each member State.
Madam President, it is useless to speak about interstate solidarity if such solidarity does not stretch to helping member States on the periphery of Europe who are constantly dealing with this problem.

54 Addressing pushbacks is not enough.

Countries like mine cannot physically f ace all t his on their own any longer.
This problem needs to be shared by all member States who are urged to open their doors to house people migrating in order to live a better lif e. The call for legislation in this resolution addresses only part of the issue, and rather than solving it, will increase the problem in the targeted countries.

This approach is def initely not enough.


Mister President, My Dear Colleagues, If you, like me, really believe in lif e, really believe in liberty, and in f undamental human rights, then let’s tackle this subject in its entirety and legislate in a holistic way.

Let’s express solidarity with all peoples, and let’s all be part of the solution to the problem, not just make sure it stays away f rom our borders.

It’s not Malta’s or any other individual nation’s problem.
It is a European problem and as such requires a European solution.

Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

In the debate, I call next Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA Group of the European People's Party f rom Ukraine.

Mariia, the f loor is yours.

Ms Mariia MEZE NTSEVA (Ukraine, EPP/CD): Thank you, Ms Elvira KOVÁCS.

Thank you, dear Chairwoman.


I see my great two f riends in a combination in the joint debate, XXXX#sophie Ms Stephanie KRISPE RXXX and Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ.
I salute you both, dear colleagues, because the mission which you have accomplished with very valuable deliveries, stipulated in both of your reports are opening up something that probably many international organisations could have been blind before about and this is the structure of the exact protection for those who are seeking asylum and a question we are posing to ourselves today.
These people are probably in real need of protection because they are f leeing wars and our institution was always providing the mechanisms f or protection and f air responsibility -sharing among its members.

Colleagues, I was very positively impressed today when I heard a deputy chai r of the Council of Europe Development Bank speaking at one of the political group's meetings, showing exact figures of millions of euros jointly collected to support such people.
For instance, there was allocation for Ukraine, we have submitted our application for this bank of the reconstruction of the Council of Europe but your countries who are receiving at least seven million temporary displaced persons and this is a new understanding in international law – we do not call them ref ugees – are receiving this assistance to help them with living, to help them with homes, to help them with f ood and to provide them with a shelter.
And we highly appreciate, on behalf of Ukraine, this gesture.

I would like to remind you, dear colleagues, some very sad numbers, that these f loods that occurred in our subcontinent af ter 24 February are the highest ranked by the UNHCR since the Second World War.

Theref ore, the mechanism which we are implementing, sharing and imposing on such processes have to be very tactical.

And theref ore, I salute both the rapporteurs f or t he tremendous work which has been done.
We understand that there are also options which we can suggest already to the Temporary Protection Directive, and we highly salute a new mechanism that was recently proposed at the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons on evaluation on prof essional skills.

These people are not there only to sit and wait for the victory days or for peace.

They are there to contribute to your economies, dear colleagues.

That is what they are doing every day when they are aspiring f or peace.

Thank you.
Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you, Mariia.

I call next Ms Mireille CLAPOT, of ALDE, f rom France.

Ms Mireille CLAP OT (France, ALDE ): The geographical conf iguration of Europe means that some parts of the continent are very attractive to migrants, either f or reasons of conf lict, or for economic reasons, or because human beings sometimes have no choice but to move around our globe.
Moreover, land and sea borders are an unavoidable aspect of international law.

55 Moreover, asylum is also an essential component of international humanitarian law.

In particular, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of its Protocol No.

4, both of which demand individual examination of cases and outlaw them being sent back to the country if this isn't done.
Moreover, in your excellent reports, Rapporteurs, you do list countries which, sadly, practice ref oulement and we would like to stress that this is not acceptable.

Obviously, we must protect our borders, but in f ull respect of international law and the dignity of the people who migrate.
The United Nations High Commissioner f or Ref ugees, or the International Organization for Migration, the Council of Europe via the European Court of Human Rights, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture or, indeed, reports f rom the Special Representative of the Secretary General f or Migration and Ref ugees - all of these bodies have f lagged up shortcomings which we, as parliamentarians, cannot accept.
The European Union, moreover, is playing a so mewhat ambiguous role.

On one hand, it quotes law; at the same time, however, it is arming Frontex, which seems to carry out and tolerate quite dubious practices.

The examples provided by the rapporteurs are quite f rightening: pushback f rom Croatia to Serb ia and Bosnia- Herzegovina, pushback f rom Greece to Turkey, pushback f rom Poland and Lithuania to Belarus, pushback f rom Italy and Malta to Libya.
Pushback or ref oulement is of ten justif ied by quoting hostile public opinion.

However, f raternity and the desire to take in ref ugees are widespread sentiments.

We hav e seen t his very recently with our Ukrainians f riends.

I do note that the rapporteur has not ref erred to pushback on French borders, although NGOs have cited a certain number of cases on the French land border with Italy.

In f act, France is more of a victim f rom pushback carried out by the United Kingdom.

So, what can we do?
So, what can we do?

We have to train our law-and-order f orces, we have to help support civil society, carry out parliament ary scrutiny, protect migrants, punish those responsible for illegal migration, if necessary, and f acilitate cooperation with other countries.

I support the resolution and I was delighted that, during my maiden speech in this house, I was able to support these reports, which are f ully in line with my humanist values.
Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you, madam.

The last speaker f or tonight's debate is Mr László TOROCZKAI f rom Hungary.

Mr László TOROCZKAI (Hungary, NR): Thank you.

First of all we need to see the dif f erence between a ref ugee and a migrant.
For nine years I was the mayor of the town that lies on the Hungarian-Serbian border, which is also the border of the European Union and which has been under the greatest inland pressure because of migration for the past seven years.

Since 2015, hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants have passed through our town, Ásotthalom.

With this, they destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of law-abiding, decent European citizens.
They have broken into our houses on several occasions, they are destroying our agriculture and leave huge amounts of garbage behind, destroying our environment.

They regularly shoot each other with guns or attack the Hungarian policemen and soldiers guarding the border.

When will I hear about the human rights of law-abiding, tax-paying, local European citizens here?

Our rights do not matter?

Who will compensate us f or the damage caused by the migrants?
I really hope that the politicians who want to deprive law-abiding, tax-paying Europeans of their right to protect their own borders, live in a town like I do at the Hungarian-Serbian border.

Or, if not, then I hope they live in a ghetto populated by non-European migrants.

I hope that their children go to a school where the children of migrants are in the majority.

If this is not the case, then you are all hypocrites!

56 You ref er to the 1951 Ref ugee Convention.


However, the world has changed a lot since then, so we need a new Ref ugee Convention.

Demographically, there is a huge diff erence between Europe and other parts of the world, where most migrants come f rom.

If in a f ew years millions of migrants with completely diff erent cultural backgrounds arrived in any country, that would lead to conf licts.

So, the source of the conf lict is mass immigration, and there is a conscious policy behind this.
This intention is the same as that of large global corporations, who want to see f aceless consumers and cheap labour in Europe.

These political and economic forces are not building a multicultural s ociety, but are destroying a Europe based on the traditions of the ancient European peoples and Christianity.

Those who love all the colours of the rainbow, but want to cancel the white.

Europe is f ull.

Thes e politics must end if we want conf licts to decrease.

Thank you very much.


Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Dear colleagues, I must now interrupt the list of speakers.

The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak, may be given to the table of f ice f or publication in the of f icial report.

I remind colleagues that typewritten text can be submitted electronically no later than 4 hours af ter the list of speakers is interrupted.
Now, I call Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, the rapporteur, to reply.

You have 5 minutes.

First you, and then Madam.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC, Rapporteur): I was only trying to be gallant, Madam President.

There you have it, dear colleagues, I have many things to say and I thank you all f or your contribution to this debate.

It is a very complicated subject, we can f eel it, with a lot of emotion, with vehement criticisms that are justif ied f rom your point of view.
But my problem is that I have the impression, when I speak with my colleague, with the commission, with the Secretariat about this problem, that I am really in line with the values of our European Convention on Human Rights; in the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Migrants; Mr Felipe Gonzáles Morales, in the position of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Mr José Luis Pérez Sanchez.
Felipe Gonzáles Morales; in line with t he position of the Council of Europe's Commissioner f or Human Rights, Ms Dunja Mijatović, who considers that more than half of our countries are concerned – even Franc e a little bit – even if it is less important, in line with what the UNHCR says, in line with what the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Ms Leyla Kayacik, says.
I will start by talking about what Mr László TOROCZKA I f rom Hungary said: diff erences between ref ugees and migrants, damage related to migrants.

It is clear, but it is obvious that if you put a wall on the border of your state and force thousands and thousands of migrants to be stopped suddenly on their way to Europe, it is clear that these people live and perhaps do some damage, it is clear.
What is also clear is that with some of my colleagues here, notably Mr Paul GAVAN; I have made a point of saying Mr Paul GAVAN, I had the opportunity at the time, in the case of the campaign against the administrative detention of migrant children, to visit the camp of Röszke, a camp which was, in f act, a crossing point normally f or migrants who entered in dribs and drabs.
I saw barbed wire, I saw watchtowers, I saw 15 -year-old kids f rom Afghanistan - this also ref ers to the war - who had been detained there f or six months.

We saw things that, f rom the point of view of the f undamental rights of migrants, are not acceptable.

57 Lord Richard KEEN, I think he is no longer here, ref erred to the Westphalian right of States to have borders.

Indeed, there are stories of def inition and some have a clear def inition.
There are genuine ref ugees, real ref ugees, who are f leeing f rom war and then perhaps f rom potential crimes that could be committed against them; and then there are economic migrants.

But, ladies and gentlemen, and here I am responding to Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI of Türkiye, why do people become ref ugees?

Why do they migrate?

There are many causes.

A year ago, in this chamber, we had a debate on climate migrants: the misery of climate change, and wars that do not stop in Syria or elsewhere.
Huge problems in terms of security, just for their survival, push people to try to hope, to try to live somewhere.

And there are indeed people who have wars, like in Ukraine where things are clear; they are welcomed; or in Hungary f or example, based on their own values.

But in f act, all people who at some point present themselves at a border - and this has been said quite rightly by most of you - are entitled to help and assistance.
And they are entitled to procedures: procedures that are the rules that exist in our Organization, that exist in all the f und amental organisations of this world.

And I believe that, in the end, what is f undamental is that in this temple of human rights, these rights are respected and that we try to imagine one simple thing: that the work is enormous.

Certainly, we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
The climate crisis, the conf licts, the hunger, the problems that arise are not going to make things any better and we, all the European states, must be united to f ind a solution.

And I am clear: my country, Switzerland, is not doing enough.

But it is true that thanks to the proposals of our Italian f riends, we are going to improve things a little in the resolution.
Lord DUNDEE is currently preparing a report on this issue of European solidarity, talking about what we should do to share the burden, all of us, the states.

This is f undamental.

I will end by talking about Frontex to answer Mr A hmet BÜY ÜKGÜMÜŞ f rom Türkiye: I had the opportunity to go to Warsaw.

I met the management of Frontex.

It is clear that there was a long period when Frontex did not want to talk.
In the end, they had to open up the discussion a little bit because sanctions were imposed – the European Union limited the money it gave to Frontex because there were dysf unctions.
And, above all, they have organised, they have set up at the request of the European Union, a special service for the respect of human rights, which is in f act an entity that - in my opinion - will signif icantly improve the quality of border surveillance, so that Frontex - which is a structure decided by the European Union and which is certainly usef ul - is in any case there to verify that good practices exist and that human rights are respected.

This is f undamental.


Thank you f or your attention and, I hope, for your support f or this report and that of my colleague.

Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I call now Ms Stephanie KRISPER to reply.

You also have 5 minutes.

Ms Stephanie KRISPER (Austria, ALDE, Rapporteur): Thank you very much.

Thanks to the colleagues.

I'm gratef ul to hear in many speeches an amount of support by many of you who agree with our reports.
I wanted to react to the critical statements if they raised concrete arguments.

As to Croatia and Malta, I completely agree that we need European solutions and acknowledge also that some countries have to deal with more arrivals than others, so it is a call for solidarity also f rom my side.

But a higher number of people seeking asylum can never, never be an excuse f or inhumane treatment and violation of Article 3 of the convention.

And it's also best way to have control.


And you get control if you're compliant with the rule of law.

Pushbacks are not only barbaric but they also generate chaos that also right-wing parties do not like.

NGOs should of course be supported, and [they] play a vital role in securing asylum seekers' human rights, but they are not an excuse f or the state to ref rain himself f rom f ulf illing its obligations.
58 As to Hungary, migrants are only illegal because Hungarian laws are completely contrary to European law and don't allow people to seek asylum at the border, that completely undermines The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Ref ugees, and has to be urgently changed, in my opinion.

Hungary has accepted only 50 asylum claims this year and neither contributes in processing asylum claims and hosting receiving ref ugees nor in building a common European system based on the rule of law.
As to Türkiye, yes, there are really a number of pushbacks, and these are the reasons that we also call f or a monitoring mechanism.

And as to my colleague Ms Margreet De BOER f rom the Netherlands, my report did not focus on the problem of the country of origin, and if somebody has no link to the country of origin anymore, I think that Article 8 of the convention is of support f or these cases.
With one [case] of a girl having been born in Austria, I think deported back to Georgia, where she has not known – even the language – but now she is back.

And my son – the [son of] my colleague f rom Hungary – I think, is going to the same school, by the way.

And, as to saf e third countries without a link to the person concerned, that is not foreseen by UNHCR that persons are sent to a saf e third country where there is no meaningf ul link f ound in the course of ref uge that they took.
And it is deplorable that not even, not only in the Netherlands but also in Austria for example the accommodation of ref ugees is deteriorating.

That's why we all, I think, have also to get together as a contractive force to f ight for the level to go up again of accommodation standards, and I wonder why within the EU the European Commission hasn't started inf ringement procedures anyway.

And we could also ask f or this and motivate f or such procedures.
And as to dear Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS, there are two phases: one is the admissibility phase and one is the phase where you, if the case is admissible, look into the case itself and on the merits.

And I think on both levels there is not enough knowledge, of ten, as to a decision being taken really in a valid way.
But my report only focused on the question of admissibility, because it is a reason for not having a claim be admissible to say this person comes f rom a saf e third country and here the problem is the change of burden of proof for the person being here of concern not having the possibility to change here the presumability of saf ety, which is in f act wrong.

So, this has to be looked at in every country concerned and I also hope in those who have voiced themselves critically today.

Thank you.
Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you, Ms Stephanie KRISPER.

Does the f irst Vice-Chairperson of the Committee wish to speak?

You have 3 minutes.

Mr Paul GAVAN (Ireland, UEL, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons): Thank you.

The Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons approved in June these two excellent reports.
Europe, and indeed the world, has been wit nessing this year a strong increase of people on the move due to armed conf licts, violence, poverty and hunger, as well as climate change.

The numbers of persons seeking international protection in members States of the Council of Europe has risen sharply this year.

In this context, the joint debate this af ternoon is of great value.
It relies on the standards set by the European Convention on Human Rights, and the 1951 Ref ugee Convention, namely the obligation not to ref use ref ugees the right to apply f or asylum.

Such a right is enshrined in most national constitutions and is even guaranteed by Article 18 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It's, theref ore, surprisingly sad that we hav e to discuss here ways to ensure that member States do not disregard these f undamental rights.
59 Ms Stephanie KRISPER's report on saf e third countries is about asylum seekers and those whose asylum applications have been rejected and who must not be deported to unsaf e third countries.

As simple and logical as this is, we see lengthy debates about this subject based on political considerations rather than the existing legal standards.
For the member States of the Council of Europe, it is not admissible to deport persons to countries where their lif e and physical integrity, or their f undamental rights, are threatened.

Human rights cannot be negotiated, they must be respected.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ's report highlights the most f requent violations of the right to asylum happening through what are called pushbacks or refoulement.

The number of alleged pushbacks by member States are a matter of serious concern.
Obviously, not all who apply for asylum will be granted this protection, but this f act does not justify the attempts to blatantly deny such a f undamental right to a large number of people.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ's report also underscores the extreme danger that migrants and ref ugees are routinely conf ronted with on land, but also in the more deadly environment of the sea.

Violent pushbacks make thousands risk losing their lives.
Changes in the law and practices of member States are indispensable to stop pushbacks at land and see, and to codif y the principle of non-refoulement in national legislation.
Unanimously adopted, the draf t resolutio n underscores Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of which protocol prohibits state parties f rom returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment as to whether this is saf e. Measures must be taken to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks, and to improve international co ‑operation and co‑ordination between border authorities, police and other bodies in charge of border protection.
I'll f inish with a f ew words for our Hungarian colleague.

Hat e speech is not an acceptable response to a migration crisis.

Racism is never an acceptable response to a migration crisis.

Imprisoning children in cages on the Hungarian border, which I witnessed f irst hand, is never an acceptable response to a migration crisis.

Mr Alberto RIBOLLA (Italy, EC/DA): Speech not pronounced (Rules of Procedure, Art.

31.2), only available in Italian.


Ms Laura CASTEL (Spain, UEL): Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.

31.2 I want to personally congratulate the rapporteur for the work done.

However, I would like to make some ref lections on the use of the term “saf e countries”.

Pushbacks are prohibited by international law, under the non -ref oulement principle, and by virtue of human rights treaties.

The right not to be ref ouled is enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Every person arriving in a country should have individual analysis of their petition to asylum or entry in the country.

Let’s keep this in mind.

Designating a country as “saf e” means that the human rights situations there is considered satisf actory and individuals do not suf f er persecution.

From my political group we do not believe in the notion of “third saf e countries”, Saf e f or whom?

and according to whom?

Unclear.


Any list, as it so often happens, would erode international principles and the protection regime through overly broad def initions.

Such approach will limit ref ugees’ eff ective ac cess to international protection.

To recall, according to the UNHCR - the primary responsibility to provide protection rests with the state where asylum is sought.

This burden should not be lif ted to the detriment for ref ugees.
Further, this runs counter to EU agreements to share burden f or hosting and supporting world’s ref ugees.

This concept limits the space for receiving countries.

As Enlighted by the report the practice is worrying.

Not only for divergences between states but also procedures to access the application.

Right to asylum can be asked f or many reasons, political reasons but also f or persecution f or LGBTI, f or pertaining to a specif ic minority, etc.
60 No country can be considered entirely saf e f or absolutely everyone.

Using the term “saf ety” lowers procedural guarantees and the quality of examination of applications.

The use of this term is therefore highly problematic and may perpetuate an already existing human rights violation.

And the EU once again will be complicit.


As stated, the right to seek f or asylum is a human right for every person, and ev ery petition should be examined individually and not conditioned by the country you come f rom or where you go to, or any other limitation.

We should all have a look at our national legislations and beware of such procedures.

This Assembly should have a closer look, as suggested by the report.
We are against the so called “saf e third country agreements”, for, in sum, “saf e countries” is a denial of the right to asylum.

Ms Barbara NOWACKA (Poland, NR): Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.

31.2.

Honourable Members of the Council of Europe Thank you Mister Rapporteur f or your astute and important work on this matter.
Over the last years we have been witnessing a signif icant rise of violence, brutality, humiliation and cruel migrant pushbacks f rom member states to their previous country of transit or even another country, without giving them a chance to claim asylum.

We also see that migration crises are being used as a tool to bring instability and conf licts to the countries of the EU.

We, as parliamentarians of democratic countries, b elieve that human rights are one of the strongest f undaments of our community.
Hence, we must underline the importance of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 4 of its Protocol that are prohibiting Member States of the Council of Europe f rom returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment.

Pushbacks are taking place routinely on land and at sea.

Asylum seekers, including children are victims of this procedure.

Sometimes deadly victims.

The migration crisis on Polish-Belarusian border has started in August 2021.
Bef orehand, Aleksandr Lukashenko, threatened that he will neither stop the criminals, human traf f ickers nor armed migrants f rom coming to Europe.

Since that time Belarus played an active role in causing a migration and humanitarna crisis on its borders with Poland, Latvia and Lithuania.
Thousands of people: men, women and children, with disabilit ies or representing minorities are detained by Belarusian soldiers in scandalous conditions - human rights organizations are reporting violence, beating and rapes.

Asylum seekers or migrants shall not pay the price of a political game.

States do have the right to protect their borders, but also have an obligation to process asylum applications f iled at their borders or within their territory.
Ruling majority in Poland has made a law aimed at restricting an access to territory and asylum for people entering Poland f rom the outside of the off icial border crossings.

This law is in the contradiction to the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which was signed by the Polish Ombudsman.

We should demand serious changes to the law and practice in the Council of Europe Member States to stop pushbacks immediately.
As it is said in the report, we should ask Member States to take measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible f or pushbacks and to improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection, as ref lected in the proposed draf t resolution.
At this point I would like to thank all human rights activists, campaigners, members of formal and inf ormal groups as well as representatives of churches and local comunities at the Polis h-Belarusian border for their outstanding work, courage and empathy.

Also many thanks to Commissioner Dunja Mijatović for courageously standing up for human rights and her presenc e at the borders.
Finally, quoting the biggest campaign f or dignity of migrants and asylum seekers in Poland I have to emphasize: "no one deserves to die in the f orest".

Mr Christophe LACROIX (Belgium, SOC): Speech not pronounced (Rules of P rocedure, Art.

31.

2), only available in French.

Ms Naomi CACHIA (Malta, SOC): Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.

31.2.

Thank you Mr President 61 I believe in empathy, and compassion and I would hope this is a guiding principle in all that we do as parliamentarians.
I also believe in acting pragmatically, with conviction, and with principle.

My country, right at the South of our European continent and of ten the first point of ref uge for migrants, has saved thousands of lives over the years.

We host one of the largest communities of ref ugees a nd benef iciaries of international protection, when compared to the size of our population.
Malta, a small island state, is in f act among the European states that receive the highest number of asylum applications relative to their geographical size, GDP and population – and given the ref erences to Malta within the resolutions and reports, I expected this to be acknowledged.

There is disproportionate pressure f aced by countries such as Malta in terms of sea rescues, irregular arrivals and asylum applications.
And I cannot contribute to this debate without reminding everyone that solidarity is an essential and f undamental European value.

But we must all practice what we preach.

And while I understand and appreciate the spirit of these reports, it disappoints me, and it disappoints so many other people who li ke me live in countries in which migration has been a signif icant challenge, that such discussions often devolve to an exercise of f inger-pointing.
This is an international challenge, and thousands of lives will continue to be lost due to reluctance to take action.

Mr President, this debate must be a f actual and realistic one.

The challenge that we are f acing does not start when migrants arrive inside Europe’s area of responsibility.
If we truly want to address this issue, let us make sure we keep looking at solutions at source – measures meant to save human dignity and the lives of so many women, men and children, desperate to seek a better lif e f or themselves.

Let us not make t he debate on migration a vicious cycle, of acknowledging that there is a problem , and then f ailing to express, and act on, eff ective solidarity with these countries.
So many European citizens are f rustrated by this inaction, and worst of all, the longer we take, the more lives we risk losing.

We have been hearing about the importance of relocation so many years – yet where are we now?

We have f rontline countries admitting thousands of migrants, not just Malta - and then, we are f alling short of implementing a truly practical and mandatory relocation mechanism.

Why is nobody sharing this responsibility as true European partners?
So yes – I call upon changes to law and practice to take measures to prevent pushbacks, I call upon the strengthening of the rights of asylum seekers and ref ugees.

But please – E uropean solidarity should be on top of the agenda, and not a f ootnote.

Ms Rocío ABREU (Mexico): Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.

31.2.

The idea of "saf e third country" arises as a result of the Convention on the Status of Ref ugees that was signed in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1951.
The concept is summarized as f ollows: when a person leaves their country to apply for asylum in another, this second country can ref use to receive them and ref er them to a third party that they consider can give them the same attention.

It is not enough to have good will to be considered a saf e third country.
According to the Geneva Convention, there are some minimum conditions that a country must meet in order to belong to this category, the main one being to guarantee that asylum seekers will not be returned to their country of origin, to respect the principle of "no return".
In addition, they must ensure: The right to housing, social security, medical services, employment and education, The right to f amily reunif ication, That the applicants have a close link with that third country, The United Nations High Commissioner f or Ref ugees (UNHCR) stresses that a country can only transf er the responsibility of hosting to another saf e country if both countries have asylum systems that meet the same standards.
62 The application of the concept is subject to the premise that the applicant is going to be admitted in the third country.

If that does not happen, the person must have access to the asylum process in their f irst country of destination.

In theory, it helps ease the burden on countries that receive the most asylum applications and redistributes applicants more equitably between dif f erent countries.

Historically, the saf e third country principle has generally been applied within the European Union.
If Mexico were to be designated a saf e third country, US border agents could turn away those who crossed the country to seek asylum in the United States, especially migrants f rom the Northern Triangle countries of Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras).
In the opinion of migration experts who have expressed themselves on the subject in Mexico, this possibility does not make sense, since it does not have sufficient inf rastructure to continue housing and serving these migrants who have already submitted their ref ugee application process in the United States.

and that they are on the Mexican side, also, because it does not have the legal f ramework that supports the f act that they can remain indef initely.
Currently there are between 8, 000 and 10,000 migrants who are in these conditions; that is, people who applied f or asylum in the US and who are in Mexican border cities waiting f or a resolution of their cases, which can take up to 12 months.
This gives rise to irregular migration in all countries of the world, it should be noted that there is no universally accepted def inition for irregular migration, since the International Organization f or Migration (IOM) def ines it as a movement of "people who they move outside the rules of the countries of origin, transit or host” (IOM, 2011).
A migrant in an irregular situation may f ind himself in one or more of the f ollowing situations: You may have entered the country irregularly, for example with f alse documents or without crossing an official border; You can reside in the country irregularly, for example in contravention of the conditions of the entry visa or residence permit; or May be irregularly employed, for example if he has the right to reside in the country, but not to accept to be paid f or it.
It is important to point out that the phenomenon of irregular migration ref ers both to the displacement of undocumented persons, that is to say, the irregular migratory f lows, as well as the number of migrants who are undocumented at a given moment, that is, the populations of irregular migrants.
It should be noted that the Mexican government increased deportations by more than 50 percent f rom May to June of this year (preliminary f igures indicate an increase f rom approximately 14,000 to 22,000), with the assistance of the National Guard and the army to the National Institute of Migration (INM).

In turn, apprehensions at the US border f ell 29 percent, f rom 133,000 in May to 95,000 in June.
Theref ore, in the f irst instance, it seems that the agreement between Mexico and the United States is f ulf illing what both governments set out to do.
In general, there are no reliable statistics on the populations or f lows of irregular migrants, one option to change the destination of migration and to be able to saf eguard the right to lif e and ensure the well -being of migrants in an irregular situation is to change and improve public policies at the international le vel, in which access to f undamental services such as health, f ood, housing and education is guaranteed.
It is essential to point out that irregularity does not ref er to people, but to their migratory status at a given time.

As a result of changes in national laws and policies, regular migration can become irregular, and vice versa, since the situation of migrants can change during their journey and stay in the country of transit or destination, which makes it diff icult to have a comprehensive picture of irregular migration and prof iles of irregular migrants.
It is important to note that an apparent change in irregular migration f igures does not ref lect the actual increase in the number of irregular migrants, but changes in policies and practices related to migration and border controls or other programs and administrative criteria.
For similar reasons, comparisons of data on irregular migration f rom diff erent countries may not ref lect real diff erences in levels of migration irregular, but rather the diff erences in border control and administrative systems.

63 Theref ore: Asylum conditions must be reconsidered, since not all countries like Mexico have the capacity for development so that migrants can enter and be supp orted by the government.
Migratory institutions must be strengthened, in this way acts of corruption, violence or human loss would be avoided, especially in border areas.

Create legal pathways f or migration.

In Mexico, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has expressed his desire to create a temporary visa f or Central Americans who wish to work in Mexico.
A f irst step would be to extend to Salvadorans and Hondurans the Border Worker Visitor Card that he now applies to citizens of Guatemala and Belize, as well as expanding the number of states in southern Mexico where they can work.

These steps may reinf orce an existing regional labor market between southern Mexico and Central America.
Implementing long-term solutions and using diff erent tools, as well as changing asylum processes and investing in immigration agencies, would help us tackle smuggling networks, create legal pathways for migration, and f ocus development aid more intelligently, instead of continuing with short-term measures.
It is essential that count ries in their border areas develop strategies in order to recognize that each one has an interest in managing migration in a way that is intelligent, ef f ective, humane and, above all, f air.

Mr Francesco SORBARA (Canada): Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.

31.2.

Esteemed colleagues, Today, the question of how to make a good saf e third country agreement is alive f or Canadians – and f or asylum seekers to Canada – as much as it is f or Council of Europe members.
The Canadian government is looking to modernize its longstanding Saf e Third Country Agreement with the United States.

Canadian courts have also recently made diff erent rulings about the constitutionality of the legislation implementing the Agreement under which Canada sent ref ugees back to the United States.

Indeed, the question is currently being considered by the Canadian Supreme Court.
Coming into force in 2004, the Agreement requires asylum seekers to make a claim in the f irst country in which they arrive, subject to a f ew exceptions.

For example, both countries will accept ref ugees travelling through the other country if they are unaccompanied minors.

The Agreement also only applies to people who make asylum claims at off icial ports of entry, and not to those who enter irregularly across the border.
Canadian immigration legislation requires that Canada consider a country as “saf e” by co nsidering if the country is party to the Ref ugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture, and examining its policies and practices, and its human rights record.

It also empowers Canada to revoke this designation considering these same f actors, based on an ongoing review by the immigration minister.
At the same time, the minister must report any signif icant problems to Cabinet, which ultimately decides if the “saf e” designation is to be revoked.

Cabinet can also decide to engage in diplomatic, state-to-state discussions with another country to f ix the situation or learn more about the situation.

The Agreement off ers clear advantages.

It results in more efficient and ordered administration of ref ugee claims.

It also allows f or inf ormation sharing between administrations.
At the same time, some critics charge that the Agreement has not responded to f luctuating saf ety conditions in the United States.

As it only applies to people making claims at port of entry; moreover, the Agreement has encouraged some people to make dangerous crossings across vast empty spaces – of ten in the dead of winter – to avoid being sent back.

64 Ultimately, whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, Canada will hav e to assess the Agreement in it practical and legal ef f ects.
This includes assessing the ef f ectiveness of the review process itself .

In Canada’s experience, saf ety is not merely def ined by the text of legislation.

It is also defined by ongoing processes – of Cabinet diplomacy, government review and unf oreseen consequences.

Thank you.

Ms Sabrina DE CARLO (Italy, SOC): Speec h not pronounced (Rules of Procedure, Art.

31.2), only available in Italian.

Mr Stéphane BERGERON (Canada): Speech not pronounced (Rules of Procedure, Art.
31.2), only available in French.

Lord Alexander DUNDEE (United Kingdom, EC/DA): Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.

31.2.

Mr President, We debate this af ternoon two aspects of European migration and ref ugee policy, which have divided the European Union f or years: the so -called pushbacks and the issue of saf e third countries.
Let us remember that the Council of Europe was founded when the wounds of the Second World War were still very visible and millions of persons had been displaced in Europe.

The only logical and humane response was to protect and support them.

Today, when Ukraine is attacked by Russian military, we should not be any less ambitious, less courageous or less humane than the f ounders of the Council of Europe and the draf ters of the 1951 Ref ugee Convention of the United Nations.
Millions of Syrian ref ugees received protection in Europe in 2015-16, and millions of displaced Ukrainians are presently under int ernational protection in our member states.

However, we see also a sharp increase in arrivals of irregular migrants through the Balkan route, the Mediterranean route and the English Channel – all exploited by organised crime along their way through third countries.
While the Dublin Regulation of the European Union stipulates that the f irst country of arrival is obliged to process an asylum application, thousands of undocumented asylum -seekers are nevertheless on the move through several countries in Europe.

At the same time, irregular migrant f lows have been manipulated f or political purposes as well .

And I s hould instance Assembly Resolution 2404 (in 2021) on instrumentalised migration pressure on the borders of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland with Belarus.
The Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of N.D. and N.T.

versus Spain, concerning the violent attempt of migrants to f orce their entry into Spanish territory in northern Af rica, reaf f irmed that countries have the right to protect their national borders against illegal crossings and, hence, asylum-seekers have to use the designated border stations f or their applications.
For Council of Europe member states, it is a moral and legal imperative duly to process asylum applications and not to return migrants to unsaf e countries.

It is important to ensure proper border management a nd mutual cooperation in accordance with t he E uropean Convention on Human Rights.

Readmission agreements with saf e transit countries and saf e countries of origin ought to be concluded and honoured.
The public debate on pushbacks and saf e third countries of ten remains theoretical and dominated by vested national or political interests.

Yet, we must not look away when humans are suff ering while trying to cross our national borders ; and we must not neglect the suff ering of those who transit our countries.

Ref ugees who need protection should not be passed on to other countries.
At the same time European int egrity demands that countries with high numbers of asylum applications are not lef t alone.

Just now I am rapporteur on European solidarity concerning asylum and international protection.

I believe that among our 46 Council of Europe states more solidarity can achieve secure complementary pathways for ref ugees and migrants, who will thus not f ace pushbacks or transf ers to third countries.
I thank both rapporteurs Ms Krisper and Mr Fridez f or their valuable work and f or bringing their views and conclusions to our Assembly debate today.

65 Ms Heike ENGELHARDT (Germany, SOC): Speech not pronounced (Rules of Procedure, Art.

31.2), only available in German.

Mr Éctor Jaime RAMÍREZ BARBA (Mexico): (Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art.
31.2) President, dear Parliamentary Colleagues, I would like to express my satisf action f or the report and resolution presented by the rapporteur Ms Stephanie KRISPE R of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons.
The report expresses the concerns of the concept of "saf e third country", in the f ace of the disparity and heterogeneity of its application by the Member States, resulting in the violation of human rights of migrants or asylum seekers, and the report identif ies the measures, which must be taken in coherence with the obligations that have to be respected by the Member States.
The practice of not imposing sanctions due to the entry or illegal presence of ref ugees or asylum seekers who come directly f rom a territory where their lif e or f reedom is threatened has been a common vision for 71 years.

For this reason, the rapporteur draws attention to the tendency of some states to return asylum seekers to third countries without having clarity about the security of the recognized "saf e third country".
It must be ensured that the country recognized as a "saf e third country" observes the international human rights standards related to asylum established in universal and regional instruments, providing eff ective protection against the ref oulement, and the possibility of requesting and enjoying asylu m. Rapporteur Krisper's sensibility manif ests itself in pointing out that the determination of saf e third countries can decide the f ate and suff ering of ref ugees and asylum seekers, theref ore these human rights concerns must be urgently addressed and have to be in the center of the considerations of the Member States when applying this concept.
We see as positive the updating before the Committee of Ministers, the practice of member states informing the Committee of Ministers about their practice, and about the legislation of saf e third countries, in order to allow the development of a superior plan with transparency, taking into account the minimum requirements to determine the saf ety of a third country.

Also taking into account case law, f uture legal devel opments and inf ormation provided by courts and international organizations.
I share with you that Mexico is a country where all f orms of international migration converge, and we consider the commitment to multilateralism as the ideal way to decisively respond to exclusionary narrative attitudes based on xenophobia, f ear and prejudices.

Since July 2018, our country has joined the Global Compact for Saf e, Orderly and Regular Migration.

In June 2019, our country signed an immigration agreement with the United States of America, committing to toughen its immigration policy.
The Secretary of International Aff airs of the National Executive Committee of the PAN, Mariana Gómez del Campo, p ointed out, 45 days after its signing, that the deportations of migrants made by Mexico increased by more than 50 percent compared to the previous month and that arrests at the border of the United States decreased by 29 percent, eff ectively making Mexico a "saf e third country" of the United States.
The National Human Rights Commission of Mexico warned that the Mexican Commission for Aid to Ref ugees was at risk of collapsing due to the number of asylum applications filed and the numbers increase year af ter year.
In the National Action Party (PAN), we have pointed out our concern about the containment of the migratory f low by more than 26,000 elements of a militarized body called the National Guard, carrying out human rights violations and without a regulatory f ramework like the one being designed in this parliament for Europe, that makes it operational in saf e conditions, with respect, and without discrimination.
Vote: Safe third countries for asylum seekers / Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

66 The debate is closed.

The Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons has presented the draf t resolution Document 15592, just to remind you, because this is a joint debate.

The f irst document we will deal with is "Saf er Countries f or Asylum Seekers".
To this document six amendments have been tabled, and the draf t recommendation to which one amendment has been tabled.

We will start with t he consideration of the draf t resolution, and then we will consider the draf t recommendation.

I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 s econds.
I understand that the chairperson or the f irst vice-chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that all the amendments to the draf t resolution – amendments f rom 1 to 6 – which were unanimously approved by the Committee should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

Is that so?

Mr Paul GAVAN (Ireland, UEL, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons): That's correct.
Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

Does anyone object?

If so, please ask f or the f loor.

Where is your hand?

There are no objections.

I declare that amendments 1–6 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

The President would say now I should go to page... We will now proceed to vote on the draf t resolution contained in document 15592.

A simple majority is needed.

The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

I call f or the results to be displayed.


The draft resolution in document 15592 is adopted.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 7 to the draf t recommendation, which was unanimously approved by the Committee should be declared as agreed by the Assembly.

Is that so?

Mr Paul GAVAN (Ireland, UEL, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons): That is correct.
Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (S erbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

Does anyone object?

As there's no objection, I declare the Amendment no.

7 to the draft rec ommendation has been agreed.

Now we will proceed to vote on the draf t recommendation contained in Document 15592 as amended.

A two-thirds majority is needed.

The vote is open.

Thank you.

The vote is closed.

I call f or the results to be displayed.

67 The draft recommendation in Document 15592 is adopted.
The Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons has presented a draf t resolution, document, so another one, Document 15604, to the pushbacks, you know the text, to which 15 amendments, 2 oral amendments and 1 oral sub-amendment have been tabled.

I remind you all the speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.
Any amendment which has been rejected by the Committee f or report by a two -thirds majority of the votes cast shall not be put to the voting plenary and shall be declared as def initely rejected, unless 10 or more members of the Assembly object.

I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Ref ugees and Displaced Persons wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments no.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 to the draf t resolution, which were rejected by the Committee with a two -third majority be declared as rejected.

Is that so?

Mr Paul GAVAN (Ireland, UEL, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons): That's correct.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Does anyone object?

As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 to the draft resolution are rejected.
I remind the Assembly that objections – just a second.

I call Ms Sabrina DE CARLO to support Amendment 4.

You have 30 seconds.

Is she in the hemicycle?

Does anyone else wish to support this Amendment 4?

Please.

Ms Sabrina DE CARLO (Italy, SOC): Thank you President, I think that if you want to talk about positive consequences, it is necessary to specif y that these derive exclusively f rom clear conditions that promote the social and labor inclusion of migrants.
Only under thes e conditions, can we talk about positive consequences, otherwise, I invite you to come and see the situation in some centres in Italy – where, compared to 300 available places, we f ind over 2 000 people sleeping on the ground with poor sanitation and this, in short, because Italy, like other countries, is left alone.

Thank you.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.
I have been inf ormed that the Committee wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment as f ollows: "Delete the word legal immigrants and replace with migrants, so that the last part of Paragrap h 5 reads: 'migration is a natural social phenomenon and should be addressed collectively as a continent in order to manage migration f lows in an orderly way that helps to promote the social and occupational inclusion of migrants, while benef iting f ully f rom its positive consequences'".
In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is in order per our rules.

However, do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

So, no one.

I call on the rapporteurs to support the oral sub-amendment.

You have 30 seconds.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC, Rapporteur): Thank you, Madam Vice President.

68 Yes, in f act, the proposal made by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO clearly appealed to me and to the Commission.
It is just that the term "legal immigrants" does not have a very clear meaning because, in this f ield of migration, legality or illegality is something that does not really matter: anyone who makes a request must be considered legitimate to do so.

So, the proposal is to speak of "migrants" instead and to remove the adjective "legal", which would strengthen the text without creating a dif f erent and complicated interpretation.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.
[in French].

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub -amendment?

Yes, please.

Mr Alberto RIBOLLA (Italy, EC/DA): Thank you, Chairman, The sub-amendment totally transforms the amendment that my colleague Ms Sabrina DE CARLO proposed because the dif f erence between legal and illegal immigration is deleted.
Instead, it is clear that there is a substantial diff erence as some colleagues before me said in this discussion, between legal immigration – those who have the right to be present in our countries, to apply f or asylum – and those who do not.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

[in Italian].

What is the opinion of the mover of the main amendment?
I guess that they are against, which should be said, okay, but it is obvious that the Committee is in f avour, so I will now put the oral sub-amendment, in f avour of the oral sub -amendment.

So now I put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

I call f or the results to be displayed.

The oral sub-amendment is agreed.

We will now consider the main amendment.

Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment as amended?

No?
No?

What is the opinion of the Committee, of f icially?

Mr Paul GAVAN (Ireland, UEL, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons): [speaking off mic, inaudible] Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

I shall now put Amendment no.

4 as amended to the vote.

The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

I call now f or the result to be displayed.

Amendment no.

4 as amended is agreed to.


I understand that the Committee wishes to move an oral amendment f or conciliation purposes.

If this oral amendment is agreed, Amendments no.

6, 7 and 8 will f all.


In the draf t resolution af ter Paragraph 9, insert: 69 "The Assembly calls on member States to encourage changes at European level to achieve a sustainable reception process shared with other member States in accordance with the principle of solidarity ref erred to in Article 80 TFE U, based on shared possibility.
The Assembly theref ore calls upon member States to change their legislation and practice in order to promote a multilateral policy of putting in place legal pathways to all European countries on the basis of shared responsibility to promote solidarity with the countries most aff ected by the inf lux of migrants by sea and by land, and thereby contribute to putting an end to pushbacks".

In my opinion, the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7a.
Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I theref ore call the rapporteurs to support the oral amendment.

You have 30 seconds.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC, Rapporteur): Thank you, Madam Vice President.

We have used amendments 6 and 7 in order, by taking the f irst sentences of each amendment, to manage to propose a new paragraph 10.
The idea was to take into account the f act that solidarity between the diff erent European States is indeed f undamental to solving this problem.

This was not really the subject of the report, it will be the subject of Lord Alexander DUNDEE´s report, as I said earlier, on European solidarity.

However, I thought that Ms Sabrina DE CARLO's approach was constructive and that it was a way of putting all this into practice and strengthening the report.
Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

[in French] Does anybody wish to speak against the oral amendment?

Mr Alberto RIBOLLA (Italy, EC/DA): Thank you, Madam President, I agree with the whole oral amendment, except for the f inal part, because while it is absolutely necessary, our amendments reported this – to redistribute migrants and to share responsibility – it is also true that the issue of refoulement is an issue that is put at the end of this oral sub -amendment.
And on the issue, we do not agree, so we will vote against it.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

The Committee is obviously in f avour.

I shall now put the oral Amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

I call f or the results to be displayed.

The oral Amendment is agreed.

Does anyone wish to speak against... sorry...

I understand that the Committee wishes to move an oral amendment for conciliation purposes.
If this oral amendment is agreed, amendment 14 will f all.
In paragraph 13, af ter “pushbacks” add “, to call for the sharing of responsibility in the management of migration between the dif f erent member States”, so that the last sentence reads: 70 “Time has come f or parliament arians to stand up against pushbacks, to call for the sharing of responsibility in the management of migration between the diff erent member States, and to follow the developments closely both at the national and European levels.” In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a.
Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

That is not the case.

I theref ore call the rapporteur to support the oral Amendment.

You have 30 seconds.

Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC, Rapporteur): Thank you, Madam Vice-President.

It is in the same spirit as the previous oral amendment, namely that on the proposal of the Italians, of Ms Sabrina DE CA RLO.

We come back to this notion of sharing responsibilities, which is indeed an important element.
This f urther strengthens this last paragraph and, theref ore, also the whole resolution on this important theme.

Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Serbia, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly): Thank you.

Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?

Okay.

The Committee is obviously in f avour.

I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.

The vote is open.

The vote is closed.

I call f or the results to be displayed.

The oral amendment is agreed.

Last voting f or tonight.


We will now proceed to vote on the draf t resolution contained in Document 15604 as amended.

A simple majority is required.

The vote is now open.

The vote is closed.

I call f or the results to be displayed.

The draft resolution in Document 15604 is adopted.

Congratulations.

The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. with the agenda that was approved on Monday morning.

The sitting is adjourned.

Thank you.

71 Doc.


15604 – Compendium of written amendments 12/10/2022 (Final version) Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Contents Page A.

Draft Resolution .......................................................................................................................................... 2 F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Doc.

15604 (Draft Resolution) A.

Draft Resolution 1.

2.

3.


4.

The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its Resolution 2299 (2019) and its Recommendation 2161 (2019) “Pushback policies and practice in Council of Europe member States” and the subsequent reply by the Committee of Ministers (Doc.

15088), in which it welcomed the Assembly’s continued attention to migrants and asylum seekers.
The term “pushbacks” is “in line with the violent and physical nature of the practices involved”, and it “may be applied broadly rights to cases of non-respect of human obligations related to refusal of entry into a country of persons seeking protection, the refoulement of those already within a territory, collective expulsion, obligations to carry out screenings, and other hostile action aimed to deny entry into European countries at land and sea borders”.
Pushback practices are also to “pullbacks”, which consist in agreements between States aiming to retain migrants on one side in exchange for financial or economic advantage.

linked the The Assembly notes that the Committee of Ministers stressed in its reply that the right to seek asylum must be respected, underscoring that asylum seekers have the right to an individual and fair examination of their applications by competent authorities”.
The Committee of Ministers reiterated the obligation of the State receiving the asylum application to “ensure that return of the asylum seeker to his/her country of origin or any other country will not expose him/her to a real risk of the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, persecution, or serious violation of other rights which would, under international or national law, justify granting protection”.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5) and Article 4 of its Protocol No.

4 (ETS No.

46) prohibit member States of the Council of Europe returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment as to whether this is safe.
fundamental “70th anniversary of The Assembly recalls its Resolution 2379 (2021) “Role of parliaments in implementing the United Nations global compacts for migrants and refugees” and Resolution 2408 (2021) the 1951 Refugee Convention: the Council of Europe and the international protection of refugees”, where it agreed to support world efforts in protecting the right to asylum enshrined in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”) and other relevant international instruments.
The Assembly deplores the profound disregard of international standards on the matter in some countries, combined with the instrumentalisation of migration flow for political purposes in others, and concludes that the right to asylum continues to be breached.

Border pushbacks have now taken on worrying proportions, taking place routinely on land and in the more deadly environment of the sea, becoming a pan-European problem which pertains to at least half of the member States.
Allegations are no longer limited to just one or two countries, or one or two 2 Amendment 1 Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Mr Roberto tolerated policy.
Pushbacks incidents, but have become widespread and, most from worryingly, part of Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina, from Greece to Türkiye, from Malta and Italy to Libya, from Hungary to Serbia, and from Poland to Belarus render the plight of migrants and refugees even harsher, heightening the risk to lose one’s life in an extremely perilous journey.

(Draft Resolution) Doc.
15604 RAMPI, Mr Gianni MARILOTTI, Ms Catia POLIDORI, Mr Maurizio BUCCARELLA the draft resolution, paragraph 4, In last sentence, after the words “from Greece to Türkiye,”, insert the following words: “from Switzerland, France and Austria to Italy,” Amendment 2 Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI the draft In sentence, delete the following words: resolution, paragraph 4, last “and Italy” Amendment 3 (If adopted, amendment 4 falls) Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI the draft In sentence, delete the words: resolution, paragraph 5, last “to be more effective and to benefit fully from its positive consequences”.
Amendment 4 (Falls if amendment 3 is adopted) Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI resolution, paragraph 5, last In the draft sentence, replace the words “to be more effective and to benefit fully from its positive consequences”, with the following words: “in order to manage migration flows in an orderly way that helps to promote the social and occupational inclusion of legal immigrants, while benefiting fully from its positive consequences”.
5.

6. to to the Assembly, Furthermore, the Assembly calls upon the Council of Europe observer and member States, as well as States whose parliament enjoys the observer or partner for democracy status respect interstate international obligations and solidarity.

They should work together to guarantee the right to asylum, including member States from Central and Northern Europe.

Interstate solidarity is key for a stronger Europe from political, economic, social, and cultural perspective.
Migration is a natural societal phenomenon and should be addressed collectively as a continent to be more effective and to benefit fully from its positive consequences.

to enhance The Assembly welcomes the Recommendation of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Dunja Mijatović, “Pushed beyond the limits.
Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders”, where she addressed the role of members of parliament in preventing human rights violations at the borders, noting that parliamentarians can play an important role in preventing pushbacks, in line with their wider role as guarantors of human rights, both as legislators and as those responsible for carrying out democratic oversight of government action.

7.
7.

The Assembly underscores importance of well- functioning independent border monitoring mechanisms at the 3 Doc.

15604 (Draft Resolution) national and European levels.
It forewarns, however, against the risk of paying lip service to the principle of independence by those national authorities that try to undermine the independence of such bodies by making them either dependent on the government for funding, by for imposing membership government-friendly entities, by restricting their access to the border or migrant retention facilities, or by limiting their actions through other means.
It recalls the importance of democratic checks and balances and of independent monitoring in its fullest form.

in oversight committees international human The Assembly notes that the European Union is often the main destination of migrants arriving to Europe.

The European Union institutions should, therefore, serve as guarantors of rights protection regarding the right to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement.
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should be called upon to enhance its capacity to deal with allegations of pushbacks and allow for thorough investigation to bring those responsible for pushbacks to justice.

The Assembly underscores that effective border control and the protection of fundamental rights are fully compatible.

The work of the Fundamental Rights Officer of Frontex should be, therefore, supported and its monitoring capacity enhanced.
the use of anti-smuggling The Assembly deplores legislation against human rights defenders and people engaged in search and rescue operations on land and at sea, making access to asylum for people on the move harder to reach.

Right to asylum includes the right to be informed about asylum procedures, including by civil society organisations, advocacy groups, human rights defenders and specialised legal aid institutions.
States must ensure that the functioning of such bodies is not de facto prohibited by criminalising their actions.

8.

9.

10.

The Assembly welcomes the decisions taken by regional courts in some countries, ruling in favour of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers who had been pushed back outside the European Union’s external borders, underscoring that the practice of pushing back asylum seekers gave rise to a violation of the principle of human dignity.
4 Amendment 5 Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Mr Gianni MARILOTTI, Mr Roberto RAMPI, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the third sentence with the following sentence: “The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should be called upon to enhance its capacity to combat cross-border crime and to conduct thorough investigations to bring those responsible to justice”.
Amendment 6 Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, replace paragraph 9 with the following paragraph: rights defenders and "The Assembly calls on member States to encourage changes at European level to achieve a sustainable reception process shared with other member States, in accordance with the principle of solidarity referred to in Article 80 TFEU, based on shared responsibility, in order to those avoid human engaged in search and rescue operations on land and at sea being forced to act as a substitute for the State.
The right to asylum includes the right to be informed about asylum procedures and, until an effective management system is ensured, civil society organisations, advocacy groups, human rights defenders and legal aid institutions can co-operate with the institutions of the member States, in accordance with the legislation in force and the rule of law".

11.
11.

The Assembly calls for changes to the law and practice in the Council of Europe member States to stop pushbacks at land and sea and to codify the principle of non- refoulement in national legislation.
In specific terms, it asks member States to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute to improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection, as follows: for pushbacks and those responsible take measures to (Draft Resolution) Doc.
15604 Amendment 8 (If adopted, amendment 7 falls) Tabled by Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, replace paragraph 11 with the following paragraph: "The Assembly calls upon the Council of Europe member States to change their legislation and practice in order to encourage the sharing of responsibilities and solidarity with the countries most affected by the influx of migrants by sea and by land.
Specifically, it calls on member States to take measures to set quotas for the redistribution of migrants, to prosecute offenders and to improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police forces and other bodies in charge of border protection, as follows:" Amendment 7 (Falls if amendment 8 is adopted) Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, replace paragraph 11 with the following paragraph: in place legal pathways "The Assembly calls upon the Council of Europe member States to change their legislation and practice in order to promote a multilateral policy of putting to all European countries on the basis of shared responsibility, to promote solidarity with the countries most affected by the influx of migrants by sea and by land, and thus to put an end to pushbacks.
Specifically, it calls on member States to take measures to set quotas for the redistribution of migrants, to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks and combat trafficking in human beings, to prosecute those responsible improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police forces and other bodies in charge of border protection, as follows:" these acts and for to 11.1. as regards prevention: 11.1.1. to prevent all forms of “pushback” and “pullback” actions regarding migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
that border Priority should be given management is aligned with international law and human rights obligations.

The Assembly underscores the need to ensure the individual assessment of protection needs and of the safety of a return in order to prevent violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to ensuring Amendment 9 (If adopted, amendment 10 falls) Tabled by Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria 5 Doc.
15604 (Draft Resolution) and of enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No.

4 to the Convention; the prohibition of collective expulsions, as RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, paragraph 11.1.1, delete the first sentence.
Amendment 10 (Falls if amendment 9 is adopted) Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Mr Maurizio BUCCARELLA, Mr Roberto RAMPI, Mr Gianni MARILOTTI, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, at the start of paragraph 11.1.1,before the words "to prevent all forms of "pushback" and "pullback" actions regarding migrants", add the following words: "to promote, through the competent institutions, the setting-up of United Nations or European Union offices in the countries of departure of migrants in North Africa, for the purpose of examining directly on the spot applications for asylum before they start their journey, in order to ensure that priority is given" 11.1.2. representatives to border checkpoints, to establish secured access notably prevention of mechanisms should have full access to the checkpoints and retention facilities, where such exist, to ensure full respect of international asylum norms; national 11.1.3. to make the national legislation and policies human rights- compliant and to amend migration legislation with a view to prevent and prohibit pushbacks and the denial of right to asylum; Amendment 11 Tabled by Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.1.3.
11.1.4.

11.1.5. to make the relevant legal framework accessible, precise and clear to all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, available, as much as possible, in languages for them to understand the procedure.
Relevant and effective means of redress should be in place in cases of denial of asylum in first instance; role important considering that the civil society’s role in upholding and advancing democratic values and fundamental rights, including the right to asylum, is crucial, especially as they play an in documenting cases of pushbacks, to encourage and support their participation in the independent monitoring mechanisms at national and Independent border monitoring European mechanisms should be able to verify misconduct by State border police and report on it to the competent judicial authorities.
Council of Europe member States must respect the role of non-governmental organisations and human their commitments, as set out in Committee of Ministers in conformity with rights defenders levels.

6 Amendment 12 (If adopted, amendment 13 falls) Tabled by Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, delete paragraph 11.1.5.
Amendment 13 (Falls if amendment 12 is adopted) Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe; (Draft Resolution) Doc.
15604 RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Mr Maurizio BUCCARELLA, Mr Roberto RAMPI, Mr Gianni MARILOTTI, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 11.1.5, insert the following words: "to enable non-governmental organisations to cope with the complexity of rescue operations and to ensure the safety of migrants and operators, member States are to introduce specific provisions and clear rules to be applied, which must be established in consultation with the European Commission and in co-operation with the relevant stakeholders;" invited 11.2. as regards protection: 11.2.1. to develop specific programmes to protect the victims of pushbacks, possibly in the framework of the Council of Europe Action Plan on Protecting Vulnerable Persons in the Context of Migration and Asylum in Europe (2021-2025) and to ensure that effective complaints mechanisms for the victims are in place.
Urgent measures must be taken to ensure the protection of most vulnerable migrants and refugees: children, women, people with disabilities, and elderly people.

An absolute prohibition of pushbacks of migrant children should be in place in all Council of Europe member States; 11.2.2.
States members of the European Union should take measures to bring the European Union law and practice in compliance with human rights standards, as mentioned in the Assembly Resolution 2416 (2022) “European Union Pact on Migration and Asylum: a human rights perspective”.

This should include legal guarantees clearly established in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Practices violating the right to apply for asylum should stop; 11.3. as regards prosecution: 11.3.1.
11.3.2. that allegations of pushbacks are fully to ensure investigated and those responsible are held to account to dissuade the continuation of such practices.
The Assembly reiterates, therefore, the importance of the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the prohibition of collective expulsions, which apply also during emergency situations; to comply with judgments of national courts and of the European Court of Human Rights, including their interim measures, in relation to pushbacks and refusing access to asylum and even to an asylum procedure, and to follow up recommendations of national independent bodies such as ombudspersons, as stated in Resolution 2299 (2019), keeping in mind that codifying the principle of non- refoulement in national legislation is key; 11.4. as regards international co-operation and co-ordination: 11.4.1. to strengthen international co-operation and co-ordination in the fields of border protection, on the one hand, and migration management, on the other.
This is of great relevance as regards search and rescue operations at sea 7 Doc.

15604 (Draft Resolution) which should be effective, saving lives being the primary objective.

International co-operation and co-ordination at sea should, therefore, be further enhanced to prevent human tragedy at Europe’s maritime borders; 11.4.2.

11.4.3.

11.4.4.

12.


13. co-operation between border police authorities should include specialised the application of training on international standards in access to an asylum procedure, to ensure that relevant measures are in place for any individual indicating their need to seek international protection.
New technological means can be used to improve access to relevant procedures and provide relevant in various languages; to asylum seekers information to enhance international co-operation at regional and world levels to take stock of the real progress on the right to asylum.
The work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, the United follow-up Nations High Commissioner actions to ensure full compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the actions of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and of the Special Representative of the Council of Europe Secretary General on Migration and Refugees must guide public policies, in addition to the relevant treaty bodies; for Refugees to further develop international co-operation between EU and non-EU countries’ border police structures, with the participation of Frontex, with the aim of upgrading the competences of border police in the Council of Europe member States as regards the right to asylum, in full compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its on 1967 Protocol, Human Rights, and other relevant treaties.
Redress measures for failure to respect the law should be clearly stated and applied.

the European Convention The Assembly welcomes the new initiatives aimed at ensuring protection of Europe’s borders in full respect of fundamental rights and dignity of those who attempt to cross the borders.
It calls for an open and constructive discussion based on the findings of the feasibility study that was launched for setting up a robust and independent human rights monitoring mechanism at the external borders of the European Union on 4 May 2022.

Finally, the Assembly calls for stronger commitment to upholding human rights standards at Europe’s borders.

Time has come for parliamentarians to stand up against pushbacks and to follow the developments closely both at the national and European levels.
8 Amendment 15 (If adopted, amendment 14 falls) Tabled by Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, paragraph 13, delete the second sentence.

Amendment 14 (Falls if amendment 15 is adopted) Tabled by Ms Sabrina DE CARLO, Mr Alberto RIBOLLA, Mr Manuel VESCOVI, Ms Maria (Draft Resolution) Doc.
15604 RIZZOTTI, Mr Fabio DI MICCO, Ms Catia POLIDORI In the draft resolution, paragraph 13, second sentence, “to stand up against pushbacks" with the following words: replace "to call for the sharing of responsibility in the management of migration flows between the different Member states".

9 Doc.

15592 – Compendium of written amendments 12/10/2022 (Final version) Safe third countries for asylum seekers Contents Page A.
Draft Resolution .......................................................................................................................................... 2 B.

Draft Recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 5 F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Doc.

15592 (Draft Resolution) A.

Draft Resolution 1.

2.

3.

4.


Recalling the right to apply for and seek asylum under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Refugee Convention) and, for member States of the European Union, under Article 18 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly notes with concern a tendency of returning asylum seekers to third countries without clarity on the safety of the respective third country.
Amendment 1 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft resolution, paragraph 1, after the words "a tendency of returning" add the following words: "or transferring".
Amendment 2 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft resolution, paragraph 1, at the end of the sentence, add the following words: "the legality of the return, and the existence and availability of certain objective protection standards."
Amendment 3 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft resolution, paragraph 2, after the first sentence, add the following sentence: "Effectively depriving asylum seekers of access to fair and efficient asylum determination and treatment in line with international standards is not permissible as it may expose them to risk of refoulement and other rights violations."
The Assembly emphasises that Article 31, paragraph 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, stipulates only that penalties shall not be imposed on account of an illegal entry or presence of refugees or asylum seekers who came directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.

Hence, asylum seekers are not required to apply for protection in the first safe country of arrival and cannot be penalised for not doing so.

Referring to Conclusion No.


58 (XL) of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner’s Programme, the Assembly recognises the importance of clarifying the legal situation and protection of refugees and asylum seekers, who move in an irregular manner from countries found they have already protection, to seek asylum or permanent resettlement elsewhere.
in which in order Whereas it is important for asylum seekers and member States alike to clarify in a timely manner which State is responsible for processing an asylum application, the Assembly is aware that the safe third country principle under Article 33 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive of the European Union, according to which a EU member State can declare inadmissible an application for international protection ifa country which is not a member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, does not apply among non-member States.
2 5.

6.

7.

8.

This situation may cause legal uncertainty to the detriment of asylum seekers.

The Assembly recalls Recommendation No.
R (97) 22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to the member States which contains Guidelines on Application of the Safe Third Country Concept and enumerates criteria to assess whether a country can be considered as safe, among others “observance by the third country of international human rights standards relevant to asylum as established in universal and regional instruments” and “the third country will provide effective protection against refoulement and the possibility to seek and enjoy asylum”.
Since adoption of the legal Recommendation, developments.

there have been many Welcoming the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (No.

C-564/18, Nos.

C-924/19 and C-925/19), the Assembly reaffirms that the return of an asylum seeker to a safe third country requires a connection to that country beyond the mere transit by the person concerned.

Welcoming the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.
47287/15), M.K.

and Others v. Poland (Nos.

40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17) and M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece (No.


30696/09), the Assembly emphasises in member States must that competent authorities analyse, before returning or expelling an asylum seeker to a third country, whether this person would have access to an asylum procedure in the country concerned without being exposed to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment or torture in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS N° 5).

(Draft Resolution) Doc.


15592 Amendment 4 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft resolution, paragraph 7, after the words "whether this person would have" add the following word: "proper".
Amendment 5 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft resolution, paragraph 7, after the words "access to an" add the following word: "effective".
Amendment 6 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7, add the following words: "or of being subjected to chain-refoulement" Welcoming the work of the European Union Agency for Asylum towards a co-ordinated approach within the European Union to evaluate the safety of third countries, the Assembly believes that co-ordinated efforts should also be taken at the level of the Council of Europe.
Therefore, building on into consideration the recent jurisprudence of the European this work and taking 3 Doc.

15592 (Draft Resolution) 9.

10.

11.

12.

Court of Human Rights, the Assembly encourages the development of new and up-to-date criteria at the Council of Europe level to assess the safety of third countries.
The Assembly also emphasises that no absolute presumption of safety can be made, as the situation in a safe country can deteriorate to a standard that renders the country in question unsafe.

In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights clarified in M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], No.

30696/09) that applicants must be able to challenge the presumption that a country is safe in his or her particular circumstances without bearing the entire burden of proof.
In the Chamber judgement Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.

47287/15), the Court stated that the burden of proof must not, in light of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be reversed to the applicants’ detriment.

Therefore, to considerations of the European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly encourages the development of procedural requirements at the Council of Europe level for the asylum seeker to have a fair possibility to rebut the presumption of safety.
referring The Assembly recognises that the monitoring of safe third country decisions is essential to improve member States’ practice and to strengthen the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

Therefore, the Assembly encourages member States to establish objective and independent monitoring mechanisms to monitor national law and practice in this regard.
Recalling Resolution 2409 (2021) “Voluntary relocation of migrants in need of humanitarian protection and voluntary resettlement of refugees”, the Assembly welcomes the current discussion on relocation and resettlement of asylum seekers between European Union member States and beyond, while encouraging member States to undertake further efforts in this regard.

Such engagement would prioritise solidarity over the recourse to the safe third country concept.
The Assembly invites the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for Migration and Refugees to support greater co-ordination and co- operation among member States in applying the safe third country concept in the context of asylum.

4 B.

Draft Recommendation (Draft Recommendation) Doc.

15592 1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.


The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution … (2022) “Safe third countries for asylum seekers” and emphasises the need for greater co-ordination among member States, in order to effectively protect human rights of asylum seekers and the right to asylum in Europe.

Welcoming Recommendation No.
R (97) 22 of the Committee of Ministers to member States containing Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country Concept, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: review this Recommendation in the light of relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, develop new standards to enable member States to improve their assessment of the safety of third countries and regularly up-date them in accordance with legal developments to come and future jurisprudence; consider setting standards on the transfer, return and readmission of asylum seekers and refugees, taking due account of the effective protection of their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5) and their right to apply for and seek asylum; Amendment 7 Tabled by Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ, Ms Margreet De BOER, Mr Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Stefan SCHENNACH In the draft recommendation, at the end of paragraph 2.2, add the following words: "under international refugee law".
seek co-operation of the Council of Europe and its member States with the European Union Agency for Asylum, the application of the safe third country concept in Europe to the detriment of human rights and the right to apply for and seek asylum; to prevent discrepancies in order in invite member States to inform the Committee of Ministers about their practice regarding the safe third country concept as well as their practice as regards procedural means available to rebut the presumption of safety of a country.
5 10/18/22, 2:35 PM Vote on Resolution - Doc.

15592 Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15592 Safe third countries for asylum seekers Assembly's voting results  67 in favor  7 against  0 abstention Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR SOC  Ms Nerea AHEDO  Mr Gergely ARATÓ SOC  Mr José BADIA  Ms Marijana BALIĆ EPP/CD  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI SOC  Ms Larysa BILOZIR  Ms Margreet De BOER SOC  Mr Chris BONETT  Mr Bertrand BOUYX ALDE  Mr Iulian BULAI  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ NR  Ms Naomi CACHIA  Ms Laura CASTEL UEL  Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK  Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON EC/DA  Ms Mireille CLAPOT  Mr Jeremy CORBYN SOC  Mr Damien COTTIER  Ms Sabrina DE CARLO SOC  Mr Adnan DIBRANI  Ms Annicka ENGBLOM EPP/CD  Ms Heike ENGELHARDT ALDE EPP/CD SOC ALDE SOC ALDE SOC NR ALDE ALDE SOC SOC  Ms Arzu ERDEM NR  Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI EPP/CD  Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES UEL  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO  Mr Peter FRICK ALDE  Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ  Mr Paul GAVAN UEL  Mr Joël GIRAUD  Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO UEL  Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI  Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ SOC  Ms Nicole HÖCHST ALDE SOC ALDE EC/DA EC/DA https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39083 1/2 10/18/22, 2:35 PM  Ms Franziska HOOP Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15592 ALDE  Mr Andrej HUNKO  Ms Olena KHOMENKO EC/DA  Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN  Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND ALDE  Ms Stephanie KRISPER  Mr Christophe LACROIX SOC  Ms Carmen LEYTE  Mr George LOUCAIDES UEL  Mr Gianni MARILOTTI  Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO NR  Ms Ada MARRA  Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO SOC  Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN SOC  Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA  Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI NR  Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY  Mr Gianluca PERILLI SOC  Mr Paulo PISCO  Mr Thomas PRINGLE UEL  Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ  Mr Roberto RAMPI SOC  Mr Alberto RIBOLLA  Ms Maria RIZZOTTI EPP/CD  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES  Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA EC/DA  Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE  Mr Stefan SCHENNACH SOC  Mr Frank SCHWABE  Ms Lise SELNES SOC  Mr Davor Ivo STIER  Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK ALDE  Ms Feleknas UCA  Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND UEL  Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA  Mr Manuel VESCOVI EC/DA  Ms Serap YAŞAR UEL SOC ALDE EPP/CD SOC SOC EPP/CD ALDE UEL SOC EPP/CD EC/DA EPP/CD SOC SOC EPP/CD UEL ALDE NR Votes on texts and amendments Safe third countries for asylum seekers:  Doc.
15592 12/10/2022 - Amendment 1 12/10/2022 - Amendment 2 12/10/2022 - Amendment 3 12/10/2022 - Amendment 4 12/10/2022 - Amendment 5 12/10/2022 - Amendment 6 12/10/2022 - Amendment 7 12/10/2022 - Recommendation https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39083 2/2 10/19/22, 11:25 AM Vote on Resolution - Doc.

15604 Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15604 Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Assembly's voting results  62 in favor  9 against  2 abstentions Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR SOC  Ms Nerea AHEDO  Mr Gergely ARATÓ SOC  Mr José BADIA  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA SOC  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI  Ms Larysa BILOZIR ALDE  Ms Margreet De BOER  Mr Chris BONETT SOC  Mr Bertrand BOUYX  Mr Iulian BULAI ALDE  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ  Ms Naomi CACHIA SOC  Ms Laura CASTEL  Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK NR  Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON  Ms Mireille CLAPOT ALDE  Mr Jeremy CORBYN  Mr Damien COTTIER ALDE  Ms Sabrina DE CARLO ALDE EPP/CD SOC SOC ALDE NR UEL EC/DA SOC SOC  Mr Adnan DIBRANI SOC  Ms Annicka ENGBLOM EPP/CD  Ms Heike ENGELHARDT SOC  Ms Arzu ERDEM  Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI EPP/CD  Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO ALDE  Mr Peter FRICK  Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ SOC  Mr Paul GAVAN  Mr Joël GIRAUD ALDE  Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO  Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI EC/DA  Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ  Ms Nicole HÖCHST EC/DA  Ms Franziska HOOP NR UEL ALDE UEL UEL SOC ALDE https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39089 1/3 10/19/22, 11:25 AM  Mr Andrej HUNKO Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15604 UEL  Mr George KATROUGALOS  Ms Olena KHOMENKO EC/DA  Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN  Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND ALDE  Ms Stephanie KRISPER  Mr Christophe LACROIX SOC  Ms Carmen LEYTE  Mr George LOUCAIDES UEL  Mr Gianni MARILOTTI  Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO NR  Ms Ada MARRA  Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO SOC  Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN SOC  Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA  Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI NR  Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY  Mr Gianluca PERILLI SOC  Mr Paulo PISCO  Mr Thomas PRINGLE UEL  Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ  Mr Roberto RAMPI SOC  Mr Alberto RIBOLLA  Ms Maria RIZZOTTI EPP/CD  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES  Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA EC/DA  Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE  Mr Stefan SCHENNACH SOC  Ms Lise SELNES  Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK ALDE  Mr László TOROCZKAI  Ms Feleknas UCA UEL  Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND  Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA ALDE  Mr Manuel VESCOVI  Ms Serap YAŞAR NR Votes on texts and amendments Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management:  Doc.
15604 UEL SOC ALDE EPP/CD SOC SOC EPP/CD ALDE UEL SOC EPP/CD EC/DA EPP/CD SOC SOC NR UEL EC/DA 12/10/2022 - Amendment 1 12/10/2022 - Amendment 2 12/10/2022 - Amendment 3 12/10/2022 - Amendment 4 12/10/2022 - Amendment 5 12/10/2022 - Amendment 6 12/10/2022 - Amendment 7 12/10/2022 - Amendment 8 12/10/2022 - Amendment 9 12/10/2022 - Amendment 10 12/10/2022 - Amendment 11 https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39089 2/3 10/19/22, 11:25 AM Vote on Resolution - Doc.
15604 12/10/2022 - Amendment 12 12/10/2022 - Amendment 13 12/10/2022 - Amendment 14 12/10/2022 - Amendment 15 12/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 12/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 12/10/2022 - Oral Sub-amendment https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39089 3/3 10/19/22, 11:24 AM Vote on Oral Sub-amendment - Doc.

15604 Vote on Oral Sub-amendment - Doc.
15604 Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Assembly's voting results  59 in favor  9 against  3 abstentions Votes on texts and amendments  All participants in the vote Order by Member Country Political group Voting choice  Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR SOC  Ms Nerea AHEDO  Mr Kamil AYDIN NR  Mr José BADIA  Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA SOC  Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI  Ms Larysa BILOZIR ALDE  Ms Margreet De BOER  Mr Chris BONETT SOC  Mr Bertrand BOUYX  Mr Iulian BULAI ALDE  Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ  Ms Naomi CACHIA SOC  Ms Laura CASTEL ALDE EPP/CD SOC SOC ALDE NR UEL  Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK NR  Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON EC/DA  Ms Mireille CLAPOT ALDE  Mr Jeremy CORBYN  Ms Sabrina DE CARLO SOC  Mr Adnan DIBRANI  Ms Annicka ENGBLOM EPP/CD  Ms Heike ENGELHARDT SOC SOC SOC  Ms Arzu ERDEM NR  Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI EPP/CD  Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES UEL  Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO  Mr Peter FRICK ALDE  Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ  Mr Paul GAVAN UEL  Mr Joël GIRAUD  Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO UEL  Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI  Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ SOC  Ms Nicole HÖCHST  Ms Franziska HOOP ALDE  Mr Andrej HUNKO ALDE SOC ALDE EC/DA EC/DA UEL https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39085 1/3 10/19/22, 11:24 AM  Ms Olena KHOMENKO Vote on Oral Sub-amendment - Doc.
15604 EC/DA  Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN  Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND ALDE  Ms Stephanie KRISPER  Mr Christophe LACROIX SOC  Ms Carmen LEYTE  Mr George LOUCAIDES UEL  Mr Gianni MARILOTTI  Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO NR  Ms Ada MARRA  Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO SOC  Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA  Mr Simon MOUTQUIN SOC  Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA  Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI NR  Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY  Mr Gianluca PERILLI SOC  Mr Paulo PISCO  Mr Thomas PRINGLE UEL  Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ  Mr Roberto RAMPI SOC  Mr Alberto RIBOLLA  Ms Maria RIZZOTTI EPP/CD  Mr Gonzalo ROBLES  Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA EC/DA  Mr Stefan SCHENNACH  Mr Frank SCHWABE SOC  Ms Lise SELNES  Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK ALDE  Mr László TOROCZKAI  Ms Feleknas UCA UEL  Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND  Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA ALDE  Mr Manuel VESCOVI  Ms Serap YAŞAR NR Votes on texts and amendments Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management:  Doc.
15604 SOC ALDE EPP/CD SOC SOC EPP/CD ALDE UEL SOC EPP/CD EC/DA EPP/CD SOC SOC NR UEL EC/DA 12/10/2022 - Amendment 1 12/10/2022 - Amendment 2 12/10/2022 - Amendment 3 12/10/2022 - Amendment 4 12/10/2022 - Amendment 5 12/10/2022 - Amendment 6 12/10/2022 - Amendment 7 12/10/2022 - Amendment 8 12/10/2022 - Amendment 9 12/10/2022 - Amendment 10 12/10/2022 - Amendment 11 12/10/2022 - Amendment 12 12/10/2022 - Amendment 13 https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39085 2/3 10/19/22, 11:24 AM 12/10/2022 Amendment 13 Vote on Oral Sub-amendment - Doc.
15604 12/10/2022 - Amendment 14 12/10/2022 - Amendment 15 12/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 12/10/2022 - Oral Amendment 12/10/2022 - Resolution https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39085 3/3 10/19/22, 11:22 AM Vote on Amendment 4 - Doc.

15604 Vote on Amendment 4 - Doc.
15604 Assembly's voting results Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management 62 in favor, 7 against, 3 abstentions All participants in the vote Voting choice Member Country Political group In favour In favour Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR Ms Nerea AHEDO Abstention Mr José BADIA Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI Ms Larysa BILOZIR Iceland Spain Monaco Belgium Italy Ukraine In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Against In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Ms Margreet De BOER Netherlands Mr Chris BONETT Mr Bertrand BOUYX Mr Iulian BULAI Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ Ms Naomi CACHIA Ms Laura CASTEL Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON Ms Mireille CLAPOT Mr Jeremy CORBYN Mr Damien COTTIER Ms Sabrina DE CARLO Mr Adnan DIBRANI Ms Annicka ENGBLOM Ms Heike ENGELHARDT Ms Arzu ERDEM Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO Malta France Romania Türkiye Malta Spain Türkiye Sweden France United Kingdom Switzerland Italy Sweden Sweden Germany Türkiye Malta France Monaco SOC ALDE EPP/CD SOC SOC ALDE SOC SOC ALDE ALDE NR SOC UEL NR EC/DA ALDE SOC ALDE SOC SOC EPP/CD SOC NR EPP/CD UEL ALDE https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39086/print 1/3 10/19/22, 11:22 AM Vote on Amendment 4 - Doc.
15604 Voting choice Member Country Political group In favour In favour In favour In favour Mr Peter FRICK Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ Mr Paul GAVAN Mr Joël GIRAUD Abstention Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO Against In favour Against In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Against Against In favour Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ Ms Nicole HÖCHST Ms Franziska HOOP Mr Andrej HUNKO Mr George KATROUGALOS Ms Olena KHOMENKO Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND Ms Stephanie KRISPER Mr Christophe LACROIX Ms Carmen LEYTE Mr George LOUCAIDES Mr Gianni MARILOTTI Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA Mr Simon MOUTQUIN Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY Mr Gianluca PERILLI Mr Paulo PISCO Mr Thomas PRINGLE Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ Mr Roberto RAMPI Mr Alberto RIBOLLA Ms Maria RIZZOTTI Mr Gonzalo ROBLES Ms Ada MARRA Switzerland Liechtenstein Switzerland Ireland France Spain Italy Croatia Germany Liechtenstein Germany Greece Ukraine Finland Norway Austria Belgium Spain Cyprus Italy Italy Spain Ukraine Belgium Türkiye Türkiye Italy Portugal Ireland Poland Italy Italy Italy Spain Spain ALDE SOC UEL ALDE UEL EC/DA SOC EC/DA ALDE UEL UEL EC/DA SOC ALDE ALDE SOC EPP/CD UEL SOC NR SOC SOC EPP/CD SOC NR UEL SOC SOC UEL EPP/CD SOC EC/DA EPP/CD EPP/CD EC/DA Abstention Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39086/print 2/3 10/19/22, 11:22 AM Vote on Amendment 4 - Doc.
15604 Voting choice Member Country Political group In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Against In favour In favour In favour Against In favour Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE Mr Stefan SCHENNACH Mr Frank SCHWABE Ms Lise SELNES Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK Mr László TOROCZKAI Ms Feleknas UCA Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA Mr Manuel VESCOVI Ms Serap YAŞAR Türkiye Austria Germany Norway Norway Hungary Türkiye Norway Ukraine Italy Türkiye SOC SOC SOC SOC ALDE NR UEL UEL ALDE EC/DA NR https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39086/print 3/3 10/19/22, 11:23 AM Vote on Oral Amendment - Doc.
15604 Vote on Oral Amendment - Doc.
15604 Assembly's voting results Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management 62 in favor, 8 against, 3 abstentions All participants in the vote Voting choice Member Country Political group Ms Margreet De BOER Netherlands In favour In favour In favour Ms Thórhildur Sunna ÆVARSDÓTTIR Ms Nerea AHEDO Mr Gergely ARATÓ Abstention Mr José BADIA In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI Ms Larysa BILOZIR Mr Chris BONETT Mr Bertrand BOUYX Mr Iulian BULAI Abstention Mr Ahmet BÜYÜKGÜMÜŞ In favour In favour In favour Against In favour In favour In favour Against In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Ms Naomi CACHIA Ms Laura CASTEL Ms Sena Nur ÇELİK Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON Ms Mireille CLAPOT Mr Jeremy CORBYN Mr Damien COTTIER Ms Sabrina DE CARLO Mr Adnan DIBRANI Ms Annicka ENGBLOM Ms Heike ENGELHARDT Ms Arzu ERDEM Mr Joseph Beppe FENECH ADAMI Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES Iceland Spain Hungary Monaco Belgium Italy Ukraine Malta France Romania Türkiye Malta Spain Türkiye Sweden France United Kingdom Switzerland Italy Sweden Sweden Germany Türkiye Malta France SOC ALDE SOC EPP/CD SOC SOC ALDE SOC SOC ALDE ALDE NR SOC UEL NR EC/DA ALDE SOC ALDE SOC SOC EPP/CD SOC NR EPP/CD UEL https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39087/print 1/3 10/19/22, 11:23 AM Vote on Oral Amendment - Doc.
15604 Voting choice Member In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Against In favour Against In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour In favour Against Against Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO Mr Peter FRICK Mr Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ Mr Paul GAVAN Mr Joël GIRAUD Mr Antón GÓMEZ-REINO Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIĆ Ms Nicole HÖCHST Ms Franziska HOOP Mr Andrej HUNKO Mr George KATROUGALOS Ms Olena KHOMENKO Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN Ms Lisa Marie Ness KLUNGLAND Ms Stephanie KRISPER Mr Christophe LACROIX Ms Carmen LEYTE Mr George LOUCAIDES Mr Gianni MARILOTTI Mr Gaspare Antonio MARINELLO Country Monaco Liechtenstein Switzerland Ireland France Spain Italy Croatia Germany Liechtenstein Germany Greece Ukraine Finland Norway Austria Belgium Spain Cyprus Italy Italy Ms Ada MARRA Switzerland Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA Mr Simon MOUTQUIN Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA Mr Halil ÖZŞAVLI Mr Hişyar ÖZSOY Mr Gianluca PERILLI Mr Paulo PISCO Mr Thomas PRINGLE Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ Mr Roberto RAMPI Mr Alberto RIBOLLA Ms Maria RIZZOTTI Spain Ukraine Belgium Ukraine Türkiye Türkiye Italy Portugal Ireland Poland Italy Italy Italy Political group ALDE ALDE SOC UEL ALDE UEL EC/DA SOC EC/DA ALDE UEL UEL EC/DA SOC ALDE ALDE SOC EPP/CD UEL SOC NR SOC SOC EPP/CD SOC ALDE NR UEL SOC SOC UEL EPP/CD SOC EC/DA EPP/CD https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39087/print 2/3 10/19/22, 11:23 AM Vote on Oral Amendment - Doc.
15604 Voting choice Member Country Political group In favour Abstention Mr Gonzalo ROBLES Mr José María SÁNCHEZ GARCÍA In favour In favour In favour In favour Against In favour In favour In favour Against In favour Mr Stefan SCHENNACH Mr Frank SCHWABE Ms Lise SELNES Ms Ingvild Wetrhus THORSVIK Mr László TOROCZKAI Ms Feleknas UCA Mr Andreas Sjalg UNNELAND Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA Mr Manuel VESCOVI Ms Serap YAŞAR Spain Spain Austria Germany Norway Norway Hungary Türkiye Norway Ukraine Italy Türkiye EPP/CD EC/DA SOC SOC SOC ALDE NR UEL UEL ALDE EC/DA NR https://pace.coe.int/en/votes/39087/print 3/3 2022 ORDINARY SESSION Fourth part 10-14 October 2022 TEXTS ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY Provisional versions F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Table of contents Recommendations Recommendation 2237 (2022) Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans (Doc.
15609) Recommendation 2238 (2022) Safe third countries for asylum seekers (Doc.

15592) Recommendation 2239 (2022) The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights (Doc.

15620) Recommendation 2240 (2022) Preventing vaccine discrimination (Doc.

15608) Resolutions Resolution 2456 (2022) Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans (Doc.

15609) Resolution 2457 (2022) Resolution 2458 (2022) Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, in Europe (Doc.
15616) Misuse of the Schengen Information system by Council of Europe member States as a politically-motivated sanction (Doc.

15600) Resolution 2459 (2022) The honouring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye (Doc.

15618) Resolution 2460 (2022) The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Hungary (Doc.

15619) Resolution 2461 (2022) Safe third countries for asylum seekers (Doc.
15592) Resolution 2462 (2022) Resolution 2463 (2022) Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management (Doc.

15604) Further escalation in the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine (Doc.

15631) Resolution 2464 (2022) The impact of Brexit on human rights on the island of Ireland (Doc.

15615) Resolution 2465 (2022) Resolution 2466 (2022) The fight for a level playing field – ending discrimination against women in the world of sport (Doc.
15611) The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Romania (Doc.

15617) Resolution 2467 (2022) The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights (Doc.

15620) Resolution 2468 (2022) Preventing vaccine discrimination (Doc.

15608) Recommendations 2237 to 2240 Recommendation 2237 (2022)1 Provisional version Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans Parliamentary Assembly 1.
Strengthening democratic resilience and respect for the rule of law and human rights; promoting reconciliation and good neighbourly relations; and creating the conditions for stronger economic and social progress in the Western Balkans are a geostrategic investment in peace, stability and democratic security for the whole of Europe.
The Parliamentary Assembly, therefore, firmly believes that helping Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo*2 meet their aspirations for closer European integration is important not only for the countries concerned but for the European continent, and will benefit all European citizens.

2.
2.

Noting that the revised EU enlargement methodology, introduced in 2020, puts an emphasis on democracy, rule of law and human rights, areas in which the Council of Europe has an unparalleled expertise, the Assembly believes that the Council of Europe should redouble its efforts to help the Western Balkan countries make tangible and measurable progress towards meeting the EU enlargement criteria.

3.
3.

In addition, the Assembly considers that the Council of Europe, as a political organisation, should play a greater role in promoting dialogue, inclusive regional co-operation, the normalisation of relations and the solution of bilateral differences and disputes, hand in hand with the European Union and other like-minded actors.

4.
In the light of these considerations, the Assembly invites the Committee of Ministers to: strengthen the political dimension of the strategic partnership between the Council of Europe 4.1. and the European Union in relation to the Western Balkans; 4.2. further develop co-operation activities addressed to the Western Balkan countries in priority areas such as the rule of law and good governance, including efficiency, independence and accountability of the judiciary, anti-corruption, public administration reform, and civil participation in public decision making; 4.3. support civil society initiatives in the region, especially those relating to reconciliation; consider strengthening and expanding the Council of Europe activities relating to confidence 4.4. building measures and conflict prevention in the region; 4.5. step up the political dimension of its engagement in the Western Balkans, for instance by creating ad hoc working groups, taking the lead in promoting regional or bilateral dialogue, and supporting the implementation of agreements which are achieved thanks to the European Union’s mediation or facilitation.
Assembly debate on 11 October 2022 (28th sitting) (see Doc.

15609, report of the Committee on Political Affairs and 1.

Democracy, rapporteur: Mr George Papandreou).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 11 October 2022 (28th sitting).

See also Resolution 2456 (2022).

*Throughout this text, all reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population shall be understood in 2. full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Recommendation 2238 (2022)1 Provisional version Safe third countries for asylum seekers Parliamentary Assembly 1.

The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 2461 (2022) “Safe third countries for asylum seekers” and emphasises the need for greater co-ordination among member States, in order to effectively protect human rights of asylum seekers and the right to asylum in Europe.

2.

Welcoming Recommendation No.
R(97)22 of the Committee of Ministers to member States containing Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country Concept, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 2.1. review this Recommendation in the light of relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, develop new standards to enable member States to improve their assessment of the safety of third countries and regularly up-date them in accordance with legal developments to come and future jurisprudence; 2.2. consider setting standards on the transfer, return and readmission of asylum seekers and refugees, taking due account of the effective protection of their human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5) and their right to apply for and seek asylum under international refugee law; 2.3. seek co-operation of the Council of Europe and its member States with the European Union Agency for Asylum, in order to prevent discrepancies in the application of the safe third country concept in Europe to the detriment of human rights and the right to apply for and seek asylum; 2.4. invite member States to inform the Committee of Ministers about their practice regarding the safe third country concept as well as their practice as regards procedural means available to rebut the presumption of safety of a country.
Assembly debate on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting) (see Doc.

15592, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees 1. and Displaced Persons, rapporteur: Ms Stephanie Krisper).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Recommendation 2239 (2022)1 Provisional version The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights Parliamentary Assembly 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its Resolution 2467 (2022) “The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights” and underscores the need for member States to accommodate the wide-ranging societal, economic, and technological transformations in the world of work through law and practice.
The Assembly believes that member States should contribute to the shaping of the future of work based on societal progress through a more flexible organisation of work strengthened by enhanced access to socio-economic rights, quality employment, inclusive social dialogue and sustainable development.

2.
The Assembly appreciates the Committee of Ministers’ guidance to member States in the framework of its Ad hoc Working Party on improving the European Social Charter system (GT-CHARTE) as regards longer term substantive issues relating to the Charter, in particular the feasibility of adding new provisions to the Charter for enhanced protection of workers in non-standard forms of employment and for tackling challenges arising from new forms of work such as platform work and work involving artificial intelligence.
In this context, the Assembly draws the attention of the Committee of Ministers to the recommendations it has formulated in the above-mentioned Resolution, notably those relating to work hours, telework and hybrid work, the right to disconnect, better recognition of unpaid work, occupational health and safety, training and skills policies, public institutional capacity building, the need for both national social dialogue as well as international minimum and harmonised labour standards and the promotion of the full application of the European Social Charter (ETS No.
35) and the revised European Social Charter (ETS No.

163) across Europe, including to the Council of Europe’s own staff.

Assembly debate on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting) (see Doc.

15620, report of the Committee on Social Affairs, 1.

Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Ms Selin Sayek Böke).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting).
https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Recommendation 2240 (2022)1 Provisional version Preventing vaccine discrimination Parliamentary Assembly Referring to its Resolution 2468 (2022) “Preventing vaccine discrimination”, the Parliamentary 1.
Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 1.1. establish a list of human-rights compliant and effective practices as regards the use of passes during the Covid-19 pandemic, with a special focus on the purposes for which they were used, the conditions under which they were issued and the period of their validity; 1.2. reflect on the impact of Covid passes, and in particular vaccine passes, on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and consider how best to ensure that such measures do not constitute discriminatory practices in light of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5); exchange information on these issues with other international organisations such as the United 1.3.

Nations, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Union, and reflect, in co-operation with them, on the need to establish further common standards on measures to counter the Covid-19 pandemic.
1.4. provide input to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, with the aim of ensuring its compatibility with Council of Europe human rights standards.

Assembly debate on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting) (see Doc.

15608, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and 1.

Human Rights, rapporteur: Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir; and Doc.
15625, opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Ms Carmen Leyte).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolutions 2456 to 2468 Resolution 2456 (2022)1 Provisional version Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans Parliamentary Assembly 1.
Strengthening democratic resilience and respect for the rule of law and human rights; promoting reconciliation and good neighbourly relations; and creating the conditions for stronger economic and social progress in the Western Balkans are a geostrategic investment in peace, stability, and democratic security for the whole of Europe.
The Parliamentary Assembly, therefore, firmly believes that helping Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo*2 meet their aspirations for closer European integration is important not only for the countries concerned but for the European continent and will benefit all European citizens.

2.
2.

In Thessaloniki in 2003, concluding a historic Summit between the Western Balkans and the European Union, the European Union reiterated its unequivocal support for the European perspective of the Western Balkans.

The prospect of EU membership acted as a catalyst for addressing challenges and introducing reforms.

3.

Since Thessaloniki, the commitment to enlargement has been repeatedly confirmed at the highest political level, by both the European Union and the leaders of the region.
The length of time that has elapsed, however, and failure to adequately reward progress have sapped political momentum and public enthusiasm.

Surveys show that an increasing number of people in the Western Balkans, especially amongst the youth, are pessimistic about the prospects of EU accession.

The European vision is losing its shine.

In its place, ethno- nationalism has resurfaced, a very worrying development in a region in which the spectrum of violence still looms large.

4.
4.

The past few years have witnessed a geo-politicisation of the region, with the Russian Federation extending its political influence through an array of soft power tools, including economic investments, media presence, energy policy and vaccine diplomacy.
Against the background of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine – an open affront to international law and European values – there is a risk that this influence will be used as a wedge to deepen fractures and lead to further destabilisation.

It is thus imperative not to lose focus on the Western Balkans, even if the need to support the European aspirations of other countries, such as Ukraine, Georgia, and the Republic of Moldova, has emerged in the meantime.

5.
5.

The Assembly calls for a new impetus to be given to the European Union enlargement process.

In this context, it welcomes the opening of accession negotiations with Albania and North Macedonia on 19 July 2022.
It also commends the diplomatic efforts which have yielded positive results in addressing bilateral disputes including the Prespa agreement between Greece and North Macedonia in 2018, the agreement which led to Bulgaria waiving its opposition to the opening of accession negotiations with North Macedonia in July 2022, and the agreement on freedom of movement reached on 27 August 2022 by Pristina and Belgrade in the context of the EU-facilitated dialogue.
Assembly debate on 11 October 2022 (28th sitting) (see Doc.

15609, report of the Committee on Political Affairs and 1.

Democracy, rapporteur: Mr George Papandreou).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 11 October 2022 (28th sitting).

See also Recommendation 2237 (2022).


*Throughout this text, all reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population shall be understood in 2. full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2456 (2022) 6.
The Assembly also urges the Western Balkans to address with resolve and without delay outstanding challenges, such as a polarised political climate which often affects the collaboration between political forces and sometimes leads to interinstitutional deadlocks and conflicts; serious rule of law and good governance issues which affect the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the functioning of the public administration; issues relating to the rights of national minorities and minority communities and the persistence of cleavages along ethnic lines which affect many aspects of life; and problems relating to freedom of the media and media ownership.
Greater efforts are also necessary to strengthen reconciliation and enhance civil society engagement.

7.

Noting that the revised EU enlargement methodology, introduced in 2020, puts an emphasis on democracy, rule of law and human rights, areas in which the Council of Europe has an unparalleled expertise, the Assembly believes that the Council of Europe should redouble its efforts to help the Western Balkan countries make tangible and measurable progress towards meeting the EU enlargement criteria.

8.
8.

Furthermore, the Assembly considers that the Council of Europe, as a political organisation, should play a greater role in promoting effective and inclusive regional co-operation, the normalisation of relations and the solution of bilateral differences and disputes.

This should be done hand in hand with the European Union and other like-minded actors.

9.
In the light of the above, the Assembly calls on the European Union to: give fresh impetus to the enlargement process for the Western Balkans, rewarding progress in 9.1. compliance with criteria and sparing no effort to promote a climate of trust and positive momentum; in the context of their strategic partnership and taking into account their common values and 9.2. convergence of interests, intensify political dialogue with the Council of Europe on how to accelerate the European perspective of the Western Balkans, paying attention to the ownership and sustainability of the reforms, and the need to involve civil society; 9.3. make full use of Council of Europe tools and expertise in the field of rule of law, democracy and human rights, especially in the context of benchmarking and the implementation of co-operation activities, including in the context of the Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Turkey; 9.4. continue to provide financial support to the Council of Europe for joint interventions in the region.
The Assembly calls on the authorities in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North 10.
Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo to: 10.1. work towards improving the political culture with a view to ensuring collaboration between political forces and institutions; 10.2. further strengthen the efficiency, independence, impartiality and accountability of the judiciary; further improve the functioning of the public administration at all levels of governance and 10.3. strengthen the professionalism, integrity and neutrality of the civil service; 10.4. step up the fight against corruption; 10.5. enhance the participation of civil society in political decision making; 10.6. refrain from inflammatory discourse, including on ethnic grounds; 10.7. protect and promote the rights of national minorities and minority communities; 10.8. ensure freedom of the media and address outstanding issues relating to media ownership, while being vigilant against disinformation and other forms of interference with democratic processes, including via the media; 10.9. be exemplary in promoting reconciliation; 10.10. further align with the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, including in relation to the sanctions and other measures taken in response to the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine; 10.11. support regional co-operation and rules-based multilateralism.
11.
The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States to: 11.1. support the efforts of the Western Balkans to fully pursue their European vocation; 2 Resolution 2456 (2022) 11.2. support the implementation of co-operation activities, including at parliamentary level, aimed at ensuring that the Western Balkans make further progress towards meeting the criteria for EU membership; 11.3. contribute financially to Council of Europe co-operation activities in the region; 11.4. contribute financially to the projects of the Council of Europe Development Bank targeting the Western Balkans; 11.5. promote, through their diplomacy, reconciliation efforts and good neighbourly relations in the region.
As regards its own activities, the Assembly resolves to play a greater role in supporting a European 12. perspective for the Western Balkans by: 12.1. holding debates on promoting a European perspective for the Western Balkans, with the participation of EU officials and leaders from the region; 12.2. stepping up inter-parliamentary co-operation activities addressed to the countries concerned, aimed at enhancing democratic resilience, institutional capacity, the ownership and sustainability of reforms and civil society consultation and participation in the political decision-making process; 12.3. developing initiatives offering the countries concerned an additional platform for parliamentary diplomacy aimed at promoting dialogue, reconciliation, confidence building and good neighbourly relations; 12.4. strengthening consultation, co-ordination and co-operation with the European Parliament, including through enhanced political dialogue and the organisation of joint events and meetings.
3 Resolution 2457 (2022)1 Provisional version Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti- Muslim racism, in Europe Parliamentary Assembly 1.

Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism (the two terms are used interchangeably in this text), is a form of racism, intolerance and discrimination against Muslims and those who are perceived as Muslims.
While linked to religion, Islamophobia cannot be reduced to discrimination based on the grounds of religion, as it results from a “racialised” perception based on various markers that include ethnic or national origin, appearance and cultural characteristics, and may overlap with anti-immigrant sentiments, xenophobia and social class bias.

2.
2.

As highlighted by the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), anti-Muslim racism can be manifested, implicitly or explicitly, not only in individual attitudes and actions, but also structurally in include prejudice, stigmatisation, policy discrimination (including profiling), hate speech and hate crime, as well as exclusion in key areas of life such as education, employment and housing.

institutional arrangements.

Its manifestations initiatives or 3.


Women are disproportionately affected by Islamophobia, as they face multiple and intersectional discrimination and are often more easily identifiable as Muslim.
Measures to address anti-Muslim racism and discrimination should consistently be based on an intersectional approach, taking in consideration grounds of discrimination including gender, ethnic origin, migrant background, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sexual characteristics.

4.
4.

The Parliamentary Assembly is deeply concerned by the constant increase in signs of Islamophobia in Europe, with a dramatic spike in recent years, as denounced by numerous human rights and equality bodies at European and global levels.

The Assembly condemns the use of Islamophobic rhetoric in public and political discourse, particularly 5. by populist and far-right movements, but which often spreads to mainstream politics.
It believes that stereotyping based on depicting Muslims as alien to, and incompatible with, European culture and values leads to further stigmatisation and exclusion.

The Assembly also denounces racist and Islamophobic conspiracy theories, notably the fabricated idea that non-white and Muslims aim to outnumber the rest of the European population (the “Great replacement” theory).

6.
6.

The Assembly is convinced that Council of Europe member States should strive to create an open and inclusive society and address the root causes of anti-Muslim racism and discrimination, including stereotyping, prejudice, stigmatisation and scapegoating of individuals and groups perceived as different from the majority of the population.

7.
7.

Stressing that Islamophobia is a severe violation of human rights and human dignity, which undermines social cohesion and peaceful living together in Europe, the Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States to address it as a matter of priority, as a specific form of racism, and for its specific inclusion in antidiscrimination and antiracism action plans.

Assembly debate on 11 October 2022 (29th sitting) (see Doc.

15616, report of the Committee on Equality and Non- 1.
Discrimination, rapporteur: Mr Momodou Malcolm Jallow).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 11 October 2022 (29th sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2457 (2022) 8.
Referring to its Resolution 1840 (2011) “Human rights and the fight against terrorism” and Resolution 2031 (2015) “Terrorist attacks in Paris: together for a democratic response”, the Assembly stresses that the fight against terrorism, vital for the safety of citizens and the protection of democratic institutions, must be conducted ensuring respect for human rights, the rule of law and the common values upheld by the Council of Europe.
The Assembly welcomes the adoption of the revised ECRI General Policy Recommendation No.5 on 9.

Preventing and combating anti-Muslim racism and discrimination and considers that it should be fully implemented by public authorities in Council of Europe member States and beyond to prevent and counter this form of racism.

The Assembly welcomes the adoption by the Committee of Ministers, on 20 May 2022, of 10.
Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)16 to member States on combating hate speech, and considers that it should be fully implemented by Council of Europe member States.

The Recommendation contains indications to State authorities on countering hate speech through civil, administrative and criminal law as well as alternative measures.

The Recommendation also includes guidance for other actors including public officials, political parties, internet intermediaries, media and civil society organisations.

11.
11.

The Assembly welcomes the unanimous decision by the United Nations General Assembly to proclaim 15 March as the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, as an opportunity both to commemorate victims of this form of discrimination and to raise awareness, with a view to preventing and countering anti-Muslim racism.

12.

The Assembly acknowledges and supports the work of civil society organisations in countering all forms of racism, intolerance and discrimination, including Islamophobia.
Referring to its Resolution 2362 (2021) and Recommendation 2194 (2021) “Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States” the Assembly reiterates that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) make an essential contribution to the progress and development of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and that Council of Europe member States are required, in particular, to ensure respect for the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association.

13.
13.

Referring to its Resolution 2222 (2018) “Promoting diversity and equality in politics”, the Assembly reiterates that parliaments and other elected institutions should fully reflect in this particular context the complex diversity of European societies.

14.
In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on Council of Europe member and observer States, as well as on all States whose parliaments enjoy observer or partner for democracy status to the Assembly, to: 14.1. regarding antiracism and antidiscrimination legislation and policies: 14.1.1. adopt action plans on preventing and combating Islamophobia or ensure that action plans on racism and discrimination refer to and address Islamophobia specifically; 14.1.2. improve data collection and ensure that equality data are available to support the design, implementation, monitoring and assessment of antidiscrimination legislation and policies.
Equality data to prevent and counter Islamophobia should be disaggregated by gender, national and ethnic origin and religion, and should be collected anonymously, voluntarily and based on an individual’s self-identification as belonging to certain groups; 14.1.3. ensure full enjoyment of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights; 14.1.4. engage in co-operation and provide support to civil society organisations active in antiracism, equality and non-discrimination, including those working specifically on Islamophobia and representing Muslim individuals and communities; 14.1.5. encourage and support dialogue and co-operation between groups and communities of different religious backgrounds; 14.1.6. sign and ratify Protocol No.
12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

177) and the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems (ETS No.

189), if they have not already done so; 2 Resolution 2457 (2022) 14.1.7. disseminate and fully implement ECRI’s revised General Policy Recommendation No.
5 Preventing and combating anti-Muslim racism and discrimination, and strengthen co- operation with ECRI while fully supporting its monitoring activities; 14.1.8. disseminate and fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on combating hate speech; 14.2. regarding anti-terror measures: 14.2.1. ensure that counterterror legislation and policies are sufficiently circumscribed to avoid them being used in arbitrary and discriminatory ways; refrain from applying unclear or overly broad definitions of “terrorism” and ensure that 14.2.2. each constituent element of terrorism-related offences is precisely defined, in accordance with the principle of legality; 14.2.3. ensure that the application of counterterror measures is adequately justified, and that these measures are not applied automatically or beyond their legal purpose; refrain 14.2.4. including Muslim civil society organisations, unless demonstrably necessary and proportionate, and ensure that judicial procedures are available to appeal dissolution decisions; the dissolution of any institution, from 14.3. regarding awareness-raising, information and education: 14.3.1. conduct awareness-raising and information campaigns and activities targeting the general public to convey the message that preventing and combating Islamophobia, like any other form of racism, is the responsibility of all members of society; 14.3.2. provide public servants in all sectors of administration, including education, healthcare, law enforcement and the judiciary, with training on racism and discrimination issues, enabling them to prevent and react to discrimination and harassment linked to Islamophobia and other forms of racism; 14.3.3. ensure that school curricula, in particular in history, geography, literature and religion, as appropriate, include accurate information on the presence of Muslim people in Europe and their contribution to European culture and development.
15.

The Assembly highlights that particular attention must be paid to preventing and countering discrimination against Muslim women, as detailed in Resolution 1887 (2012) “Multiple discrimination against Muslim women in Europe: for equal opportunities”.

16.
16.

The Assembly calls on political leaders to speak out against Islamophobia and all other forms of intolerance, and on political parties to sign the Charter of European political parties for a non-racist and inclusive society as endorsed in its Resolution 2443 (2022).

17.
17.

The Assembly calls on the media and cultural industries, including the press, television and online news providers, to ensure accurate, unbiased reporting of news and information that are relevant to Muslim individuals and groups, and to refrain from negative stereotyping and stigmatisation of Muslims.

The Assembly invites the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member 18.
States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) and its rapporteurs to pay due attention to manifestations of Islamophobia, in the context of racism and intolerance, when conducting monitoring procedures and periodic reviews of the membership obligations and commitments entered into by Council of Europe member States.

3 Resolution 2458 (2022)1 Provisional version Misuse of the Schengen Information system by Council of Europe member States as a politically-motivated sanction Parliamentary Assembly 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its Resolution 1894 (2012) “The inadmissibility of restrictions on freedom of movement as punishment for political positions” and stresses that since its adoption, many changes to the functioning of the Schengen Information System (SIS), including its reshaping into a more advanced version – SIS II – have been put in place.

2.
2.

The Assembly recalls that, in principle, States have a sovereign right under international law to decide on who shall be allowed to enter their territories.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5) does not guarantee a right to entry to a specific State, as the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed.

3.

New cases of allegedly unjustified alerts, including ones on politically motivated grounds, have been reported.
The Assembly condemns such practices and recalls that member States of the Schengen Area are bound not only by the European Union legal order, but also by the European Convention on Human Rights, which shall “secure” the rights and freedoms guaranteed therein to “everyone within their jurisdiction”, notably the right to respect for private and family life and the protection against discrimination.
This includes foreigners applying for a visa or seeking entry at the external border of the Schengen Area, all of whose member States are States Parties to the Convention.

4.

The free movement of persons is one of the four basic freedoms of the European Union.
The existence of the Schengen Area, based on the 1985 Schengen Agreement and the 1990 Schengen Convention, has strengthened this right by abolishing checks at internal borders, whilst subjecting the crossing of the European Union’s external border to more stringent controls and various preventive measures.

In this respect, the SIS, whose purpose is to maintain a high level of security within the Schengen Area, is a key tool.

Its good functioning depends on mutual trust between national authorities.

5.
5.

The Assembly notes than the current European Union legal framework on SIS II, by referring to the notion of a “threat to public policy or public security or to national security”, gives a large amount of discretion to the Schengen Area member States in deciding whether and in which circumstances they can place alerts in SIS II.
It stresses that the use of alerts should not lead to any misuse of the system and should not infringe the human rights of third country nationals trying to enter the Schengen Area, in particular the right to respect for private and family life, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of movement and the right to an effective remedy.
If need be, additional measures should be taken to prevent misuse of the SIS and improve the protection of human rights of third-country nationals subject to alerts in the SIS.

6.

Therefore, the Assembly calls on member States of the Schengen Area to: 6.1. enter only accurate and lawful data in SIS II; 6.2. make sure that the data in SIS are not entered for political reasons; Assembly debate on 11 October 2022 (29th sitting) (see Doc.

15600, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and 1.
Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Ziya Altunyaldiz).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 11 October 2022 (29th sitting).
https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2458 (2022) respect the principles of proportionality and individual assessment of each case, when issuing 6.3. alerts in SIS II; 6.4. introduce transparency and adequate monitoring and verification mechanisms concerning the interoperability of large-scale information systems so that the data registered in one system are not unduly used by the other systems; provide for persons subject to a SIS II alert effective and timely remedies against national 6.5. administrative or judicial authorities’ decisions which have been at the origin of the alert; observe the right of third-country nationals to be informed about the inclusion of an alert in SIS 6.6.
II; stop practices that prevent citizens of States not belonging to the Schengen Area from 6.7. participating in the cultural, social and scientific activities in the Schengen Area and hamper free trade; avoid any misuse of SIS II that could prevent the establishment of commercial activities and a 6.8. more effective investment co-operation; 6.9. adjust their national legislations to ensure that administrative decisions on refusal to issue a Schengen visa due to political or other reasons are subject to judicial review in the relevant member State; 6.10. take all measures to ensure that the use of SIS and related systems should not set an obstacle to the achievement of a greater unity between Council of Europe member States, as enshrined in the Council of Europe Statute (ETS No.
1); 6.11. provide for persons subject to a SIS II alert the right to access data relating to them and to request the correction of inaccurate data or the deletion of data which have been unlawfully stored in SIS II; 6.12. provide for such persons the possibility to bring effective legal action before the courts or other competent bodies in order to access, correct, delete or retrieve data, or to obtain, where relevant, compensation in connection with an alert relating to them; 6.13. make use of the Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries network (SIRENE) to verify relevant information before denying admission or a short-term visa to a third-country national; 6.14. enhance co-operation between the competent national authorities examining individual cases of alerts (courts, data protection controllers and other relevant bodies); 6.15. establish a mediation (ombudsperson-type) body, whose main task would be to examine whether human rights standards have been observed by national authorities when entering an alert in SIS II or denying entry to third country nationals on the basis of such an alert; 6.16. pay particular attention to alerts entered by States found in systematic breach of the rule of law by the European Commission or under the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s monitoring procedure for the functioning of democratic institutions and the rule of law.
7.

The Assembly also invites the European Union and calls on its member States to conclude as soon as possible the revision of the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism and to examine ways in which current and possible future deficiencies in the functioning of SIS II could be avoided.

It invites the European Union to involve the European Parliament in these processes.

8.
It also invites the European Union and calls on its member States to: adopt guidelines on minimum common standards governing the SIS II alert procedure that would 8.1. be applicable to third-country nationals as well as substantive criteria for issuing SIS II alerts; 8.2. consider establishing a mediation (ombudsperson-type) body, whose main task would be to examine whether human rights standards have been observed by national authorities when entering an alert in SIS II or denying entry to third country nationals, or granting this competence to the European Ombudsman, the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union, the European Data Protection Supervisor or another European Union body.
9.

The Assembly also calls on member States of the Schengen Area to collect and exchange data about current national practices concerning the use of SIS II alerts and their impact on human rights, and to co- operate in this respect also with Council of Europe member States which are not members of the European Union.

2 Resolution 2459 (2022)1 Provisional version The honouring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye Parliamentary Assembly 1.
In April 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly decided to place Türkiye under the monitoring procedure.

Since then, it has closely followed the developments in the country in a spirit of dialogue and co-operation with the Turkish authorities.

The Assembly has paid particular attention to the unaddressed structural deficiencies in the functioning of Türkiye’s democratic institutions, as identified by Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms.
The Assembly has undertaken to make a mid-term review of the monitoring procedure, focusing specifically on the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the judiciary and challenges to the rule of law, and the preparation of the 2023 parliamentary and presidential elections.

2.
2.

Significant political developments have occurred since the adoption of the 2017 report: constitutional amendments establishing a presidential system were adopted in 2017 by 51,4% of the voters and a new political system was put in place.

In recent years, worrying political developments have impacted the functioning of democratic institutions.

In particular, it became challenging for members of the political opposition to exercise their elected mandates in a free and safe environment.
In reaction to these developments, the Assembly organised three debates under urgent procedure.
The 3. first in January 2019 on “The worsening situation of opposition politicians in Turkey: what can be done to protect their fundamental rights in a Council of Europe member State?” (see Resolution 2260 (2019)), the second in October 2020 on the “New crackdown on political opposition and civil dissent in Turkey: urgent need to safeguard Council of Europe standards” (see Resolution 2347 (2020)) and the third in April 2021 on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey” (see Resolution 2376 (2021)).
4.
Issues of concern identified by the Assembly include the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and checks and balances, restrictions on freedom of expression and of the media, the overly-broad interpretation of anti-terror legislation, the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, restrictions on the protection of human rights, and infringement of the fundamental rights of politicians and (former) members of parliament from the opposition, and also lawyers, journalists, academics and civil society activists.
5.

The Assembly also remains vigilant about the safeguard of women’s rights and gender equality in Türkiye.

In this context, it regrets the decision of the President of the Republic to withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No.
210, the “Istanbul Convention”) in March 2021 and sincerely hopes that a way will be found for Türkiye to reintegrate the Istanbul Convention, which has become the gold standard in the fight against violence against women and domestic violence.

6.

The Assembly acknowledges that Türkiye has faced and is still facing various and serious terrorist threats in a region that is unstable.

However, the response to these threats must be in compliance with human rights, rule of law and democracy standards.
Assembly debate on 12 October 2022 (30th sitting) (see Doc.

15618 and Doc.

15618 Add., report of the Committee 1. on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), co-rapporteurs: Mr John Howell and Mr Boriss Cilevičs).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 12 October 2022 (30th sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2459 (2022) 7.
Moreover, Russia's aggression against Ukraine has added new concerns for regional security and stability.

In this respect, the Assembly welcomes the mediation efforts undertaken by Türkiye with a view to resolving the conflict, and commends the role played by Türkiye in facilitating the signature of the United Nations-brokered Black Sea Grain Initiative of 22 July 2022.

8.

Concerning the execution of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights: 8.1.
While acknowledging that Türkiye has implemented an important number of European Court of Human Rights rulings, the Assembly recalls that the implementation of all rulings of the Court is at the core of the protection of fundamental rights in all member States; the findings of the Court should be respected, and not disregarded.
In this context, the Assembly calls on Türkiye to adopt a constructive approach and abide by its obligations in a spirit of good faith and in accordance with the principle of the rule of law.

8.1.1.
8.1.1.

In this respect, the Assembly was appalled by the aggravated life-sentence given to philanthropist Osman Kavala on 25 April 2022 by the 13th High criminal court, this, notwithstanding that the European Court of Human Rights had urged the Turkish authorities to release Mr Kavala having found his pre-trial detention unlawful and pursuing an ulterior purpose – namely to silence him and dissuade other human rights defenders.

8.1.2.
8.1.2.

On 2 February 2022, the Committee of Ministers decided to bring infringement proceedings against Türkiye over its failure to implement this ruling of the European Court of Human Rights – a rare procedure which had only been triggered once.
While the Turkish authorities argued that Mr Kavala had been released in February 2020, the European Court confirmed, on 11 July 2022, that Türkiye had failed to implement the judgment by re-arresting Mr Kavala on charges based on facts that were similar, or even identical, to those that the Court had already examined in its judgment.

8.2.
8.2.

Reiterating its call on Türkiye to implement the court judgements, the Assembly will follow with close attention the activities of the Committee of Ministers with respect to the follow-up of the infringement proceedings under Article 46.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5).
5).

It calls on the support of member States to the Committee of Ministers to ensure that decisions in this respect will not undermine or jeopardise the effectiveness of the system of protection of fundamental rights and the credibility of the Court, as this would open the way to a dangerous and detrimental trend for other Council of Europe member States.

8.3.
8.3.

In this respect, the Assembly welcomes the decision of the Ministers’ Deputies of 22 September 2022 related to the implementation of the Kavala judgment and its reference to the Assembly.

It invites the President of the Assembly and the Chair of the Committee of Ministers to maintain close contacts and make full use of the means at their respective disposal, if Türkiye’s failure to comply with its obligations should persist.
Noting that domestic procedures are still onward going, the Assembly underscores that the 8.4. solution to the Kavala case lies in the hands of the Turkish judicial system.

The latter has the capacity to find a legal solution and show a more diligent interpretation of the Court judgement, in compliance with its ruling and with international law.

In the meantime, the Assembly reiterates its call for the release of Mr Kavala.

8.5.
8.5.

The Assembly also continues to follow the implementation of the Court judgement of December 2020 relating to the detention of opposition leader Selahattin Demirtaş (who has been in detention since 2016) and its supervision by the Committee of Ministers.

The Court had also concluded that Article 18 of the Convention had been violated, and that Mr Demirtaş’ detention sought an ulterior purpose, namely to stifle political debate.

The Assembly reiterates its call for Mr Demirtaş’ release.
The Assembly also urges the authorities to ensure that Mr Demirtaş’ individual application challenging his current detention, which has been pending before the Constitutional Court since 7 November 2019, be examined rapidly, and in a manner compatible with the spirit and conclusions of the Court’s judgment, including in particular its reasoning under Article 18 of the Convention, as recalled by the Ministers' Deputies on 22 September 2022.

8.6.
8.6.

The Assembly has highlighted, in its previous resolutions, the restrictive environment for civil society organisations.

In this respect, the Assembly is shocked by the conviction of Mr Kavala’s co- defendants in the Gezi trial – all renowned persons, including architects, intellectuals, prominent civil society activists, including the Director of the Council of Europe School of Political Studies – to 18 years of prison.
The Assembly calls for their immediate release and for their charges to be dropped.

2 Resolution 2459 (2022) 9.

Concerning the independence of the judiciary: The Assembly recalls that the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice 9.1.
Commission), in its 2017 opinion, had concluded that the constitutional amendments establishing a presidential system did not guarantee the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, notably due to the composition of the Council of judges and prosecutors.

Despite steps taken by the authorities – including the adoption of an Action Plan on Human 9.2.
Rights in March 2021 and the Fourth Judicial Package in July 2021 – the authorities have not been able to address and redress some of the systemic issues which seriously undermine the functioning of the justice system: 9.2.1.
The right to a fair trial (which represents 70% of the violations found by the Constitutional Court in individual application cases lodged since 2012) and, in particular, the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (which was found in 90% of the rulings of the Constitutional Court in 2020 and 2021) should be secured.
Noting that the Constitutional Court has launched a “pilot judgment procedure” and suspended these cases, the Assembly urges the authorities to take all necessary legal steps requested by the Constitutional Court to reduce the length of procedures.
In this context, the Assembly stresses the important role of the Constitutional Court in 9.2.2. promoting the protection of fundamental freedoms, including the right to a fair trial, notably through the mechanism of individual applications, and calls for the strengthening of the Constitutional Court’s independence.
The Assembly urges the authorities to ensure more effective and systematic implementation of its rulings by lower courts and welcomes the co- operation established with the Council of Europe to find common solutions.

9.2.3.
9.2.3.

The Assembly also remains concerned about the situation in prisons and calls on the authorities to implement the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) and to authorise the publication of all its reports.
It welcomes the commitment by the authorities to a zero-tolerance policy towards ill-treatment and torture, but nonetheless urges them to take more resolute and credible action to investigate thoroughly serious allegations of ill-treatment and torture.

It also urges the authorities to pay attention to the situation of seriously ill prisoners, including former MP Aysel Tuğluk.

10.

Concerning the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled in 2023: 10.1.
The Assembly values the commitment of the Turkish people to democratic processes through their high participation in elections and a vibrant political scene.

10.2.
10.2.

The Assembly however remains very concerned by the ongoing crackdown on members of the political opposition, including the procedures seeking to lift the parliamentary immunity (overwhelmingly of opposition parties), and more generally acts of violence suffered by opposition politicians which have put political pluralism and the functioning of democratic institutions at risk.
The case against Canan Kaftancıoğlu, Head of the Republican People's Party (CHP) provincial branch of Istanbul, convicted to nearly 5 years in prison (and released under supervision) based on old Tweets, and for, inter alia, allegedly “insulting the President”, and the ban on her participating in political life, is yet another example of this restrictive and punitive environment in which opposition members are operating.

10.3.
10.3.

The Assembly will closely follow the ongoing procedure related to the attempt to close the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) – which is the third largest party in parliament – and to ban 451 HDP politicians from political life.

The Assembly recalls that closures of political parties are a drastic measure which should occur only as a last resort.
As already stressed in its Resolution 2376 (2021), the Assembly remains confident that the Constitutional Court will be guided by the strict regulations governing the closure of political parties in Türkiye, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights – where exceptions set out in Article 11 need to be construed strictly, with a limited margin of appreciation of Contracting States – and by the 1999 “Guidelines on the prohibition and dissolution of political parties, and analogous measures” of the Venice Commission.
3 Resolution 2459 (2022) 10.4.

The Assembly notes that the Turkish Parliament adopted, on 25 April 2022, amendments to the electoral law, regrettably without extensive consultations and debates and failing to reach a political consensus, as highlighted by the Venice Commission in June 2022 in its joint opinion (CDL- AD(2022)016) with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR).

10.4.1.
10.4.1.

The Assembly welcomes the lowering of the electoral threshold from 10% to 7% – a long-lasting request from the Assembly – as well as new arrangements facilitating the participation of visually impaired persons in elections.

10.4.2.
10.4.2.

However, other provisions of this law are problematic: the Venice Commission raised concerns, inter alia, about the criteria required from political parties to qualify to stand for elections, which “favours larger and well-established political parties”, and the new composition of the district and provincial electoral boards: their judicial members will no longer be the three most senior judges in the province but determined “by drawing lots” from eligible judges.
For the Venice Commission, this “potentially makes appointment more susceptible to political pressure and manipulation in light of the limited safeguards in the judicial appointment system to ensure the independence of judges”.

This new regulation is also a major source of concern for the opposition.

10.4.3.
10.4.3.

Changes were also made in the legal provisions concerning the misuse of office in election campaigns; the Venice Commission recommended that “the President does not stand outside the party system but, rather, is part of it, there is no reason why s/he should not be subject to the restrictions in the same ways as other high public officials to prevent conflicts of interest and misuse of administrative resources”.

10.4.4.
10.4.4.

In light of the recommendations made by the Venice Commission, the Assembly urges the Turkish authorities to proceed to the proposed changes or, at the least, to implement the legislation in a spirit that will be conducive to a level playing field.

The electoral legal framework should ensure equal opportunities for all political players, and this will constitute an important criterion to assess the fairness of the upcoming elections.

10.5.
10.5.

Another essential component of political debates and elections campaigns is freedom of expression.

However, there are serious concerns about ongoing restrictions and legal proceedings hampering the exercise of this right.
Recalling its previous requests and the Venice Commission’s 2016 opinion, the Assembly calls on Türkiye to, notably, amend Article 301 (Degrading Turkish Nation, State of Turkish Republic, the Organs and Institutions of the State) and Article 125 (insult to officials), as well as to abrogate Article 299 (Insult to the President) in accordance with emerging European consensus towards decriminalisation of defamation of the Head of State, and taking into account the judgment of the Court in the Vedat Şorli v. Turkey case and the Court’s case law.
10.6.

In particular the overly-broad interpretation of the anti-terrorism law has undermined freedom of expression and fundamental rights.

The Assembly reiterates its concerns that such interpretation of the law has been used as a tool to stifle political debate and the activities of civil society.
Drawing inspiration from the amendment of Article 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Law in October 2019, the Assembly encourages the authorities to amend further articles of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the Criminal Code which have led to violations of the right to freedom of expression, to clarify that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression does not constitute an offence, in the same way that Article 7 now states that expressions of thought that do not exceed the boundaries of reporting or for the purpose of criticism shall not constitute criminal activity.
10.7.

Media play an important role in election campaigns.

Freedom of media, however, remains a challenge.

The Assembly notes that long-standing issues remain problematic, such as attacks against journalists, the control of media by the State, the use or withholding of advertising funds as a means to marginalise and criminalise media critical of the regime.
The Assembly is concerned by the draft amendment of Article 217/A to the Turkish Criminal Code that would criminalise the dissemination of “false or misleading information” and lead to prison sentences.

For the Venice Commission, such amendment would amount to an interference with the freedom of expression which “would be neither 'necessary in a democratic society’ nor proportionate to the legitimate aims of prevention of disorder and protection of national security, of health and of rights of others”.
Beside its potential detrimental impact, namely, the chilling effect and increased self-censorship, this amendment could cause irreparable harm to the exercise of freedom of speech before elections.
The Assembly is therefore very 4 Resolution 2459 (2022) concerned about the possible consequences of this legislation in view of the presidential and parliamentary elections planned in 2023 and urges the Turkish authorities, in light of the Venice Commission’s urgent opinion of October 2022, not to enact this draft amendment to the Criminal Code.

10.8.
10.8.

The Assembly stresses that transparency and accountability are key for democracies and that transparency of party funding is important to ensure fair electoral competition.
The Assembly regrets the lack of progress concerning the implementation of the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and urges the authorities to take action to increase transparency of party funding, to adopt a law on ethical conduct for members of parliament, to ensure transparency of the legislative process and to adopt measures to ensure parliamentary members’ integrity.
The Assembly also recalls GRECO’s previous concerns about the weakened judicial independence, which impacts on the fight against corruption.

11.

The Assembly notes that the change of the political system adopted in 2017 – while being a sovereign right of any member State – has seriously weakened the democratic institutions in Türkiye and made the system of checks and balances dysfunctional and deficient.
The Assembly expresses the urgent need for reforms to restore the full independence of the judiciary and effective checks and balances.

The Turkish authorities need to ensure that all conditions will be met to guarantee free and fair elections, including the ability of the opposition to operate, and journalists to work in an independent way.

The Assembly remains at the disposal of the authorities to pursue a constructive dialogue.
It resolves, in the framework of the monitoring procedure for Türkiye, to continue to follow the developments in the country concerning democracy, rule of law and human rights.

5 Resolution 2460 (2022)1 Provisional version The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Hungary Parliamentary Assembly 1.

Hungary joined the Council of Europe on 6 November 1990 and has been an active member State of the Organisation ever since.
It was the first of the former communist countries to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5, “the Convention”) in 1992 and subsequently has signed and ratified 94 Council of Europe treaties.

Hungary exercised, for the second time since joining the Organisation, the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers from May to November 2021.
It actively promoted, inter alia, the effective protection of national minorities issues and discussions on challenges related to digitalisation and artificial intelligence, which culminated with the formal approval of the Second Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No.

185, “Budapest Convention”) on enhanced co-operation and the disclosure of electronic evidence (CETS No.

224) by the Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2021.

2.
2.

The Parliamentary Assembly has closely followed Hungary’s honouring of its Council of Europe membership obligations since 2013.
In Resolution 1941 (2013), it expressed its deep concern about “the erosion of democratic checks and balances as a result of the new constitutional framework in Hungary” that had introduced “excessively concentrated powers, increased discretionary powers and reduced both the accountability and legal oversight of numerous government institutions and regulatory bodies in Hungary”.
Although the Assembly decided not to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary at that time, it resolved to closely follow the situation in Hungary.

In subsequent resolutions, including Resolution 2203 (2018) adopted in the framework of the discussion on the 2018 periodic review report on Hungary, the Assembly has continued to follow developments in the country.

3.
3.

Since its accession to power in 2010, the coalition of the Hungarian Civic Alliance (Fidesz) and the Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP) has won four consecutive parliamentary elections and enjoyed, nearly continuously, a two-thirds parliamentary majority, which constitutes a unique situation among Council of Europe member States and contemporary democracies.

Since the adoption of the Fundamental Law (which is the official name of the new Hungarian 4.
Constitution) in 2011, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) has expressed serious concerns about the impact of cardinal laws requiring two-thirds majorities on issues that are usually decided by simple majority and which should be left to the ordinary political process.

The wide use of cardinal laws therefore impacts the “functionality of a democratic system” and cements the political preferences and the country’s legal order.
It also undermines the ability of the parliament to adapt to new conditions and face new challenges within society in the future.

5.

In addition, the safeguards foreseen in the Constitution – with qualified majorities designed to require the search for a broad agreement between the majority and the opposition on key issues – become inefficient in cases where a ruling coalition enjoys a two-thirds majority.
This is in particular the case when appointing the highest judicial officials (notably members of the Constitutional Court, the President of the Supreme Court Assembly debate on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting) (see Doc.

15619, report of the Committee on the Honouring of 1.

Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), co-rapporteurs: Mr George Papandreou and Mr Eerik-Niiles Kross).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting).
https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2460 (2022) (Curia) and the President of the National Office for the Judiciary (NOJ)) or adopting constitutional changes (11 since 2010).

This situation severely restricts political pluralism – which is the hallmark of a democratic system – that should be embedded in the political system and State institutions.

6.
6.

The Assembly notes the valuable contribution of the Venice Commission, which has issued 23 opinions on Hungary since 2011, assessing the compliance of the Hungarian constitutional, legal and electoral framework with Council of Europe standards.

The Assembly encourages the Hungarian authorities to pursue their co-operation with Council of Europe monitoring bodies and to implement their recommendations.

7.
7.

A two-thirds majority was once again achieved by the ruling coalition in the April 2022 parliamentary elections.

This was done with 54% of the constituency and 52% of the party-list votes.
Under these circumstances, it is incumbent on the authorities to ensure that the principles governing the proper functioning of democratic institutions are respected and safeguarded in good faith, including through effective checks and balances, meaningful dialogue with the opposition and co-operation with civil society organisations.

Hungary, like all countries, has had to face the Covid-19 pandemic.
In recent months, it has also had to 8. tackle the consequences of the Russian aggression in neighbouring Ukraine.

The Assembly commends the people of Hungary for the great solidarity shown in the handling of the mass arrival of refugees from Ukraine since February 2022.

The Assembly welcomes the decision of the authorities to allow persons fleeing the war and holding Hungarian citizenship to have access to the benefits provided to holders of temporary protection.
However, it shares the concerns of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the situation of third country nationals and stateless persons excluded from this scheme.

9.

The Assembly is also concerned that the country has been ruled under a special legal order since 2020.
The parliament notably adopted, on 24 May 2022, the Tenth (constitutional) Amendment, allowing the government to trigger a “state of danger” in “cases of war or humanitarian catastrophes in neighbouring countries”, following the outbreak of war in Ukraine.

The Assembly recalls that the use of special legal orders must be restricted to what is strictly necessary, proportionate and must be limited in time.
It also stresses that parliamentary oversight, political deliberations involving all political forces in parliament and proper checks and balances are crucial in times of crisis.

10.
10.

The Assembly recalls the human rights issues raised in its previous resolutions related to policies and developments in the fields of migration, gender equality including gender-based violence, protection of national minorities including real representation within the Parliament of Hungary, academic freedoms, and the situation of LGBTIQ people.
It welcomes the revocation of the disputed Act on transparency of organisations receiving support from abroad (Lex NGO) in April 2021, but the recent fines imposed on non- governmental organisations for their actions against the Child protection referendum could have a chilling effect on civil society organisations.
Recalling its Resolution 2203 (2018), and Resolution 2417 (2022), the Assembly strongly encourages the Hungarian authorities to improve the standards in all these fields in light of the opinions of the Venice Commission, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the recommendations of the Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No.
210, “Istanbul Convention”), which Hungary signed in 2014.

The Assembly will continue to follow these issues closely.

11.

In the field of elections: 11.1.
With respect to the April 2022 parliamentary elections, the Assembly notes that, according to the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), “the electoral legal framework provides an adequate basis for the conduct of democratic elections but contains a number of omissions and key provisions that fall short of international standards and obligations, undermining its effectiveness and at times leading to legal uncertainty, mostly related to campaign rules and provisions for a level playing field”.
ODIHR also notes that these elections were efficiently and professionally organised and the campaign was competitive.
However, it highlighted a lack of transparency and insufficient oversight of campaign finances, as well as a lack of balance in monitored news coverage significantly limiting voters’ opportunity to make an informed choice, a highly negative campaign in tone characterised by a pervasive overlap between the ruling coalition and the government, and insufficient effective legal remedies for election disputes.
ODIHR also noted that extensive and unregulated spending by entities other than the election contestants, including through advertisements on social media, largely favoured the ruling party.

This echoes issues of concern previously identified by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns.

2 Resolution 2460 (2022) 11.2.


The Assembly notes that electoral amendments were adopted hastily in December 2020, by means of a cardinal law, under a state of emergency, without meaningful consultation – which is not in line with Venice Commission guidelines – and without reaching a broad political consensus.

11.3.

While these amendments include some technical improvements, the Venice Commission assessed that their main effect would be “to favour the incumbents”.
In particular, the obligation for political parties to appoint candidates in 71 (instead of 27, as was previously the case) out of 106 constituencies, raises questions.

One impact of this is that it makes it more difficult for opposition and smaller parties to obtain a foothold and forces them to unite in heterogeneous coalitions.
As regards the drawing up of the electoral map, the Assembly notes that constituency boundaries continue to be drawn by parliament and not by an independent and impartial commission, as recommended by the Venice Commission.

To prevent gerrymandering, the process should be transparent, include all parties within the Parliament and be based on clear and widely accepted criteria.

11.4.
11.4.

As a result of the recent legal changes and the unaddressed deficiencies of the electoral legislation identified by the Venice Commission, ODIHR and GRECO in the past, the Assembly concludes that the current electoral framework does not ensure a level playing field conducive to fair elections.

It also concludes, in light of ODIHR findings, that the legal framework to conduct referendum campaigns is inadequate and challenges voters’ ability to make informed choices.

11.5.
11.5.

The Assembly therefore urges the Hungarian authorities to address without further delay the issues identified by ODIHR and the Venice Commission, and in particular to significantly reduce the number of single-member constituencies and counties in which each party needs to nominate candidates, and to enhance the transparency of the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns, including on social media.

12.

In the field of the judiciary and the rule of law: 12.1.
As regards the judiciary, Hungary has an efficient and well-functioning judicial system, as noted by the Council of Europe European Commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ).
Nevertheless, while acknowledging that the Venice Commission stated that a number of powers of the President of the National Office of the Judiciary (NOJ) had been transferred to the National Judicial Council (NJC), which resulted in the improved accountability of the President of the NOJ, it also stated that the powers of the NOJ President were still extensive and concentrated in the hands of just one person.
The Assembly therefore remains concerned about long-standing issues related to the independence of the judicial system, including the imbalance of powers between the NOJ and the NJC and the concentration of powers in the hands of the President of the Supreme Court (Curia).

12.2.
12.2.

The Assembly regrets that the December 2020 amendments pertaining to the judiciary were adopted without public consultation and during a state of emergency, severely restricting the fundamental rights to gather, discuss, protest, and demonstrate, as pointed out by the Venice Commission.

12.3.
12.3.

While the judicial reforms introduced in 2019 and 2020 failed to address previously identified structural problems concerning the Assembly reiterates previous imbalance of powers, recommendations made in 2012 by the Venice Commission.

the 12.4.
The Assembly in particular takes note of the latest opinions of the Venice Commission highlighting that: 12.4.1. the 2019 reform, allowing members of the Constitutional Court to become members of the Curia without the involvement of the NJC, could open the door to a politicisation of the Supreme Court; 12.4.2. the procedure for the appointment of the President of the Curia could pose “serious risks of politicisation and important consequences for the independence of the judiciary, or the perception thereof by the public, considering the crucial role of his/her position in the judicial system”, in light of the limited guarantees of independence applying after his/her appointment; 12.4.3. the power of the NOJ President to decide on the temporary transfer of any judge to State institutions and their reintegration in the judiciary could lead to judges being ‘promoted’ to higher judicial functions by a decision of the NOJ President, thus circumventing the procedural guarantees of regular application procedures; 12.4.4. despite detailed rules, the lack of transparency concerning the discretionary powers of the NOJ President and court presidents to allow bonuses to judges could lead to arbitrary decisions or self-censorship by judges.
3 Resolution 2460 (2022) In line with the recommendations issued by the Venice Commission, the Assembly therefore 12.5. asks the Hungarian authorities to: 12.5.1. set up clear, transparent and foreseeable conditions for the seconded judges to be assigned to a higher position after the period of secondment; 12.5.2. judges, or at least to eliminate any margin of discretion in their selection; remove the prerogative of the President of the Curia to mandate temporary presiding 12.5.3. abolish the possibility to adopt the authoritative type of uniformity decisions, while recalling that any unification competence of the Curia must comply with fundamental principles of the separation of powers; 12.5.4. with respect to the changes brought to the complex case allocation system in 2020, clarify the criteria for the President of the Curia to increase the members (from three to five) of adjudicating panels for certain types of cases and to make the opinion of the relevant college and the Judicial Council public and binding in order to ensure the transparency of the process and increase the trust of citizens in the good and impartial functioning of the judiciary; 12.5.5. repeal the amendments to Law LXXIX relating to child protection adopted on 23 June 2021 that prohibit any depiction or discussion of diverse gender identities and sexual orientations in the public sphere, including schools and the media.
12.6.

The Assembly also recalls the interim resolution of the Committee of Ministers of 9 March 2022 on the implementation of the Baka v. Hungary ruling.

The Assembly takes note of the declaration made by the Minister of Justice of Hungary that this case resulted from a one-time constitutional reform which was a unique event in the constitutional development of Hungary that is completed.
However, it recalls that the Committee of Ministers strongly urged the authorities to “introduce the required measures to ensure that a decision by Parliament to impeach the President of the Curia will be subject to effective oversight by an independent judicial body in line with the European Court’s case law, as well as to evaluate the domestic legislation on the status of judges and the administration of courts”, including the evaluation of the guarantees and safeguards protecting judges from undue interference.
12.7.

The Assembly therefore urges the Hungarian authorities to strengthen the self-governance of the judicial system and guarantee its independence more effectively.

It calls for the strengthening of the role and independence of the National Judicial Council and the extension of its powers to ensure effective oversight of the NOJ President, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.

12.8.
12.8.

The Assembly welcomes the progress achieved in fighting money laundering and financing of terrorism, in compliance with the recommendations made by MONEYVAL, which has upgraded Hungary’s rating from “partially compliant” to “largely compliant” in several areas.

This should inspire the authorities to address other deficiencies and establish legal frameworks that ensure transparency and accountability, in particular when fighting corruption, in line with GRECO’s recommendations.
This notably requires improving the level of transparency and consultation in the legislative process, adopting codes of conduct or ethics for members of parliament and government, reviewing the format of asset declarations and the broad immunity enjoyed by MPs and strengthening rules governing conflicts of interest and whistle-blowers’ protection.

12.9.

The recent creation of “public-interest trusts”, is very worrying.
These trusts will manage a large amount of public and private funds without supervision by the State audit.

Also of concern is the absence of legal provisions governing the prevention of conflict of interests of board members (appointed for life by the government).

These problems should be addressed by the authorities, in line with the Venice Commission’s recommendations.

12.10.
12.10.

The Assembly is also concerned by the use of the Pegasus spyware, whereby several hundred individuals, including journalists, lawyers and politicians, were subject to secret surveillance.
It calls on the Hungarian authorities to urgently revise the National Security Services Act governing secret surveillance, urging them to ensure that it provides for an independent external oversight and sufficient safeguards against abuses and possible violations of the right to privacy and family life, and calls for the implementation of the Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary judgment of 2016.

13.

In the field of media: 13.1.

The Assembly reiterates its concerns about the media.
The establishment, in 2018, of a conglomerate of over 470 media outlets – the Central European Press and Media Foundation (“KESMA”) – has led to greater media market concentration.

The overwhelming distribution of advertising by the State or State-owned companies to pro-governmental medias has resulted in 4 Resolution 2460 (2022) distorted media pluralism and state capture of media.
The Assembly asks the authorities to ensure fair and transparent distribution of such advertising expenditure, including on social media.

In addition, the Assembly is highly concerned by the decision taken by the Media Council not to renew the licence of the independent radio station Klubrádió in 2020 due to failings, which has resulted in discriminatory measures and a shrinking space for alternative media.

13.2.
13.2.

Recent legislation about the “dissemination of false information” relating to the Covid-19 pandemic has placed additional pressure on journalists, who could face a three-year prison sentence.

The Assembly calls on the Hungarian authorities to repeal this law and to fully and effectively guarantee access to public information and to suppress statutory provisions that have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, including by decriminalising defamation.

13.3.
13.3.

In addition, the Assembly encourages the Hungarian authorities, in line with Venice Commission recommendations, to improve the media environment by strengthening the functional independence of the Media Council, reducing the term of office of the Media Authority’s president, and withdrawing some of his/her powers of appointment.
The Assembly also invites the Hungarian authorities to consider implementing a more open and pluralistic appointment procedure for Media Council members, including by allowing civil society groups to participate in the nomination process.

14.
14.

The undisputed exercise of power by the same coalition, which since 2010 has enjoyed almost continuously a two-thirds majority, has, over time, in the current constitutional framework, significantly reduced the efficiency of the system of checks and balances and strengthened the ruling coalition’s influence on State bodies and key independent institutions.
The recent changes in the electoral law have further reduced the fairness of the electoral process, and thus weakened the ability of the system to safeguard political pluralism and foster political alternatives.

The Assembly concludes that the cumulative effects of the measures that negatively impact the independence of the judiciary, the situation of media, transparency and accountability of State institutions, overall undermine the functioning of democratic institutions.
It acknowledges, however, that despite this restrictive environment, there is an effective parliamentary opposition as well as a vibrant civil society.

The Assembly remains therefore confident that the authorities can restore the necessary conditions for a fully pluralistic, democratic society with full respect of the rule of law, in co-operation with the Council of Europe monitoring and expert bodies, and the Venice Commission.
It takes note, in this respect, of the authorities’ declared commitment to democratic values.

15.

The Assembly notes that the Hungarian Parliament adopted 17 legislative modifications in September 2022.

These laws aim at improving the functioning of democratic institutions by strengthening the transparency of the legislative process by demanding public dialogue and consultation, tightening the rules of conflict of interests in public trust funds and setting up an independent anti-corruption authority.
The Assembly invites the Hungarian authorities to request the expertise of the Council of Europe relevant bodies and take into account their recommendations so as to ensure the compliance of the adopted measures with Council of Europe standards.
In the light of the long-standing issues pertaining to the rule of law and democracy that remain largely 16. unaddressed by the authorities, the Assembly resolves to continue to closely follow the developments with regard to the functioning of democratic institutions and the rule of law in Hungary and decides to open a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary until the above-mentioned concerns are addressed in a satisfactory manner.
5 Resolution 2461 (2022)1 Provisional version Safe third countries for asylum seekers Parliamentary Assembly 1.
Recalling the right to apply for and seek asylum under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 Refugee Convention) and, for member States of the European Union, under Article 18 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly notes with concern a tendency of returning or transferring asylum seekers to third countries without clarity on the safety of the respective third country, the legality of the return, and the existence and availability of certain objective protection standards.
2.

The Assembly emphasises that Article 31, paragraph 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, stipulates only that penalties shall not be imposed on account of an illegal entry or presence of refugees or asylum seekers who came directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened.
Effectively depriving asylum seekers of access to fair and efficient asylum determination and treatment in line with international standards is not permissible as it may expose them to risk of refoulement and other rights violations.

Hence, asylum seekers are not required to apply for protection in the first safe country of arrival and cannot be penalised for not doing so.

Referring to Conclusion No.

58 (XL) of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High 3.
Commissioner’s Programme, the Assembly recognises the importance of clarifying the legal situation and protection of refugees and asylum seekers, who move in an irregular manner from countries in which they have already found protection, in order to seek asylum or permanent resettlement elsewhere.

Whereas it is important for asylum seekers and member States alike to clarify in a timely manner which 4.
State is responsible for processing an asylum application, the Assembly is aware that the safe third country principle under Article 33 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive of the European Union, according to which a EU member State can declare inadmissible an application for international protection ifa country which is not a member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, does not apply among non-member States.
This situation may cause legal uncertainty to the detriment of asylum seekers.

5.

The Assembly recalls Recommendation No.
R(97)22 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member States which contains Guidelines on the Application of the Safe Third Country Concept and enumerates criteria to assess whether a country can be considered as safe, among others “observance by the third country of international human rights standards relevant to asylum as established in universal and regional instruments” and “the third country will provide effective protection against refoulement and the possibility to seek and enjoy asylum”.
Since adoption of the Recommendation, there have been many legal developments.

6.

Welcoming the relevant jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (No.

C-564/18, Nos.

C-924/19 and C-925/19), the Assembly reaffirms that the return of an asylum seeker to a safe third country requires a connection to that country beyond the mere transit by the person concerned.

Assembly debate on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting) (see Doc.
15592, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees 1. and Displaced Persons, rapporteur: Ms Stephanie Krisper).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting).

See also Recommendation 2238 (2022).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2461 (2022) 7.

Welcoming the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.

47287/15), M.K.

and Others v. Poland (Nos.

40503/17, 42902/17 and 43643/17) and M.S.S.


v. Belgium and Greece (No.


30696/09), the Assembly emphasises that competent authorities in member States must analyse, before returning or expelling an asylum seeker to a third country, whether this person would have proper access to an effective asylum procedure in the country concerned without being exposed to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment or torture in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS N° 5) or of being subjected to chain-refoulement.

8.
8.

Welcoming the work of the European Union Agency for Asylum towards a co-ordinated approach within the European Union to evaluate the safety of third countries, the Assembly believes that co-ordinated efforts should also be taken at the level of the Council of Europe.
Therefore, building on this work and taking into consideration the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly encourages the development of new and up-to-date criteria at the Council of Europe level to assess the safety of third countries.

The Assembly also emphasises that no absolute presumption of safety can be made, as the situation in 9. a safe country can deteriorate to a standard that renders the country in question unsafe.
In this respect, the European Court of Human Rights clarified in M.S.S.

v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], No.

30696/09) that applicants must be able to challenge the presumption that a country is safe in his or her particular circumstances without bearing the entire burden of proof.

In the Chamber judgement Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary (No.

47287/15), the Court stated that the burden of proof must not, in light of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, be reversed to the applicants’ detriment.
Therefore, referring to considerations of the European Court of Human Rights, the Assembly encourages the development of procedural requirements at the Council of Europe level for the asylum seeker to have a fair possibility to rebut the presumption of safety.

10.

The Assembly recognises that the monitoring of safe third country decisions is essential to improve member States’ practice and to strengthen the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.
Therefore, the Assembly encourages member States to establish objective and independent monitoring mechanisms to monitor national law and practice in this regard.

11.
11.

Recalling Resolution 2409 (2021) “Voluntary relocation of migrants in need of humanitarian protection and voluntary resettlement of refugees”, the Assembly welcomes the current discussion on relocation and resettlement of asylum seekers between European Union member States and beyond, while encouraging member States to undertake further efforts in this regard.

Such engagement would prioritise solidarity over the recourse to the safe third country concept.
The Assembly invites the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe for 12.

Migration and Refugees to support greater co-ordination and co-operation among member States in applying the safe third country concept in the context of asylum.

2 Resolution 2462 (2022)1 Provisional version Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Parliamentary Assembly 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its Resolution 2299 (2019) and its Recommendation 2161 (2019) “Pushback policies and practice in Council of Europe member States” and the subsequent reply by the Committee of Ministers (Doc.

15088), in which it welcomed the Assembly’s continued attention to migrants and asylum seekers.
The term “pushbacks” is “in line with the violent and physical nature of the practices involved”, and it “may be applied broadly to cases of non-respect of human rights obligations related to refusal of entry into a country of persons seeking protection, the refoulement of those already within a territory, collective expulsion, obligations to carry out screenings, and other hostile action aimed to deny entry into European countries at land and sea borders”.
Pushback practices are also linked to “pullbacks”, which consist in agreements between States aiming to retain migrants on one side in exchange for financial or economic advantage.

2.

The Assembly notes that the Committee of Ministers stressed in its reply that the right to seek asylum must be respected, underscoring that asylum seekers have the right to an individual and fair examination of their applications by the competent authorities”.
The Committee of Ministers reiterated the obligation of the State receiving the asylum application to “ensure that return of the asylum seeker to his/her country of origin or any other country will not expose him/her to a real risk of the death penalty, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, persecution, or serious violation of other fundamental rights which would, under international or national law, justify granting protection”.
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5) and Article 4 of its Protocol No.

4 (ETS No.

46) prohibit member States of the Council of Europe returning migrants and asylum seekers to another country without an individual assessment as to whether this is safe.

3.
The Assembly recalls its Resolution 2379 (2021) “Role of parliaments in implementing the United Nations global compacts for migrants and refugees” and Resolution 2408 (2021) “70th anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention: the Council of Europe and the international protection of refugees”, where it agreed to support world efforts in protecting the right to asylum enshrined in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention”) and other relevant international instruments.
4.

The Assembly deplores the profound disregard of international standards on the matter in some countries, combined with the instrumentalisation of migration flow for political purposes in others, and concludes that the right to asylum continues to be breached.

Border pushbacks have now taken on worrying proportions, taking place routinely on land and in the more deadly environment of the sea, becoming a pan- European problem which pertains to at least half of the member States.
Allegations are no longer limited to just one or two countries, or one or two incidents, but have become widespread and, most worryingly, part of tolerated policy.

Pushbacks from Croatia to Bosnia and Herzegovina, from Greece to Türkiye, from Malta and Italy to Libya, from Hungary to Serbia, and from Poland to Belarus render the plight of migrants and refugees even harsher, heightening the risk to lose one’s life in an extremely perilous journey.

Assembly debate on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting) (see Doc.
15604, report of the Committee on Migration, Refugees 1. and Displaced Persons, rapporteur: Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 12 October 2022 (31st sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2462 (2022) 5.
Furthermore, the Assembly calls upon the Council of Europe observer and member States, as well as States whose parliament enjoys the observer or partner for democracy status to the Assembly, to respect international obligations and to enhance interstate solidarity.

They should work together to guarantee the right to asylum, including member States from Central and Northern Europe.

Interstate solidarity is key for a stronger Europe from political, economic, social, and cultural perspective.
Migration is a natural societal phenomenon and should be addressed collectively as a continent, in order to manage migration flows in an orderly way that helps to promote the social and occupational inclusion of migrants, while benefiting fully from its positive consequences.

6.

The Assembly welcomes the Recommendation of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Dunja Mijatović, “Pushed beyond the limits.
Urgent action needed to stop pushbacks at Europe’s borders”, where she addressed the role of members of parliament in preventing human rights violations at the borders, noting that parliamentarians can play an important role in preventing pushbacks, in line with their wider role as guarantors of human rights, both as legislators and as those responsible for carrying out democratic oversight of government action.

7.
7.

The Assembly underscores the importance of well-functioning independent border monitoring mechanisms at national and European levels.
It forewarns, however, against the risk of paying lip service to the principle of independence by those national authorities that try to undermine the independence of such bodies by making them either dependent on the government for funding, by imposing membership in oversight committees for government-friendly entities, by restricting their access to the border or migrant retention facilities, or by limiting their actions through other means.
It recalls the importance of democratic checks and balances and of independent monitoring in its fullest form.

8.

The Assembly notes that the European Union is often the main destination of migrants arriving to Europe.

The European Union institutions should, therefore, serve as guarantors of international human rights protection regarding the right to asylum and the prohibition of refoulement.
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) should be called upon to enhance its capacity to deal with allegations of pushbacks and allow for thorough investigation to bring those responsible for pushbacks to justice.

The Assembly underscores that effective border control and the protection of fundamental rights are fully compatible.

The work of the Fundamental Rights Officer of Frontex should be, therefore, supported and its monitoring capacity enhanced.

9.
9.

The Assembly deplores the use of anti-smuggling legislation against human rights defenders and people engaged in search and rescue operations on land and at sea, making access to asylum for people on the move harder to reach.

Right to asylum includes the right to be informed about asylum procedures, including by civil society organisations, advocacy groups, human rights defenders and specialised legal aid institutions.
States must ensure that the functioning of such bodies is not de facto prohibited by criminalising their actions.

10.

The Assembly calls on member States to encourage changes at European level to achieve a sustainable reception process shared with other member States, in accordance with the principle of solidarity referred to in Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, based on shared responsibility.
The Assembly therefore calls upon the Council of Europe member States to change their legislation and practice in order to promote a multilateral policy of putting in place legal pathways to all European countries on the basis of shared responsibility, to promote solidarity with the countries most affected by the influx of migrants by sea and by land, and thereby contribute to putting an end to pushbacks.

11.
11.

The Assembly welcomes the decisions taken by regional courts in some countries, ruling in favour of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers who had been pushed back outside the European Union’s external borders, underscoring that the practice of pushing back asylum seekers gave rise to a violation of the principle of human dignity.

12.
12.

The Assembly calls for changes to the law and practice in the Council of Europe member States to stop pushbacks at land and sea and to codify the principle of non-refoulement in national legislation.
In specific terms, it asks member States to take measures to prevent pushbacks, to protect the victims of pushbacks, to prosecute those responsible for pushbacks and to improve international co-operation and co-ordination between border authorities, police, and other bodies in charge of border protection, as follows: 12.1. as regards prevention: 12.1.1. to prevent all forms of “pushback” and “pullback” actions regarding migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
Priority should be given to ensuring that border management is aligned with international law and human rights obligations.

The Assembly underscores the need to 2 Resolution 2462 (2022) ensure the individual assessment of protection needs and of the safety of a return in order to prevent violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the prohibition of collective expulsions, as enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol No.
4 to the Convention; 12.1.2. to establish secured access to border checkpoints, notably representatives of national prevention mechanisms should have full access to the checkpoints and retention facilities, where such exist, to ensure full respect of international asylum norms; 12.1.3. to make the national legislation and policies human rights-compliant and to amend migration legislation with a view to prevent and prohibit pushbacks and the denial of right to asylum; 12.1.4. to make the relevant legal framework accessible, precise and clear to all migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, available, as much as possible, in languages for them to understand the procedure.
Relevant and effective means of redress should be in place in cases of denial of asylum in first instance; 12.1.5. considering that the civil society’s role in upholding and advancing democratic values and fundamental rights, including the right to asylum, is crucial, especially as they play an important role in documenting cases of pushbacks, to encourage and support their participation in the independent monitoring mechanisms at national and European levels.
Independent border monitoring mechanisms should be able to verify misconduct by State border police and report on it to the competent judicial authorities.
Council of Europe member States must respect the role of non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders in conformity with their commitments, as set out in Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe; 12.2. as regards protection: 12.2.1. to develop specific programmes to protect the victims of pushbacks, possibly in the framework of the Council of Europe Action Plan on Protecting Vulnerable Persons in the Context of Migration and Asylum in Europe (2021-2025) and to ensure that effective complaints mechanisms for the victims are in place.
Urgent measures must be taken to ensure the protection of most vulnerable migrants and refugees: children, women, people with disabilities, and elderly people.

An absolute prohibition of pushbacks of migrant children should be in place in all Council of Europe member States; 12.2.2.
States members of the European Union should take measures to bring the European Union law and practice in compliance with human rights standards, as mentioned in the Assembly Resolution 2416 (2022) “European Union Pact on Migration and Asylum: a human rights perspective”.

This should include legal guarantees clearly established in the 1951 Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Practices violating the right to apply for asylum should stop; 12.3. as regards prosecution: 12.3.1. to ensure that allegations of pushbacks are fully investigated and those responsible are held to account to dissuade the continuation of such practices.
The Assembly reiterates, therefore, the importance of the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment and the prohibition of collective expulsions, which apply also during emergency situations; 12.3.2. to comply with judgments of national courts and of the European Court of Human Rights, including their interim measures, in relation to pushbacks and refusing access to asylum and even to an asylum procedure, and to follow up recommendations of national independent bodies such as ombudspersons, as stated in Resolution 2299 (2019), keeping in mind that codifying the principle of non-refoulement in national legislation is key; 12.4. as regards international co-operation and co-ordination: 12.4.1. to strengthen international co-operation and co-ordination in the fields of border protection, on the one hand, and migration management, on the other.
This is of great relevance as regards search and rescue operations at sea which should be effective, saving lives being the primary objective.
International co-operation and co-ordination at sea should, therefore, be further enhanced to prevent human tragedy at Europe’s maritime borders; 3 Resolution 2462 (2022) 12.4.2. co-operation between border police authorities should include specialised training on the application of international standards in access to an asylum procedure, to ensure that relevant measures are in place for any individual indicating their need to seek international protection.
New technological means can be used to improve access to relevant procedures and provide relevant information to asylum seekers in various languages; to enhance international co-operation at regional and world levels to take stock of the 12.4.3. real progress on the right to asylum.
The work of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees follow-up actions to ensure full compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the actions of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and of the Special Representative of the Council of Europe Secretary General on Migration and Refugees must guide public policies, in addition to the relevant treaty bodies; 12.4.4. to further develop international co-operation between EU and non-EU countries’ border police structures, with the participation of Frontex, with the aim of upgrading the competences of border police in the Council of Europe member States as regards the right to asylum, in full compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant treaties.
Redress measures for failure to respect the law should be clearly stated and applied.

13.

The Assembly welcomes the new initiatives aimed at ensuring protection of Europe’s borders in full respect of fundamental rights and dignity of those who attempt to cross the borders.
It calls for an open and constructive discussion based on the findings of the feasibility study that was launched for setting up a robust and independent human rights monitoring mechanism at the external borders of the European Union on 4 May 2022.

14.

Finally, the Assembly calls for stronger commitment to upholding human rights standards at Europe’s borders.
Time has come for parliamentarians to stand up against pushbacks, to call for the sharing of responsibility in the management of migration between the different member States and to follow the developments closely both at the national and European levels.

4 Resolution 2463 (2022)1 Provisional version Further escalation in the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine Parliamentary Assembly 1.

Eight months have elapsed since the Russian Federation launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine.
This brutal and inhumane aggression is provoking immense suffering, destruction and displacement, to a level unseen in Europe since the Second World War.

This aggression must be unequivocally condemned as a crime in itself, as a violation of international law and as a major threat to international peace and security.

2.

In the past few weeks, the Russian Federation has taken political, military and rhetorical steps which indicate a further escalation of the aggression.
Marred by blatant intimidation of voters and held on the front lines of an ongoing armed conflict, the so-called referendums held in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia between 23 and 27 September 2022, illegally supported and voted for by the Russian Duma, are a travesty, in contravention of international law and contrary to any substantive and procedural standards for holding referendums.

They must be considered null and void and with no legal or political effects.
Similarly, the attempted annexation of these regions by the Russian Federation is an affront to 3. international law.

The Parliamentary Assembly strongly condemns this blatant attempt to incorporate territory belonging to another sovereign State through force and coercion and reiterates its firm support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.
The Assembly recalls that the Russian Duma had voted in favour of the invasion and annexation of Crimea, and notes with great concern that it also validated these more recent illegal attempted annexations.
This is further attestation that the Russian Duma cannot be treated like an equal partner among free and fairly elected parliaments of democratic countries and that the Russian political parties that have previously voted for illegal decisions encroaching on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and other countries shall be treated and recognised as groups and entities that support external aggression and therefore share all responsibilities of the consequences of that aggression.
While continuing its illegal occupation and militarisation of the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, the 4. leadership of the Russian Federation has increased threats of nuclear warfare.

In addition to being abhorrent and reckless, such threats are in breach of international law and incompatible with the responsibilities of a nuclear power holding a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council.
In this regard, the Assembly should look into the issue of the seat of the Russian Federation in the United Nations Security Council.

5.

The humanitarian situation in Ukraine remains dire.

Almost 5 800 civilians are estimated to have died and one third of Ukrainians have been forced from their homes since 24 February 2022.
Prisoners of war held by the Russian Federation’s armed forces or by affiliated armed groups face torture and ill-treatment, and in some cases are being tried and sentenced to death, in clear contravention of international humanitarian law.
The Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to allow humanitarian missions of the United Nations, International Committee of the Red Cross, Council of Europe or any other international organisation or member State to facilitate the exchange of prisoners of war and the release of political prisoners.

The Assembly debate on 13 October 2022 (32nd sitting) (see Doc.

15631), report of the Committee on Political Affairs 1. and Democracy, rapporteur: Mr Emanuelis Zingeris).
Text adopted by the Assembly on 13 October 2022 (32nd sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2463 (2022) Assembly is outraged by the discovery of mass graves in cities and towns liberated by the Ukrainian forces, and firmly condemns all war crimes.

The Assembly welcomes the exchange of prisoners in Istanbul at the initiative of Türkiye.

6.
6.

The continued use of long-range artillery by the Russian military to hit towns and cities across Ukraine has caused massive destruction and death.

On 10 October 2022, a barbaric set of missile attacks targeted several Ukrainian cities, hitting public squares, playgrounds and residential buildings.

With these indiscriminate attacks, Russia aims to advance its terrorist policy to suppress the will of Ukrainians to resist and defend their country and provoke maximum harm to civilians.
The role of the illegitimate Lukashenko regime in helping the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine must not be forgotten.

The recent announcement that Belarusian troops would deploy alongside Russian ones is deeply concerning and must be widely condemned.

7.

Meanwhile, the climate in the Russian Federation is one of increasing repression.
The authorities have implemented a far-reaching crackdown on civil liberties based on intimidation and open persecution, with the goal to provoke a state of terror in the general public for political purposes.

Democratic figures are being repressed or killed, the system of opposition parties has been destroyed, the judiciary is not independent and many media and civil society organisations, such as Memorial International, have been closed down.
Despite the many draconian measures passed in recent years, anti-war demonstrations and protests have been breaking out across the country.

Amongst the most prominent public figures being persecuted for voicing criticism against the war is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who has been detained since April 2022.

On 10 October 2022, the Assembly was honoured to award Mr Kara-Murza with the 2022 Václav Havel Prize, affirming support for his courage and determination to create a peaceful, democratic Russia.
The Assembly calls on the Russian authorities for the immediate release of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

The Assembly also calls for a review of cases of other political prisoners opposed to President Putin, in the Russian Federation and in other countries, and for their release (including Mikheil Saakashvili, Ukrainian citizen and former President of Georgia).

8.
8.

President Putin’s announcement of a partial mobilisation on 21 September 2022 is yet another sign of escalation, which has created tensions in the country.

Protests at draft centres have at times turned violent, and hundreds of thousands of Russian men have attempted to flee the country to avoid a potential callup.
The apparent deliberate attempt by the Russian authorities to disproportionately focus their mobilisation campaign on ethnic minority groups, including the population of Dagestan and Crimean Tatars who are mobilised in the Ukrainian territories temporarily occupied by Russia, is of great concern to the Assembly.

It is also unacceptable that detainees across Russia are being sent to fight in Ukraine.

9.
9.

The unleashing of a war of aggression by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council poses a challenge to global governance.

The Assembly deeply regrets that on 30 September 2022 the United Nations Security Council was not able to adopt a resolution condemning the recent referendums due to the Russian Federation’s veto, notwithstanding no other negative votes.
In this context, the Assembly notes the increasing support for a reform of the United Nations Security Council and welcomes a greater role for the United Nations General Assembly including in issues relating to maintaining international peace and security.

10.
In this respect, the Assembly wholeheartedly welcomes the passage on 12 October 2022 by the United Nations General Assembly, by a three-fourths majority, of the resolution entitled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”, which recalls the obligation of States under Article 2 of the United Nations Charter to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State, condemns the organisation by the Russian Federation of illegal so-called referendums, and declares that subsequent attempted illegal annexation of these regions have no validity under international law.
11.

The Assembly reiterates its full support for Ukraine and emphasises the importance for the international community to work together for the country’s recovery and long-term peaceful and prosperous future.

At the same time, the Assembly calls for a comprehensive system to hold the Russian Federation and its leadership accountable for this aggression and the violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law committed in this context.

12.
12.

The Black Sea blockade was over after the Black Sea Grain Initiative brokered by Türkiye and the United Nations.

This deal has been a contribution to the solution of the global grain and food crisis and its continuation is important for the sustainability of global food security.

The Assembly, therefore, invites member States to continue providing political support for the efficient implementation and prolongation of this process.

2 13.
In the light of the above considerations, while reiterating its relevant resolutions and recommendations adopted since the beginning of the large-scale aggression, the Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States to: Resolution 2463 (2022) 13.1. reiterate their unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its internationally recognised borders and that any peace talks can only take place on the conditions set by Ukraine; 13.2. unequivocally condemn the so-called referendums held in the Ukrainian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson between 23 and 27 September 2022, and to refrain from recognising any effects of them; 13.3. condemn the Russian Federation’s attempted annexation of the regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as a violation of international law and a major threat to international peace and security, and to avoid recognising any effects of it; 13.4. be firm and united in exerting a policy of maximum pressure on the Russian Federation to immediately cease its aggression; 13.5. support financially the reconstruction of Ukraine and provide necessary air defense systems; 13.6. ensure a comprehensive system of accountability for serious violations of international law arising from the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine actively co-operating with the Ukrainian authorities on this issue, and, in this context: 13.6.1. speed up the establishment of a Special (ad hoc) International Tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression against Ukraine; 13.6.2. establish a system to examine the measures to ensure and secure accountability for Russia's violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law; including an 13.6.3. set up a comprehensive international register of damage and actively co-operate with the Ukrainian authorities on this issue; international compensation mechanism, 13.6.4. recognise Russian political parties that have previously voted for illegal decisions encroaching on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and other countries, as groups and entities that support external aggression and therefore share all responsibilities of the consequences of the aggression; 13.7. declare the current Russian regime as a terrorist one.
14.
Given the unprecedented gravity of the Russian Federation’s aggression as a threat to international peace and security, the rules-based international order, international law and the most basic values which are the foundation of the Council of Europe, the Assembly appeals to the Heads of State and Government of Council of Europe member States to gather in the fourth Summit in the history of the Organisation and put the issue of accountability of the Russian Federation, as well as support to Ukraine, high on the agenda of the Summit.
Furthermore, while reiterating its previous recommendations addressed to the Russian Federation 15. since the outbreak of its aggression against Ukraine, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to: 15.1. cease its aggression against Ukraine immediately and unconditionally; 15.2. completely and unconditionally withdraw its occupying forces, including its military and proxies, from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders; 15.3. withdraw its troops from the territory of Georgia and the Republic of Moldova; 15.4. comply strictly with its obligations under international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war; 15.5. immediately stop attacks against civilians, including indiscriminate attacks against populated areas, targeted killings and abductions, torture, rape and sexual violence, and investigate all allegations of such crimes; 15.6. fully withdraw from all Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, stop and refrain from making them the target of any military activity and co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure their safety and security; 15.7. stop threatening recourse to nuclear weapons and commit not to use them; 3 Resolution 2463 (2022) 15.8. stop using energy as a blackmail tool; 15.9. stop supporting hacking attacks on democratic countries and their institutions; 15.10. stop interfering with electoral processes and refrain from financing anti-European activities of extremist pro-Russian parties and movements in democratic countries; 15.11. co-operate with the investigations and proceedings that have been established by the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice and comply with their decisions; 15.12. co-operate with UN treaty bodies, submitting reports and information to them when required to do so, allowing country visits and complying with their recommendations; 15.13. co-operate with the Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine and the Special
 Rapporteur on human rights in Russia, which have been set up by the Human Rights Council, and comply with their recommendations; 15.14. comply with the recommendations set out by the Moscow Mechanism of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and laid down in the reports on Violations of International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Committed in Ukraine (1 April-25 June 2022) and on Russia’s Legal and Administrative Practice; 15.15. co-operate with proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, implement outstanding judgements and those which the Court will adopt for acts committed before 16 September 2022; 15.16. adopt without delay effective general measures to address the structural and systemic problems identified by the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers with regard to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to liberty in the Russian Federation, including by repealing or amending laws that have only exacerbated such problems, including the laws on “foreign agents”, “undesirable organisations”, “extremism” and “fake information on the Russian military”; 15.17. co-operate with the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), as long as the Russian Federation remains a Party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (ETS No.
126), and allow the monitoring of the reported political prisoners’ state of health and conditions of detention pending their release or re-examination of their cases.

16.
16.

The Assembly asks the OSCE to continue to evaluate, through the Moscow Mechanism or other appropriate tools, the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine; the human rights situation in the Russian Federation; and the Russian Federation's aggression against Georgia and the Republic of Moldova.
In the light of the gravity of the international situation, the Assembly calls on international organisations 17. to consider appropriate measures to avoid that the Russian regime uses staff of Russian nationality as a vehicle to support the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine, spread false information and Russian narratives about it and to influence these organisations' political decisions.

As regards its own work, the Assembly should continue to follow developments relating to the Russian 18.
Federation’s aggression against Ukraine.

4 Resolution 2464 (2022)1 Provisional version The impact of Brexit on human rights on the island of Ireland Parliamentary Assembly 1.

The Good Friday Agreement, which ended three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland, described the United Kingdom and Ireland as “partners in the European Union”.
The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union has shaken the delicate balance created by the peace process and threatened the common human rights space previously shared by all people on the island of Ireland.

Brexit has caused serious concerns regarding human rights protection in Northern Ireland and is 2. leading to a misalignment of rights north and south of the border.
It has cast a shadow over important provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, specifically related to birthright and just and equal treatment of both communities.

In parallel, the lack of progress in implementing some of the human rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement has compounded the problem: the establishment of a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights and the passage of a law to promote the Irish language remain unfulfilled promises.

3.
3.

The introduction by the UK Government on 22 June 2022 of a bill to overhaul the 1998 Human Rights Act has exacerbated the situation.

The proposal would add hurdles for those seeking redress in courts, privilege specific rights over others, and challenge the role of the European Court of Human Rights, raising an issue of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5), a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement.

4.
4.

Brexit has also reignited deep-seated tensions in Northern Irish society, furthering political division and contributing significantly to the paralysis of devolved institutions.

The Parliamentary Assembly notes that Brexit repercussions have been at the heart of the institutional impasse and the political crisis of 2022.
It regrets that some political parties, especially the Democratic Unionist Party, use these repercussions to further deny the people of Northern Ireland a functioning Executive and Assembly.

5.

While the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol (“Protocol”) was introduced to limit the consequences of Brexit and avoid a return to a hard border, and while it has had an overall positive economic effect on Northern Ireland, the related rhetoric has been divisive.
Polls repeatedly show that the Protocol is not a primary concern for the population, and yet the Protocol is used as a pretext to hold public institutions hostage.

6.

The Assembly notes with concern that, despite the European Union’s willingness to find joint solutions with the United Kingdom within the framework of the Protocol, and despite both sides stressing the importance of continued engagement, the UK Government introduced a bill on 13 June 2022 to unilaterally change core elements of the Protocol.
Described as a “clear breach of international law” by the European Commission, the move risks further destabilising the delicate post-Brexit situation on the island of Ireland.

Article 2 of the Protocol, which guarantees the non-diminution of rights as a result of Brexit, must be safeguarded.

7.

The fragility of Northern Ireland’s current institutional framework is abundantly clear.
While power- sharing arrangements emanating from the Good Friday Agreement guarantee inclusivity, the current structures entrench divisions along sectarian designations.

Continued implementation of the reforms set out in Assembly debate on 13 October 2022 (33rd sitting) (see Doc.

15615, report of the Committee on Political Affairs and 1.

Democracy, rapporteur: Mr George Katrougalos).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 13 October 2022 (33rd sitting).
https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2464 (2022) the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement will be important, and all parties should consider ways to transcend sectarian approaches to politics.

In this respect, the Assembly welcomes the UK Government’s recent steps to limit the instability of this system, including the passage of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022.

8.
8.

More than two decades after the Good Friday Agreement, the failure to properly and thoroughly address the legacy of the Troubles has had a direct impact on reconciliation and human rights on the island of Ireland, causing pain and frustration in society and sending discouraging signals regarding the pursuit of justice.
All parties concerned should honour their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and implement, in good faith and as soon as possible, a process consistent with the principles agreed to in the Stormont House Agreement.

9.

In this respect, there are serious concerns regarding the compatibility of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill introduced by the UK Government on 17 May 2022, with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Assembly welcomes the Committee of Ministers’ decision to ask additional information from the United Kingdom authorities on the compliance of the bill with the Convention.
The Assembly also expresses concern that neither the Government of Ireland nor the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission were consulted in the preparation of this Bill, despite the latter being the main body in charge of overseeing human rights in Northern Ireland under the Good Friday Agreement and part of the “dedicated mechanism” to oversee the UK Government’s commitment to protecting equality and human rights in a post-Brexit Northern Ireland.

10.
10.

The Assembly expresses regret over the fact that many people in Northern Ireland continue to experience residential and school segregation.

Without addressing such systemic divisions, the laudable work of civil society organisations working across community lines will be left treating the symptoms, and it will be hard to move past the sectarian divides that have marked previous generations.

11.
11.

While violence has greatly decreased in recent decades, the tensions deriving from Brexit may contribute to a re-emergence of paramilitarism.

In order to bring paramilitarism to an end, it is crucial that policing and justice measures are complemented by actions to tackle the systemic socio-economic issues facing Northern Ireland.

12.
In light of the above, the Assembly calls on the United Kingdom to: 12.1. ensure that the withdrawal from the European Union does not result in any diminution of rights for the people of Northern Ireland, in line with its international commitments, nor to a misalignment of rights between north and south on the island of Ireland; 12.2. make use of the “dedicated mechanism” established to ensure that Brexit does not result in any diminution of rights set out in the Good Friday Agreement, in particular by seeking and heeding the advice of the members of this mechanism, of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; 12.3. seek, in a constructive spirit, all practical solutions in order to ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the Protocol, and refrain from unilateral actions which undermine international law; reconsider its current proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act and reaffirm its commitment to 12.4. the European Convention on Human Rights; 12.5. propose a way forward to address the legacy of the Troubles that is in line with European Convention on Human Rights standards on effective investigations, with the Good Friday Agreement, and with the devolution of justice in Northern Ireland; to ensure this is the fruit of wide consultations with victims’ groups, political forces in Northern Ireland and in Ireland, and relevant human rights bodies; 12.6. implement the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ETS No.
148) regarding appropriate legislation to protect and promote the Irish language; 12.7. continue to support ways of making Northern Ireland institutions more stable and more resistant to political turbulence, in line with the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement, as well as less reliant on sectarian designations.

13.
13.

The Assembly calls on Ireland and the United Kingdom to continue to make the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement an utmost priority, and to work together in a co-operative, constructive and forward- looking spirit.

2 14.
The Assembly calls on the authorities and political forces in Northern Ireland to: Resolution 2464 (2022) 14.1. work together to ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the Protocol in Northern Ireland, which had largely supported remaining in the European Union, and contribute constructively to the Protocol negotiations; 14.2. refrain from using divisive and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the Protocol, and instead make full use of the significant advantages the Protocol has already provided, and can continue to provide, to the Northern Irish economy and to efforts to build a more prosperous future for all communities in Northern Ireland; return to power-sharing immediately, so as to enable proper governance in Northern Ireland, 14.3. and refrain from political acts which undermine the ability of Northern Ireland’s institutions to function; 14.4. work to address the systemic socio-economic issues facing Northern Ireland, not only to improve lives but also to create the necessary conditions for the demolition of peace walls and help put an end to paramilitarism; 14.5. promote policies that limit residential segregation and take all necessary steps to promote greater mixing in schools by finally taking decisive steps towards integrated education; 14.6. ensure that the teaching of history pursues the goals of peace and reconciliation, taking an approach based on multiple perspectives which respect the diversity of viewpoints and cultural differences, including by making use of Council of Europe expertise on the teaching of history; 14.7. co-operate constructively with the authorities in Ireland and in the United Kingdom on addressing the legacy of the Troubles and to further support efforts to shed light on the past, such as the work being carried out by the Police Ombudsman; 14.8. consult and make use of relevant Council of Europe bodies with expertise in minority language rights, and to apply, as appropriate, their recommendations in order to make use of European standards and best practices.
15.

The Assembly also calls on the European Union to continue to seek, in a constructive spirit, all practical solutions to minimise the adverse impacts of Brexit and ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the Protocol.

3 Resolution 2465 (2022)1 Provisional version The fight for a level playing field – ending discrimination against women in the world of sport Parliamentary Assembly 1.
Substantial progress has been made in the field of sport in recent years as regards gender equality and combating discrimination.

Female athletes are beginning to gain greater prominence in the media, some women's sports competitions have sparked worldwide interest and equality in sport is becoming a major topic.

The Parliamentary Assembly welcomes these developments and encourages further efforts in this direction.

2.
2.

The world of sport, however, is not yet free from violence, sexism and gender discrimination.

It continues to be dominated by men.

The #metoo movement, which has sent ripples through the sports world, has helped to bring human rights abuses of this kind to light.

Sports federations have been called upon to act and implement measures to prevent and detect violence and support survivors.
The Assembly reiterates its firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of gender-based violence and to promoting the ratification and implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No.

210, “Istanbul Convention”).


It supports “Start to talk”, the Council of Europe’s call for action to public authorities, the sports movement and other actors to take appropriate preventive and protective measures to put a stop to the abuse of and violence against children.
It also reiterates the support given by its Resolution 2420 (2022) to FIFA’s (International Federation of Association Football) plans to create an independent multi-sport centre or agency to promote safe sport, protect and support survivors, and tackle impunity.

3.

Inequalities in pay, treatment, access and status between women and men are still common in both professional and non-professional sport.

Women, in all their diversity, are poorly represented in decision- making bodies.
Women have less access to sport because of gender inequalities in relation to resources, time and lack of infrastructure.

Sexist comments and stereotyped images of female athletes, questioning their “femininity”, regularly appear in the media and on social networks.

The Assembly condemns the hate speech and sexism directed at female athletes, including LBTI athletes.
Female athletes must be recognised in all their diversity so that appropriate measures to prevent and 4. combat discrimination can be implemented.

Taking into account the intersectional dimension paves the way for a targeted response and proper policies.

The Assembly calls for efforts to promote access to sport for all women and notes that discrimination against LBTI women has a negative impact on women in general.

The Assembly condemns the use of sport as a means of controlling women's bodies.

5.
5.

Sport can be an important vehicle for changing attitudes and for fostering respect and diversity.

It can contribute to social cohesion through its universality and raise collective awareness of continuing gender inequalities in our societies.

It can also have benefits in terms of health and empowerment.

6.
6.

There is therefore a pressing need in the field of sport to prevent violence and discrimination, promote gender equality, invest in sport for all, encourage participation and put an end to the invisibility of women.

Men have an important role to play in preventing and combating discrimination against women, in all their diversity, in sport.

Assembly debate on 13 October 2022 (33rd sitting) (see Doc.

15611, report of the Committee on Equality and Non- 1.

Discrimination, rapporteur: Ms Edite Estrela).


Text adopted by the Assembly on 13 October 2022 (33rd sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2465 (2022) 7.
In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on Council of Europe member and observer States, as well as on all States whose parliaments enjoy observer or partner for democracy status to the Assembly, to: As regards combating violence against women and girls, in all their diversity, including in the 7.1. field of sport, 7.1.1. sport at all levels including in schools and sport organisations; take measures to prevent violence against women and girls, including LBTI women, in 7.1.2. provide support to survivors of violence, with an independent and specialised structure; 7.1.3. train sports personnel at all levels to prevent all forms of gender-based violence; 7.1.4. area; ensure that perpetrators of violence are prosecuted and put an end to impunity in this 7.1.5. violence, including at major sporting events; launch awareness-raising campaigns on preventing and combating gender-based 7.1.6. collect, analyse and publish data on violence against women and girls in sport; 7.1.7. ratify and implement the Istanbul Convention, if they have not yet done so; 7.1.8. ensure the safety of all at sporting events; implement the revised European Sports Charter of the Council of Europe, if they have not yet 7.2. done so; accede to the Council of Europe’s Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport, if they have not yet 7.3. done so; 7.4.
As regards combating gender-based discrimination and gender stereotypes: 7.4.1. and combating sexism; implement Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)1 on preventing 7.4.2. hate speech; implement Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)16 on combating 7.4.3. field of sport, and incorporate a gender perspective in sports education from an early age; invest in education on gender equality, train teachers in these issues, including in the prevent and combat sexism and gender stereotypes and all forms of gender-based 7.4.4. discrimination, in particular by adopting legislation, codes of conducts and by organising awareness-raising campaigns, including at major sporting events; 7.4.5. ensure the collection, analysis and publication of data on discrimination in sport at all levels, and contribute to international initiatives to collect and share data for the purposes of research, awareness raising and the development of public policies and sports practices; 7.4.6. recognise the fact that women from diverse backgrounds, LBTI women, women with disabilities, from a migration background or diverse religious affiliations are subjected to multiple discrimination; 7.4.7. female athletes in all their diversity; abolish discriminatory policies against LBTI athletes and respect the human rights of 7.4.8. ensure full and equal access to the practice of sport to all women, and to this end, allow transgender and intersex athletes to train and compete in sports competitions consistent with their gender identity; 7.4.9. biphobia, transphobia and interphobia in sport; prevent and combat harassment of LBTI athletes and prevent and combat lesbophobia, 7.4.10. combat the hypersexualisation of female athletes, including in the media; 7.4.11. promote inclusive and non-discriminatory media coverage of sporting events; 7.5.
As regards the development of sport for all women and girls: 7.5.1. mainstreaming in sport; implement Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)2 on gender 2 Resolution 2465 (2022) 7.5.2. invest in the development of sport for all, at local and national level, and consider it as a means of integration and emancipation, work to ensure equal opportunities for women and girls in all their diversity to participate in sports activities; 7.5.3. activities in the media and with young athletes; appoint ambassadors for gender equality in sport to carry out awareness-raising 7.5.4. ensure that sports facilities incorporate a gender dimension in their design; 7.5.5. support and encourage the broadcasting of women's sports competitions; 7.6. make the adoption and implementation of gender equality strategies, including a commitment to eliminating gender-based discrimination, violence and sexism and to ensuring equal pay, a condition for obtaining funding for federations and clubs; call on federations and clubs to prohibit gender-discriminatory practices, in particular as regards 7.7. dress codes, where they are not justified by the sport itself; promote women’s participation in programmes designed to train sports coaches and referees 7.8. and support women's access to these positions; adopt a gender-sensitive approach in the preparation of budgets to be allocated to sports 7.9. federations and structures.
8.
The Assembly calls on sports federations to: engage in the fight against gender-based violence and discrimination and take appropriate 8.1. action against perpetrators; support the practice of sport by women and girls in all their diversity and promote athletes’ work- 8.2. life balance; ensure full and equal access to the practice of sport to all women, and to this end, allow 8.3. transgender and intersex athletes to train and compete in sports competitions consistent with their gender identity; promote the participation of women, in all their diversity, in the governing bodies of sports 8.4. federations, notably through the adoption of quotas aimed at achieving 40% representation.
9.

The Assembly supports the continuation of the joint Council of Europe and European Union “All in: Towards gender balance in sport” project.

It calls for its funding to be reinforced and its tools and recommendations implemented.

The Assembly expresses its backing for civil society organisations combating gender-based 10. discrimination and violence against women in sport and calls for these organisations to be given support.
3 Resolution 2466 (2022)1 Provisional version The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by Romania Parliamentary Assembly 1.

Romania joined the Council of Europe in 1993.

Upon accession, it entered into a number of commitments which were subject to monitoring by the Parliamentary Assembly until 1997 and then to post- monitoring dialogue between 2000 and 2002.
Romania is a party to a number of core Council of Europe Conventions including the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.

5); the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ETS No.

157); the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment (ETS No.

126); the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS No.

173); the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on Financing of Terrorism (CETS No.
198), the European Social Charter (ETS No.

163) and it is subject to monitoring mechanisms attached to these legal instruments.

In 2019, Romania was selected by the Monitoring Committee for a periodic review report on its compliance with the obligations imposed on every Council of Europe member State in the field of democracy, rule of law and human rights.

Periodic monitoring reports are prepared, over time, on all member States which are not subject to specific monitoring procedures.

2.
2.

Since its accession to the Council of Europe, Romania has made important progress with regard to the functioning of democratic institutions and respect for human rights.

The irreversibility and sustainability of this progress was put into question by the developments of 2017-2019, particularly in the areas of the judiciary and the fight against corruption.

However, the Assembly notes with satisfaction that this reversal has been successfully overcome and Romania has returned to the path of reforms.
3.

The Assembly commends the Romanian authorities for demonstrating political will and commitment to fully respect their obligation to comply with democratic standards, as confirmed by their continued co- operation with Council of Europe monitoring mechanisms and the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee in the framework of the periodic monitoring review.

4.
4.

The Assembly appreciates the ongoing structural reforms of the Romanian judicial system aimed at addressing a number of concerns formulated, inter alia, by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).

The Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary for 2022-2025 adopted by the government on 30 March 2022 sets clear objectives in this respect and is accompanied by a monitoring mechanism.
In terms of judicial independence, the dismantling of the Section for Investigating Criminal Offences 5. within the Judiciary on 11 March 2022 marked an important step, and should be commended.

However, some issues related to the new system for investigation and prosecution of criminal offences within the judiciary still need to be addressed.
While the competence to investigate offences committed by magistrates has now been transferred to designated prosecutors within the Prosecutor’s Offices attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the courts of appeal, it is expected that sufficient resources will be allocated to the investigations of complex corruption cases in order to ensure the efficiency of the new system.

Assembly debate on 13 October 2022 (33rd sitting) (see Doc.

15617, report of the Committee on the Honouring of 1.
Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), co-rapporteurs: Ms Edite Estrela and Ms Krista Baumane).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 13 October 2022 (33rd sitting).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2466 (2022) 6.

Furthermore, safeguards must be established to ensure judicial independence and prevent any risk of politicisation.
These include the procedure for the appointment of designated prosecutors which needs to ensure their integrity, competence and impartiality.

At the same time the Assembly welcomes the efforts within the judiciary to combat corruption and in particular the adoption by the Superior Council of Magistracy of the Integrity Plan.

Concerning the three justice laws, namely on the Status of Magistrates, on the Organisation of the 7.
Judiciary and on the Superior Council of Magistracy, which were submitted to the parliament, the Assembly takes note of the setting up by the parliament of the Joint Parliamentary Committee for the examination of laws in the field of justice and invites the authorities to follow the recommendations formulated by the Venice Commission and GRECO, in particular with regard to the civil and disciplinary liability of magistrates, competitions for admissions in the judiciary and rules on the status as well as appointment and removal of specialised and high-ranking prosecutors.
8.

Regarding the fight against corruption, the Assembly welcomes the adoption by the government, in December 2021, of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2025 and it notes with satisfaction the increased effectiveness of the investigation and sanctioning of medium and high-level corruption.
In particular, the National Anti-Corruption Directorate should be commended for continuing the positive trend in terms of the number of indictments and the reduction of the backlog of cases despite insufficient human resources, which is the consequence of very strict criteria for prosecutors’ appointments and in particular seniority requirements.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the value of assets confiscated by the National Agency for the Management of Seized Assets increased considerably over the last year.

The Assembly notes that amendments to the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code aimed at 9. bringing both laws into line with the Constitutional Court’s decisions with regard, inter alia, to corruption related crimes, abuse of office and supervision methods, are under preparation.
The Assembly hopes that they will be submitted to the parliamentary procedure without undue delay.

The Assembly notes with concern that Romania is among the States with the largest number of 10. unexecuted judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; this number increased in 2021 to 409 compared to 347 in 2020.

Some cases reveal the existence of structural dysfunctions and should be addressed as a matter of priority.

11.

The situation concerning media freedom and pluralism needs to be strengthened.
In particular, the use of public funds by political parties to finance media and influence their content on the basis of secret contracts is of utmost concern.

It potentially undermines the principle of free media and the proper functioning of democratic institutions.

Emblematic cases of threats, instances of harassment and violence against critical journalists, reveal serious problems concerning freedom of expression.

12.
12.

The Assembly notes with satisfaction the overall progress accomplished by Romania with regard to protection and respect for human rights.

In particular, it welcomes the recent adoption of the amendment to Article 369 of the Criminal Code, extending the grounds for hate speech and hate crimes in line with Council of Europe standards.
The Assembly also commends the Romanian Parliament for having revised its Rules of Procedure in June 2022 allowing for more efficient prosecution of hate speech among politicians.

13.

The Assembly commends Romania for its commitment to protect the rights of persons belonging to national minorities.

According to the reports of the monitoring mechanism of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Romania can be considered as an example of good European practices in this area.
There are clear improvements, as provided by Article 195 of the Administrative Code adopted in 2019, especially for the localities with more than 20% of population belonging to a national minority, with regard to the right to use their mother tongue in the relations with the local authorities, and the obligation of the respective authorities to provide the citizens with, inter alia, bilingual forms, public information and bilingual inscriptions.
Some difficulties still exist, particularly with regard to the financial and administrative obstacles to the implementation of these provisions of the Administrative Code.

There are also some concerns that some amendments introduced into the Administrative Code may limit minority language rights in small communities.

14.
However, regarding the Roma minority, the Assembly notes with concern that a number of programmes, strategies and action plans have not had the expected impact on the inclusion of Romanian citizens belonging to this minority and that Roma continue to occupy the most disadvantaged position in the labour market; despite sustained efforts of governmental and non-governmental stakeholders meant to improve their living standards, the material situation of Roma is well below average in the country; they are also affected by shortages in social housing.
2 Resolution 2466 (2022) 15.

Since the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022, Romania has been confronted with large waves of refugees from that country.Over 2,25 million Ukrainians have fled to Romania to date.

While the majority transited the country, about 81 000 decided to stay.

Romania is to be commended on its swift reaction and its assistance to a large number of people in need of international protection.

16.

17.
16.

17.

In consequence, the Assembly calls on the Romanian authorities: in the field of the judiciary, to: 17.1. continue the ongoing reform respecting the deadlines established by the Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary for 2022-2025; take into account the recommendations and to address the concerns formulated by the Venice 17.2.
Commission and GRECO in the preparation of draft justice laws; 17.3. ensure inclusiveness in the legislative process; to carry out meaningful consultations with all stakeholders and to try to accommodate different opinions; 17.4. ensure proper safeguards into the new system of investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the judiciary, following the dismantling of the Section for Investigating Criminal Offences within the Judiciary, with a view to guaranteeing judicial independence; 17.5. continue the implementation of already adopted measures aimed at increasing the efficiency and quality of the justice system, including increasing the recruitment of magistrates, redistributing the courts’ workload and increasing the digitalisation of the justice system; 18. in the field of the fight against corruption, to: 18.1. pursue implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy and ensure determined political support for its effectiveness; 18.2. amend the Codes of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure in line with the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the recommendations of the Venice Commission in respect of deadlines established by the National Anti-Corruption Strategy; 18.3. address effectively the issue of human resources shortages within the National Anti-Corruption Directorate; 19. in the field of the execution of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, to: 19.1. step up efforts to implement the Court’s judgments, in particular those concerning nine principal cases subject to the Committee of Ministers’ enhanced supervision procedure, and over 300 repetitive cases; 19.2. consider exploring the feasibility of organising training sessions in co-operation with the Council of Europe on the implementation of the Court`s rulings; 19.3. consider exploring the feasibility of organising training sessions in co-operation with the Parliamentary Assembly Co-operation Unit on legislative follow-up to the Court’s decisions; 20. in the field of media, to: 20.1. ensure proper implementation of the existing legislation on access to information; 20.2. ensure full independence of the National Audiovisual Council by establishing clear professional criteria for the selection of its members and to ensure adequate budgetary resources; 20.3. ensure full transparency of media ownership; 20.4. ensure specific safeguards for editorial independence and to introduce legal requirements to disclose secret contracts between political parties and the media on the basis of which public funds are transferred to the latter; 20.5. ensure proper investigation and punishment of perpetrators in cases of harassment or intimidation of journalists; 21. in the field of minorities and vulnerable groups, to: 21.1. condemn without reservation, investigate and prosecute any discriminatory remarks and behaviour, and to eliminate hate speech from public discourse; 21.2. continue efforts aimed at better integration of Romanian citizens belonging to the Roma minority.
3 Resolution 2466 (2022) 22.

In conclusion, the Assembly recognises that Romania has made substantial progress towards its compliance with Council of Europe standards in areas crucial for the functioning of democratic institutions, in particular the judiciary and the fight against corruption.

However, the question of sustainability and irreversibility of the reforms as well as of the effectiveness of the reforms will have to be confirmed by the proper implementation of legislation.
Against this background, the Assembly invites its Monitoring Committee to continue following the 23. developments in the country in the framework of a future periodic review, and to report back to the Assembly if developments so warrant.

4 Resolution 2467 (2022)1 Provisional version The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights Parliamentary Assembly 1.

Across Europe and worldwide, work has been and is likely to remain central to human life.
It ensures subsistence, access to autonomous living and enjoyment of various benefits and rights.

Work can also give meaning to one’s life and underpin one’s dignity by offering a role in society and contributing towards shared prosperity: work binds us all together.

In recent years, new technologies and the Covid-19 pandemic have radically transformed the world of work, affecting the organisation of work, workers and workplaces.
As we see a massive shift towards atypical forms of employment and increased teleworking, some fundamental aspects of labour rights and policies require an open societal debate to correct imbalances so that no-one is left behind and economic security is guaranteed to all.

2.
2.

The Parliamentary Assembly notes that this new reality has led to substantive changes in working conditions and relations between employers and employees, with direct and indirect effects on health, well- being, and socio-economic rights of people at work.

While it acknowledges the possibility of positive productivity effects, it views with concern many situations of precarious employment and discriminatory practices at work, in particular regarding women with care-giving responsibilities.
The changing nature of jobs also impacts workers’ rights to organise and to bargain collectively, as well as the functioning of trade unions, and amplifies the risk of abusive recourse to surveillance or worker control technologies.
Furthermore, given that globalisation of work weakens the reach of national social protection systems and individual protections across borders, the Assembly sees an urgent need to mainstream higher minimum labour standards worldwide, including basic occupational health and safety norms, under the guidance of the International Labour Organization (ILO).

3.

Moreover, the societal emphasis on paid work fails to mirror the complexity of human nature and life.
It turns a blind eye to the huge amount of unpaid work that billions of women around the globe offer to society by caring for children and other household members (usually the elderly): in most countries women still do two-thirds of all unpaid care work, a trend further worsened during the pandemic.

Such an approach also depreciates paid care work, as well as volunteer work.
The Assembly therefore advocates for a rehaul of labour policies to ensure a better recognition of unpaid work and build a more socially just society.

4.

Telework has stormed like a tidal wave into the world of work during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Assembly is convinced that telework will stay a permanent feature of work organisation for knowledge workers, mostly in the form of hybrid arrangements which combine online and physical presence at the workplace.
Governments and their social partners (employers, employees and professional associations/trade unions) are therefore called upon to facilitate and better accommodate increased recourse to telework on a permanent basis by providing a level playing field and maximum flexibility for both workers and their employers through legislative measures, while guaranteeing that socio-economic rights are well protected.
In this context, the Assembly insists on telework policy orientations that maintain and enhance the protection of socio-economic rights as set out in the European Social Charter (ETS No.

35) and the revised European Social Charter (ETS No.

163).

Assembly debate on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting) (see Doc.

15620, report of the Committee on Social Affairs, 1.

Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Ms Selin Sayek Böke).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting).
See also Recommendation 2239 (2022).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2467 (2022) 5.

The Assembly notes research and data evidence that point to the changing work culture with a new generation of workers who value flexibility of working hours and location and a reduction of working time much more than their predecessors.

The Assembly further notes a need to better define “the right to disconnect” through national legislation, as well as at European and international levels.
Greater autonomy for workers, and more regard to workers’ own preferences, has been shown to result in higher productivity, which is beneficial to all social partners – workers, employers and society at large.

6.

The Assembly is concerned that stress levels have been escalating in many workplaces, with dramatic consequences for both individuals and society at large.
Recognising stress at work as our collective challenge, it reiterates the recommendations formulated in its Resolution 2267 (2019) “Stress at work”, in particular as regards “a stress-reducing organisation of work with shorter, four-day weeks (with 28 to 32 work hours per week), flexible work time options, greater autonomy, teleworking possibilities and job-sharing schemes, notably for working parents and carers”.

7.
7.

As automation, artificial intelligence applications and digital labour platforms progress further, they could present new forms of inclusion by offering additional job opportunities for persons marginalised in traditional labour markets.
To embrace this trend with confidence and avoid any precariousness that could result for workers concerned, the Assembly believes that member States should introduce essential legal safeguards regarding irregular working hours and income, remedy a lack of access to basic social protection and collective bargaining rights and to the judicial system where relevant, as well as discrimination caused by the use of opaque algorithms.
The Assembly also notes that the growing cross-border mobility of labour, including teleworking with the employer and employee based in different countries, has implications on labour and tax laws across jurisdictions that need to be addressed.

8.
8.

Drawing lessons from the pandemic, the major trends in the world of work and selected examples of good practice in member States, the Assembly emphasises the importance of increasing flexibility (in terms of workplace location and working hours) in the organisation of work in order to serve the new needs of workers, employers and labour markets in a balanced manner.
With a view to adjusting their existing regulatory frameworks and labour policies, better protecting socio-economic rights, enhancing public health and ensuring personal well-being at work, the Assembly recommends that member States: improve minimum labour standards and defend essential socio-economic rights, in particular 8.1. basic occupational health and safety norms, worldwide, and: 8.1.1. ensure full implementation of the ILO’s core conventions and guidelines; 8.1.2. pursue implementation of the United National Sustainable Development Agenda 2030, in particular its Goal 8 seeking to achieve inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, as well as decent work; 8.1.3. seek harmonisation of regulatory frameworks across different jurisdictions for platform work, notably concerning employment status, social protection, access to basic social rights, as well as working time, pay, dispute resolution, personal data protection and privacy; 8.1.4. operating on their territory and beyond; guarantee adequate corporate social responsibility of multinational enterprises 8.1.5. of work; update national strategies in this regard to cover new forms of work and fragmentation 8.1.6. build up institutional capacity to ensure that national labour inspectorates have sufficient powers, resources and training to better control occupational safety in the new era of work by prioritising prevention and risk-based approaches; 8.1.7. ensure that national laws and collective agreements clearly define the responsibility of the employer for the protection of the occupational health and safety of employees, and, in the context of teleworking, takes into account both the psychosocial and ergonomic risks; screen, assess and adjust their labour legislation and policies in the light of the European Social 8.2.
Charter requirements and the evolving needs of labour markets, in particular: 8.2.1. concerning work organisation, examine options for shortening work weeks and/or daily working hours while maintaining the same pay, so as to shift focus from hours worked to results, to cater more flexibly for those multitasking at work and using job-sharing arrangements, to enable high-intensity work, to accommodate atypical forms of work while protecting socio- economic rights, to support working parents and to contribute to a socially and environmentally sustainable development; 2 8.2.2. with regard to telework and hybrid work: Resolution 2467 (2022) ensure that specific legislation is in place to balance the needs and priorities 8.2.2.1. of workers, employers and society as a whole, while giving as much autonomy as possible to workers and their individual work preferences; 8.2.2.2. for employers to prevent occupational burnout; define and codify in law the right to disconnect from work, and the obligation 8.2.2.3. study environmental and public health benefits of enhanced teleworking and consider schemes for mandatory teleworking a few days a week for knowledge workers, aimed at alleviating local transport flows, reducing pollution and saving energy and other resources; 8.2.2.4. provide adequate equipment and compensate incremental costs for workers engaged in telework, and achieve fair sharing of productivity and cost benefits accrued through remote or hybrid work; 8.2.2.5. penalised or discriminated against; ensure that workers teleworking full-time or in a hybrid set-up are not 8.2.3. with a view to optimising the national social partnership structure and dialogue: 8.2.3.1. include self-employed workers, reach out to those involved in unpaid care work and migrant workers, and correct the (mis)definition of employment status of those involved in the platform economy; 8.2.3.2. improve access of workers in atypical forms of employment and in platform work to collective bargaining and professional associations/trade unions,
 information and training and protection from intrusive surveillance technologies; 8.2.3.3. institutionalise these social dialogue mechanisms; negotiate all legal frameworks with all social partners and formally 8.2.3.4. freedom of association and to support labour organisations; study options for using digital instruments and public policy to improve 8.2.4. as regards action fostering decent work and quality employment for decent and dignified living, while ensuring that digital transformation of work benefits all and no one is left behind: 8.2.4.1. human needs, solidarity, public interest and rights; launch a public debate to upgrade the social contract to a society centred on 8.2.4.2. invest public resources and engage private enterprises in strengthening people’s employability through lifelong learning schemes, reskilling and upskilling programmes, and institutional efforts for the creation of decent and sustainable work, in line with the ILO’s Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work; 8.2.4.3. be accessible to all; enhance public investment in digital infrastructure so that quality digital tools 8.2.4.4. consider implementing personal training accounts for all workers, entailing positive obligations for all employers to set up skills development plans or training for current workers and potential workers including young NEETs (“not in education, employment or training”), persons in unpaid work or in unemployment, and the retired persons who wish to continue working but need to upgrade their skills; 8.2.4.5. give labour policies a more prominent role in managing the economy and mitigating socio-economic inequalities, based on better policy coherence and support for fundamental rights at national, European and international levels; 8.2.4.6. if they have not yet done so, ratify the European Social Charter and its Additional Protocol Providing for a System of Collective Complaints (ETS No.
158), lift the any existing reservations implementation of the Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5) and promote the full application of these fundamental treaties across Europe, including to the Council of Europe’s own staff; the Charter, scale up political support to to 3 Resolution 2467 (2022) 8.2.4.7. root out abusive employment practices such as unpaid employment trials and zero-hours contracts, harmonise the protection of rights for different categories of workers by reducing differences in tax treatment for different types of contract and guarantee universal minimum social coverage for all; 8.2.4.8. seek better recognition of unpaid work by making it more visible, by providing more family-friendly policies (such as working hours adaptation and affordable and accessible childcare for working parents, with extra financial support for the vulnerable), by clarifying the monetary value of such work (measuring and estimating monetary worth) and by better supporting it through social benefits or a basic income approach alongside public provision of quality healthcare services accessible by all; 8.2.4.9. update national legislation and strategies on occupational health and safety to better cover new forms of work, different categories of workers (including the self- employed) and increased mobility of workers between workplaces and across borders; 8.2.4.10. ensure that workplaces are free from all kinds of harassment and online surveillance; 8.2.4.11. design new policies with a multidimensional equality focus and revisit the age-related nature of work so as to guarantee the inclusiveness of the labour market and effective implementation of non-discrimination principles; 8.2.5. consider the need for new institutional structures and build public capacity so as to identify trends, emerging risks, and regulatory needs, and to assess the impact of the structural transformation of work in terms of environmental and social sustainability (including gender, age, skills diversity, etc.)
as well as professional evolution (the quality of work); 8.2.6. region to sell online.

encourage local authorities to provide online market platforms for businesses in their 4 Resolution 2468 (2022)1 Provisional version Preventing vaccine discrimination Parliamentary Assembly 1.
The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its work carried out in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures taken to counter it, in particular the following resolutions: Resolution 2329 (2020) “Lessons for the future from an effective and rights-based response to the Covid-19 pandemic”, Resolution 2338 (2020) “The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on human rights and the rule of law”, Resolution 2383 (2021) “Covid passes or certificates: protection of fundamental rights and legal implications”, Resolution 2361 (2021) “Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations”, Resolution 2424 (2022) “Beating Covid-19 with public health measures” and Resolution 2455 (2022) “Fighting vaccine-preventable diseases through quality services and anti-vaccine myth-busting”.
2.

The Assembly recalls that during the Covid-19 pandemic, Council of Europe member States have imposed various measures to restrict access to their territories (such as Covid passes, quarantine or self- isolation, bans on entering their territory, obligation to register or to carry out Covid-19 tests shortly before or after arrival, etc.).
Some of them also decided to restrict access to public venues (such as bars, restaurants, sport and leisure facilities, event venues and others) or even to some means of public transportation.

3.

The Assembly recalls that, in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No.
5, the “Convention”), while public health may constitute a legitimate purpose justifying restrictions on the rights to respect for private and family life (Article 8), freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) and freedom of movement (Article 2 of Protocol No.

4 to the Convention, ETS No.

46), any restrictions on the aforementioned rights must be “prescribed by law”, “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

4.
4.

The Assembly notes that compulsory vaccination can raise issues under international human rights standards, in particular the right to respect for private life (Article 8 of the Convention) and the right to give free and informed consent to any intervention in the health field, which is enshrined in the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Biomedicine: Convention on Human Rights and Medicine (ETS No.
164, the “Oviedo Convention”).

The Assembly notes that the starting position for a vaccine is that it should not automatically be generally mandatory, but that mandatory vaccination may sometimes be appropriate; for example, for special professions such as those exposed to vulnerable populations.

The Assembly also notes the cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights concerning mandatory vaccination for specific workers.

5.
The Assembly recalls the information document “Protection of human rights and the ‘vaccine pass’” issued by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the “Statement on human rights considerations relevant to ‘vaccine pass’ and similar documents” issued by the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) and the statement “Covid-19 vaccination, attestations and data protection” issued by the Council of Europe Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (T-PD).
Assembly debate on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting) (see Doc.

15608, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and 1.

Human Rights, rapporteur: Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir; and Doc.

15625, opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Ms Carmen Leyte).

Text adopted by the Assembly on 14 October 2022 (34th sitting).

See also Recommendation 2240 (2022).

https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Resolution 2468 (2022) 6.
The Assembly notes that the use of Covid passes, and in particular of vaccine certificates, entails risks of infringements of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Those risks are further exacerbated when there are inequalities in access to vaccination against Covid-19.
In this regard the Assembly welcomes the United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/76/175 “Ensuring equitable, affordable, timely and universal access for all countries to vaccines in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic”.
Moreover, the introduction and the use of Covid passes has in many instances led to distinct treatment of persons who have been vaccinated against Covid-19 and those who have not, as well as to possible discrimination between persons vaccinated with different vaccines.

This may amount to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention if it does not have an objective and reasonable justification.
The Assembly recalls that any inequality in treatment must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate; proportionality requires a fair balance between protecting the interests of the community (the legitimate aim) and respect for the rights and freedoms of the individual.

7.
7.

Referring to its Resolution 2383 (2021), the Assembly again stresses that measures such as the introduction of a Covid pass must be applied only in a context of fighting the pandemic and in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

There should also be clear and well-established scientific evidence showing that the adoption of such measures lowers the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to an acceptable level from a public health point of view.
Any system of Covid passes should be limited in time according to the requirements of the public health emergency.

Moreover, as stressed in Assembly’s Resolution 2424 (2022), vaccination certificates should primarily be used for “their designated purpose of monitoring vaccine efficacy, potential side effects and adverse events.

8.
8.

The Assembly recognises the introduction of the European Union Digital Covid Certificate (EUDCC), as an instrument for facilitating freedom of movement within the European Union within the context of the various travel restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic, and that this type of system has also been used by numerous non-EU Council of Europe member States and other States.

9.
9.

The Assembly further notes that the EUDCC was also used to limit and to grant freedom of movement in the European Union and in some public venues.

It is concerned that such practices may lead to discrimination and other violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

10.
10.

The Assembly notes that although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has granted conditional authorisation for the marketing of only six vaccines, some member States of the Council of Europe administered other vaccines, including those listed only by the World Health Organisation (WHO) under its Emergency Use Listing process or approved by national authorities.
The Assembly is worried that the use of Covid and vaccine passes may lead or might have led to discrimination in travelling and access to public venues between persons vaccinated with different vaccines, including those which have been approved only by the EMA, and those which have been listed only by the WHO.

11.

The Assembly notes with satisfaction that the recognition of WHO-listed vaccines is now more and more widely accepted within the European Union.
However, European Union member States are free to limit access to public venues and to impose additional restrictions on non-European Union citizens’ access to their territory, which may lead to discrimination.

12.

In the Assembly’s view, vaccination against Covid-19 has made a major contribution to overcoming the pandemic.

This has facilitated the lifting of various Covid-19 related restrictions and therefore indirectly restored the full enjoyment of many fundamental freedoms.
Nevertheless, the pandemic is not yet over and new public health measures may be necessary in the future which risk leading to infringements on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Assembly therefore calls on all the member States to: refrain from imposing further restrictions to individuals’ human rights and fundamental freedoms, 12.1. unless it is strictly necessary to achieve the legitimate aim pursued.
All restrictions must be compliant with the requirements stemming from the Convention and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, namely that they must be prescribed by law; they should be in force for the shortest possible time; they must be proportionate to the pursued aim; and they must be effective; 12.2. take full account of the latest scientific evidence and expert knowledge, including that from WHO, when deciding on restrictions to human rights and fundamental freedoms or on relaxation of such restrictions; 12.3. treat equally all people vaccinated against Covid-19 by a vaccine approved either by the EMA or listed by WHO, whose evaluation under the Emergency Use Listing procedure enables a thorough assessment of the quality, safety and effectiveness of vaccines; 12.4. mutually recognise Covid passes issued by other Council of Europe member States; 2 Resolution 2468 (2022) 12.5. refrain from preventing individuals from exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms because they have not been vaccinated or because they have been vaccinated with a vaccine which is not approved by the EMA; 12.6. avoid discrimination between those who have been vaccinated against Covid-19 and those who have not or cannot be vaccinated, either for medical or other reasons; refrain from imposing restrictions that undermine the right to seek asylum, which is a basic 12.7. human right, and replace the requirement of having a valid Covid pass with testing, quarantine, access to vaccination and/or other reasonable and proportionate measures; follow WHO advice and refrain from imposing blanket travel bans, which have proven to be 12.8. ineffective from a public health perspective, and which may interfere with the right to family life and, in cases concerning children, with the best interests of the child, and disproportionately impact individuals and families from countries that have been undermined in equitable access to vaccines; 12.9. discontinue the use of Covid passes for other uses than those which are strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate public health purpose; 12.10. work together with organisations dealing with undocumented migrants to ensure that they have equal access to vaccination, with particular regard to the challenges which undocumented migrants may face, such as not having a social security number, a national identity number, or in some cases a home address.
Due consideration should also be given to the situation of undocumented migrant children who are unaccompanied or separated from their parents, bearing in mind the need for their informed consent.
The Assembly calls on member States to adopt specific safeguarding policies to ensure that personal data is not transmitted to immigration authorities; 12.11. ensure that the design and implementation of national vaccination plans and rollouts secure an ethical and equitable distribution of vaccines and avoid any discrimination on the basis of age, health, gender, race, religion, legal or socio-economic status, ability to pay, location and any other factor.
Priority access should be given to groups in vulnerable situations, including persons over 65 years old and those under 65 with underlying health conditions.

13.

The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States which have not yet ratified the Oviedo Convention and/or Protocol No.

12 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS.

No.

177) to do so without delay.

The Assembly also calls on Council of Europe member States which do not belong to the European 14.
Union to recognise the European Union Digital Covid Certificate.

15.
The Assembly invites the European Union and its member States to: refrain from imposing additional restrictions to free movement, including to that of EUDCC 15.1. holders, unless strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate public health purpose; require the EUDCC only as a measure of last resort and to reassess its usefulness on a regular 15.2. basis in the light of an epidemiological assessment; 15.3. elaborate common standards as regards the length of validity of the EUDCC; 15.4. respect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, when implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic, and other related EU legal acts; 15.5. develop the necessary technical solutions to recognise proof of recovery from Sars-CoV-2 from a country other than a person's usual place of residence.
16.

Finally, the Assembly calls on all Council of Europe member States and other States to: 16.1. ensure proper funding to WHO; 16.2. submit their national regulatory systems to the WHO Global Benchmarking Tool in order to allow them to become WHO-listed authorities.

3 AS/Bur (2022) OJ 14 13 October 2022 Bureau of the Assembly Draft agenda of the meeting to be held in Strasbourg (room 10) on Friday 14 October 2022 – 8.30 to 10 am 1.

Opening statement by the President 2.


Agenda [AS/Bur (2022) OJ 14] Draft decision: to adopt the draft agenda 3.

Minutes [AS/Bur (2022) PV 13] Draft decision: to approve the draft minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2022 4.

Fourth part-session of 2022 (Strasbourg, 10-14 October) Draft decision: to approve the follow-up proposals made by the Secretary General of the Assembly to texts adopted by the Assembly 5.
Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Denmark [Letter; Doc.

15626 Add.
2] Draft decision: to take note of the report drawn up by the Committee on the Election of Judges including its decision to reject the list of candidates To members of the Bureau of the Assembly (President and Vice-Presidents of the Assembly and Chairpersons of Political Groups and the Assembly’s general committees) copy for information to secretaries of national delegations and political groups and Heads of Secretariats of the Assembly’s general committees This document is also the convocation to the meeting F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 AS/Bur (2022) OJ 14 6.
Meeting of the Standing Committee in Reykjavik (25 November 2022) [AS/Per (2022) OJ 03] Draft decision: to take note of the draft agenda 7.

References and transmissions to committees [AS/Bur (2022) 48] Draft decision: to approve the proposals contained in the document, to be ratified by the Assembly in the Progress report Petition 8.
[Letter by Grégor Puppinck] Draft decision: to take note of the petition received by the President and decide to consult the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on its admissibility 9.

Issues raised by committees i.

Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) [Letter] Draft decision: to consider the letter from the Monitoring Committee ii.
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs [Letter] Draft decision: to consider the letter from the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs iii.
Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy [Letters] Draft decision: to decide whether to authorise - the rapporteur on “Recent developments in Libya and in the Middle East: what consequences for Europe?” to carry out a fact-finding visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, in the framework of the preparation of his report the rapporteur on “the situation in Kosovo”, to carry out a fact-finding visit to Kosovo*, in the framework of the preparation of her report - 10.
Other business Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (14 October 2022- 23 January 2023) Draft decision: to appoint a rapporteur * Throughout this text, all reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.

2 AS/Bur (2022) OJ 14 Items possibly to be dealt without debate: 11.
[Possibly] Composition of the Monitoring Committee, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights [Lists of members] Draft decision: to approve the lists of members 12.

Meetings elsewhere than Strasbourg and Paris [AS/Bur (2022) 47] Draft decision: to approve the proposals contained in the document 13.
17th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport (Antalya, 26 October 2022) [List of members] Draft decision: to approve the final composition of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau 14.

2022 World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November) [List of members] Draft decision: to approve the final composition of the ad hoc committee of the Bureau to participate in the Forum 15.
Dates and places of next meetings Thursday 24 November 2022, 3 pm, Reykjavik Friday 9 December 2022, 9.30 am, Paris Monday 23 January 2023, 8 am (part-session) Friday 27 January 2023, 8.30 am (part-session) 3 AS/CM-Mix (2022) OJ 02 28 September 2022 Joint Committee Draft agenda of the meeting to be held in Strasbourg (room 5) on Tuesday 11 October 2022 at 3.30 pm 1.

Agenda [AS/CM-Mix (2022) OJ 02] Approval of the draft agenda 2.
Minutes [AS/CM-Mix (2022) PV01] Approval of the draft minutes of the meeting on 25 February 2022 3.

Towards a 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe 4.

Other business 5.
Date and place of next meeting To members of the Assembly’s delegation to the Joint Committee cc: for information to secretaries of national delegations and political groups THIS DOCUMENT IS ALSO THE CONVOCATION TO THE MEETING The Assembly’s delegation to the Joint Committee comprises: members of the Bureau of the Assembly, one representative of each parliamentary delegation of member states not represented in the Bureau and members appointed by the President to speak on the subjects on the agenda F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 AS/Cult (2022) OJ 06 23 September 2022 AAC OJ06_22 Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media Draft agenda of the meetings to be held in Strasbourg, Palais de l’Europe, on: Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm (Room 2) Thursday 13 October 2022 from 8.30 am to 10 am (Room 8) Thursday 13 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm (Room 2) Please note: Wednesday 12 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm (Room 2): Meeting of the Sub-committee on Education, Youth and Sport Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm (Room 2) 1.
Draft agenda [AS/Cult (2022) OJ 06] Adoption of the draft agenda 2.

Minutes [AS/Cult (2022) PV 04; AS/Cult (2022) PV 05] - Approval of the minutes of the meeting held in Rome on 9 and 10 May 2022 - Approval of the minutes of the meetings held in Strasbourg on 21 and 23 June 2022 3.

Track and trace applications: ethical, cultural and educational challenges Rapporteur: Mr Duncan Baker, United Kingdom, EC/DA [AS/Cult (2022) 14] Adoption of a draft resolution and approval of a report.

4.
Building the Open Council of Europe Academic Networks (OCEAN) Rapporteur: Ms Marta Grande, Italy, NR [AS/Cult (2022) 16] Consideration of a preliminary draft report Exchange of views with the participation of Mr Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe (to be confirmed) and Mr Christos Giakoumopoulos, Director General of Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe (to be confirmed) This draft agenda, addressed to members of the committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to Secretaries of national delegations, of observer and partner for democracy delegations and of political groups Meeting documents will be published on the Parliamentary Assembly extranet website (restricted area for national delegations): http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Cult (2022) OJ 06 5.

Countering SLAPPs: an imperative for a democratic society Rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach, Austria, SOC [AS/Cult (2022) 17] Consideration of an introductory memorandum 6.
Guaranteeing media freedom and the safety of journalists: an obligation of member States Rapporteur: Mr Mogens Jensen, Denmark, SOC [AS/Cult (2022) 18] Consideration of an introductory memorandum Thursday 13 October 2022 from 8.30 am to 10 am (Room 8) 7.
Sports governance and social rights: the protection of workers’ rights in Qatar [AS/Cult-AS/Soc/Inf (2022) 1; AS/Cult-AS/Soc/Inf (2022) 2]; Joint hearing with the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development With the participation of Mr Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, FIFA representatives, and experts.

Thursday 13 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30pm (Room 2) 8.
The Cultural Routes: a platform for intercultural dialogue Rapporteur: Mr Andries Gryffroy, Belgium, NR [AS/Cult (2022) 15] Consideration of a preliminary draft report 9.

Museum Prize of the Council of Europe Appointment of the representative of the committee for the Museum Prize 2023 10.

Committee work programme1 [AS/Cult (2022) 01; AS/Cult/Inf (2022) 01] 10.1.
References to the committee and appointment of rapporteurs - Threats to life and safety of journalists and human rights defenders in Azerbaijan (Doc.

15521): reference 4659 for an opinion - Providing a comprehensive response to the SLAPPs issue (Doc.

15482): reference 4644 to be taken into account in the framework of the report “Countering SLAPPs: an imperative for the democratic society” 10.2.

10.3.

10.4.

10.5.

10.6.

10.7.


Reports on recent meetings Approval of rapporteurs’ fact-finding visits Appointment of representatives for forthcoming events Requests or information from rapporteurs Draft motions for a resolution and a recommendation Sub-committees 1 This point can be treated at any time.

2 AS/Cult (2022) OJ 06 11.

Composition of the sub-committees2 [AS/Cult (2022) 02] Approval of changes in the composition of the sub-committees 12.
World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November 2022) [Concept Note] Appointment of members to the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau to participate in the World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November 2022), subject to a decision by the Bureau of the Assembly 13.

Replies from the Committee of Ministers 13.1 Replies from the Committee of Ministers - Reply from the Committee of Ministers (Doc.
15589) to Recommendation 2217 (2021) The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on education and culture (AS/Cult (2021) 19) - Reply from the Committee of Ministers (Doc.15596) to Recommendation 2221 (2022) on “Football governance: business and values” AS/Cult (2021) 26 14.
Communications from the Chairperson of the committee3 [AS/Cult (2022) 19; Letter from the Chairperson of the Committee; AS/Bur (2022) 28 Working methods of the Parliamentary Assembly Discussion of and approval of proposals on possible improvements in the Assembly’s procedures and working methods 15.

Other business 16.
Other business 16.

Next meetings Committee meetings: 5-6 December 2022, Paris (to be confirmed) Sub-committee meetings: 21-22 November 2022, Vilnius (Lithuania), Sub-committee on Media and Information Society 2 This point can be treated at any time.

3 This point can be treated at any time.
3 AS/Mig (2022) OJ 08 REV 2 6 October 2022 amoj08_rev2_2022 Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Revised draft agenda of the meeting to be held in Strasbourg, Palais de l’Europe (in-person) on: • Monday, 10 October 2022, from 14:00 to 15:00 (room 2): Sub-Committees • Tuesday, 11 October 2022, from 08:30 to 10:00 (room 2) • Wednesday, 12 October 2022, from 14:00 to 15:30 (room 8) • Thursday, 13 October 2022, from 08:30 to 10:00 (room 10) Monday, 10 October 2022, 14:00 - 15:00, room 2 - Sub-Committee on Diasporas and Integration, from 14:00 to 14:30 - Sub-Committee on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People, from 14:30 to 15:00 See separate draft agendas.
Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 08:30 - 10:00, room 2 1.

Agenda [AS/Mig (2022) OJ 08 REV 2] Adoption of the agenda 2.

3.

Statement by the Chairperson of the Committee The humanitarian crisis emerging for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees Rapporteur: Mr Birgir Thórarinsson, Iceland, EPP/CD [AS/Mig (2022) 12] Consideration of a draft outline and hearing with: ➢ Ms Rana Refahi, Afghanistan consultant, Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network 4.
Integration of migrants and refugees: benefits for all parties involved Rapporteur: Mr Domagoj Hajduković, Croatia, SOC [AS/Mig (2022) 11] Consideration of an introductory memorandum and exchange of views with: This draft agenda, addressed to full members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to secretaries of delegations and political groups Meeting documents are published on the Parliamentary Assembly extranet website (restricted area for national delegations): http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | asmig@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Mig (2022) OJ 08 REV 2 ➢ Ms Salomé Brun, Committee’s Communication unit (Médecins du monde), representing the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe ➢ Mr Samir Hećo, Project Officer, Education Department, Council of Europe Wednesday, 12 October 2022, 14:00 - 15:30, room 8 5.

Safe third countries for asylum seekers Rapporteur: Ms Stephanie Krisper, Austria, ALDE [Doc.
15592] Consideration of possible amendments tabled to the draft resolution and draft recommendation Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 11 October, 16:00 Debate in the Assembly will take place on Wednesday 12 October 2022 in the afternoon 6.

Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management Rapporteur: Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez, Switzerland, SOC [Doc.
15604] Consideration of possible amendments tabled to the draft resolution Deadline for tabling amendments: Tuesday 11 October, 16:00 Debate in the Assembly will take place on Wednesday 12 October 2022 in the afternoon Thursday, 13 October 2022, 08:30 - 10:00, room 10 7.

8.
Humanitarian consequences and internal and external displacement in connection with the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine [Resolution 2448] Follow-up to the Resolution 2448: exchange of views with Mr Tomáš Boček, Vice-Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) European solidarity in the context of asylum and international protection Rapporteur: Lord Alexander Dundee, United Kingdom, EC/DA [AS/Mig (2022) 10] Consideration of a draft outline and exchange of views with Mr Tomáš Boček, Vice-Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) 9.
Work programme [AS/Mig/WP (2022) 08] • Appointment of a Rapporteur − The theme of migration and asylum in the election campaign and the consequences on the welcoming and rights of migrants: replacement of Ms Yolaine de Courson (France, ALDE), subject to the ratification of the new credentials of the French Delegation on Monday 10 October 20221 • Call for candidates (subject to reference to the Committee) − The situation of Ukrainian persons forcefully displaced or transferred to the Russian Federation or Ukrainian territories under the de facto control of the Russian Federation [Doc 15568, Motion for a resolution] 1 Following the results of the June 2022 legislative elections in France, the composition of the French Delegation to PACE may change at the upcoming part-session.
2 AS/Mig (2022) OJ 08 REV 2 − Addressing the specific challenges faced by the Belarusians in exile [Doc.

15593, Motion for a resolution] • The Assembly's procedures and working methods during sessions and meetings held in physical presence of members: "lessons learned from operating in hybrid format" [Letter, Memorandum] − Observations concerning the procedures and practices followed in the Committee, to be notified to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs 10.
Composition of the Sub-Committees Changes in the composition of the Sub-Committees 11.

Other business 12.
Next meeting • Paris, Wednesday 7 December 2022 3 AS/Jur (2022) OJ 08 Rev 3 October 2022 ajoj08 2022 Rev Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Draft Agenda [[BLUE HIGHLIGHTING INDICATES CHANGES SINCE THE LAST ISSUE OF THE AGENDA] BLUE HIGHLIGHTING INDICATES CHANGES SINCE THE LAST ISSUE OF THE AGENDA] for the meetings to be held in Strasbourg (Palais de l’Europe) on: - Tuesday 11 October 2022 at 2pm-3pm (Room 6) 1 - Wednesday 12 October 2022 at 2pm-3.30pm (Room 6) - Thursday 13 October 2022 at 8am- 10.30am (Room 6) - Thursday 13 October 2022 at 2pm- 3.30pm (Room 6) Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 2pm-3pm 1.
Agenda [AS/Jur (2022) 08 Rev] Adoption of the agenda 2.

Minutes [AS/Jur (2022) PV 07] Approval of the minutes of the meeting held in Bern on 5 September 2022 1 The Sub-Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights will meet on Tuesday 11 October 2022 in Room 6 from 3-3.30pm (open to all members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights).
This draft agenda, addressed to full members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to Secretaries of delegations and of political groups Meeting documents are published on the Parliamentary Assembly extranet website (restricted area for national delegations): http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Jur (2022) OJ 08 Rev 3.
Misuse of the Schengen system by Council of Europe member States as a politically-motivated sanction Rapporteur: Mr Ziya Altunyaldiz, Türkiye, NR [Doc 15600+ amendments] Consideration of amendments to the draft resolution 4.

The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – 11th report Rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou, Cyprus, SOC Statement by the Rapporteur 5.

References transmitted to the committee [Appointment procedure document Rapporteur table Doc.

15523 Doc.

15521 Doc.


15514 Doc.

15519] Appointment of Rapporteurs: i) ii) iii) iv) The right to freedom of information: ensuring access to historical documents (Doc.

15523) Threats to life and safety of journalists and human rights defenders in Azerbaijan (Doc.

15521) UK reform of its human rights legislation: consequences for domestic and European Human Rights protection (Bureau decision) Arbitrary arrest of Russian human rights defender and freedom fighter Vladimir Kara-Murza (Doc.
15514) Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 3-3.30pm (Sub-Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights – for information) ***** Wednesday 12 October 2022 at 2pm-3.30pm ***** Hearing: 6.

Legal and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine Rapporteur: Mr Damien Cottier, Switzerland, ALDE Hearing with the participation of: ZZ ZZ 2 7.
European Convention on Human Rights and national constitutions Rapporteur: Mr George Katrougalos, Greece, UEL AS/Jur (2022) …] Exchange of views with Professor Joseph Weiler, University Professor, New York University School of Law, USA (online) AS/Jur (2022) OJ 8 Rev Thursday 13 October 2022 from 8.30am-10am ***** 8.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on prison population in Europe Rapporteur: Mr Givi Mikanadze, Georgia, SOC [AS/Jur (2022) 28] Consideration of a draft report and adoption of a draft resolution and a draft recommendation Thursday 13 October 2022 from 2pm-3.30pm ***** 9.

Preventing vaccine discrimination Rapporteur: Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, Iceland, SOC [Doc.

15608 AS/Soc opinion, Doc… + amendments] Consideration of amendments to the draft resolution and the draft recommendation 10.
Allegations of systemic torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in places of detention in Council of Europe member States Rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou, Cyprus, SOC [AS/Jur (2022) …] Consideration of an introductory memorandum 11.

General Rapporteur for the protection of whistleblowers [Mandate: General Rapporteur for the protection of whistleblowers] New appointment owing to the end of the mandate of Mr Pieter Omtzigt (Netherlands, EPP/CD) on 27.09.2022.

12.
12.

Procedures: Lessons learned from operating in hybrid format [Letter from the Chair on the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs] Exchange of views on the letter from the Chair on the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs 3 AS/Jur (2022) OJ 08 Rev 13.
Participation of members in conferences, meetings, seminars etc • Feedback from the Chair following the meeting for the ad hoc Committee on the 4th Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government, Sunday, 11 September 2022, in Paris Reports by the following representatives: • 131st plenary session of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, 17-18 June 2022, Mr Constantinos Efstathiou, Cyprus, SOC • 91st plenary meeting of GRECO, 13-17 June 2022: Mr Titus Corlăţean, Romania, SOC 14.
Other business 15.
Next meetings Plenary Committee: - - 14 November 2022, Paris Office of the Council of Europe 12 December 2022, Paris Office of the Council of Europe ***** SUB-COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING THE 4th PART-SESSION: Sub-Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights • Strasbourg, Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 3-3.30pm (Room 6) 4 AS/Pol (2022) OJ 12 3 October 2022 Apoj12_22 Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy Draft agenda of the meetings to be held in Strasbourg on: Monday 10 October 2022, 14:00 – 15:00, room 9 Tuesday 11 October 2022, 8:30 – 10:00, room 9 Tuesday 11 October 2022, 14:00 – 15:30, room 9 Wednesday 12 October 2022, 14:00 – 15:30, room 9 Thursday 13 October 2022, 8:30 – 10:00, room 9 Monday, 10 October 2022, 14:00 – 15:00, room 9 1.
Agenda [AS/Pol (2022) OJ 12] Adoption of the agenda 2.

Draft minutes [ASP/Pol (2022) PV 11] Approval of the minutes of the meeting held on 12 and 13 September 2022 in Paris 3.

A fourth Summit for a renewed, improved and reinforced Council of Europe Rapporteur: Ms Fiona O’Loughlin, Ireland, ALDE [AS/Pol (2022) 28] Consideration and declassification of an introductory memorandum 4.
External Relations [AS/Pol/ER (2022) OJ 03] Preparation of the meeting of the Sub-Committee on External Relations to take place at the UN Headquarters in New York 5.
Call for candidatures as rapporteur This draft agenda, addressed to the full members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to Secretaries of delegations and political groups Meeting documents are published on the Parliamentary Assembly extranet website (restricted area for national delegations): http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 29 44 AS/Pol (2022) OJ 12 Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 8:30 – 10:00, room 9 6.

Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans Rapporteur: Mr George Papandreou, Greece, SOC [Doc 15609, amendments] Consideration of amendments Deadline for amendments: Monday 10 October 2022, 16:00 Debate in the Assembly: Tuesday 11 October 2022, morning sitting 7.
Protecting the pillars of democracy during health crises Rapporteur: Ms Marietta Karamanli, France, SOC [AS/Pol (2022) 29] Consideration of a draft report and adoption of a draft resolution 8.

Appointment of rapporteurs [AS/Pol (2022) WP 07, Doc.

15607 Motion OECD] Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 14:00 – 15:30, room 9 9.
Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Jordan Rapporteur: Mr George Loucaides, Cyprus, UEL [AS/Pol (2022) 30, AS/Pol/Inf (2022) 14] Consideration of a draft report and adoption of a draft resolution 10.

Call for Famagusta’s return to its lawful inhabitants Rapporteur: Mr Piero Fassino, Italy, SOC [AS/Pol/Inf (2022) 11] Statement by the Rapporteur following his fact-finding visit to Cyprus (6-8 June 2022) 11.
Recent developments in Libya and in the Middle East: what consequences for Europe?

Rapporteur: Mr Piero Fassino, Italy, SOC [AS/Pol (2022) 26] Consideration of an introductory memorandum Wednesday 12 October 2022, 14:00 – 15:30, room 9 12.
The impact of Brexit on human rights on the island of Ireland Rapporteur: Mr George Katrougalos, Greece, UEL [Doc 15615, amendments] Consideration of amendments Deadline for amendments: Wednesday 12 October 2022, 10:30 Debate in the Assembly: Thursday 13 October 2022, morning sitting 13.

Hearing with Ms Dunja Mijatović, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights • • Exchange of views on the activities of the Commissioner Dialogue with Belarusian and Russian civil societies 2 AS/Pol (2022) OJ 12 14.
Political consequences of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine Rapporteur: Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, Lithuania, EPP/CD [Statement 30.09.2022, Statement President 21.09.2022, CM/Del/Dec(2022)1442/2.3] Statement by the Rapporteur and exchange of views Thursday, 13 October 2022, 8:30 – 10:00, room 9 15.
Strengthening the role of the Council of Europe as a cornerstone of the European political architecture Rapporteur: Ms Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Lithuania, EPP/CD [AS/Pol (2022) 32] Consideration of a draft report and adoption of a draft resolution 16.

Digital democracy – perils and promises of the use of technology in politics Hearing with the participation of Mr Robert Krimmer, Affiliated Professor of e-Governance and Digital Public Services, University of Tartu, Estonia 17.
The European Political Community (EPC) [Draft motion] Consideration of a draft motion for a resolution to be tabled on behalf of the Committee 18.
Authorisations by the Committee • • Ms Fiona O'Loughlin (Ireland, ALDE) to participate in the debate on The future of the Council of Europe, Congress session, Tuesday, 25 October 2022 Mr Anastasios Chatzivasileiou (Greece, EPP/CD) to participate in the Conference of the German PACE delegation: Democracy and human rights in times of crisis – the contribution of young people in Europe, 30 November – 2 December 2022, Berlin (at no cost for the Assembly) 19.

Changes in the membership of Sub-Committees 20.


Other business 21.
Next meetings - - - - - - - - - - Sub-Committee on External Relations, UN Headquarters, New York, USA (subject to the authorisation by the Bureau and availability of funds, dates to be confirmed) 13 December 2022, Paris During the January part-session (23-27 January 2023), Strasbourg Monday 20 March 2023, Paris During the April part-session (24-28 April 2023), Strasbourg 17 May 2022, Paris During the June part-session (19-23 June 2023), Strasbourg 12 and 13 September 2023 (place to be confirmed) During the October part-session (9-13 October 2023), Strasbourg Tuesday 12 December 2023, Paris.
3 AS/Soc (2022) OJ07 30 September 2022 Asocoj07_2022 Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Draft agenda for the meetings to be held on Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 8.30 – 10 am (room 8) Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 2 – 3.30 pm (room 8) Thursday, 13 October 2022, 8.30 – 10 am joint meeting with AS/CULT (room 1) Thursday, 13 October 2022, 2 – 3.30 pm (room 8) Strasbourg (Palais de l’Europe) [Sub-Committee on Public Health and Sustainable Development room 3, Monday, 10 October 2022, 2 – 3 pm Illumination of the Palais de l’Europe in pink to mark “Pink October” on the Palais parvis, Monday, 10 October 2022, 7 – 7.15 pm Network of Contact Parliamentarians for a healthy environment room 3, Wednesday, 12 October 2022, 2 – 3.30 pm] Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 8.30 – 10 am 1.
2.

3.

4.
Agenda [AS/Soc (2022) OJ07] Adoption of the draft agenda Minutes [AS/Soc (2022) PV06, AS/Soc (2022) PV06add] ✓ Approval of the draft minutes of the meeting held in İzmir (Türkiye) on 22-23 September ✓ Approval of the draft minutes of the public hearing on “Public health emergency: the need for a holistic approach to multilateralism and health care” held in İzmir (Türkiye) on 23 September Addressing the issue of Daesh foreign fighters and their families returning from Syria and other countries to the member States of the Council of Europe Rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach, Austria, SOC [Doc 15591, AS/Soc (2022) 35] Consideration and approval of a draft opinion Child abuse in Europe: addressing, compensation and prevention Rapporteur: Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez, Switzerland, SOC [AS/Soc (2022) 39] ✓ Consideration of an introductory memorandum ✓ Public hearing with the participation of Mr Guido Fluri from the NGO “Justice Initiative” and two survivors This draft agenda, addressed to members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting.
Copy to Secretaries of Delegations and of Political Groups Meeting documents are published on the Parliamentary Assembly extranet website (restricted area for national delegations): http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Soc (2022) OJ07 Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 2 – 3.30 pm 5.

6.
6.

Environmental impact of armed conflicts Rapporteur: Mr John Howell, United Kingdom, EC/DA [AS/Soc (2022) 21] Consideration of a preliminary draft report Safeguarding democracy, rights and the environment in international trade Rapporteur: Mr Geraint Davies, United Kingdom, SOC [AS/Soc (2022) 14rev] Consideration of a revised introductory memorandum Thursday, 13 October 2022, 8.30 – 10 am 7.
Sports governance and social rights: the protection of workers’ rights in Qatar [AS/Cult-AS/Soc/Inf (2022) 1, AS/Cult-AS/Soc/Inf (2022) 2] Joint hearing with the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media with the participation of Mr Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, FIFA representatives, and experts Thursday, 13 October 2022, 2 – 3.30 pm 8.
The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights Rapporteur: Ms Selin Sayek Böke, Turkey, SOC [Doc 15620, amendments] Consideration of possible amendments 9.

9.1.

Committee’s work programme and priorities [AS/Soc (2022) 01rev6, AS/Soc (2022) 02rev6, AS/Soc (2022) 03] Appointment of rapporteurs [Doc 15517] For report: ✓ Strengthening palliative care for children 9.2.

Appointment of a General Rapporteur on child participation [AS/Soc/Child (2022) 05rev] 9.3.
Appointment of Committee representatives to external events (subject to the availability of funds) 9.4.

Reports from Committee representatives to external events ✓ What’s new in EU family law?
– High-level conference on the Brussels IIb Regulation, 8 September, online: Ms Emine Nur Günay (Turkey, NR) ✓ Interactive workshop on youth policies organised by the Chamber of Councillors of the Moroccan Parliament, 1 October, Marrakech: Mr Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC) ✓ 9th Environment for Europe Ministerial Conference on “Education for Circular Economy/Sustainable Infrastructure, Sustainable Tourism and Education for Sustainable Development”, 5-7 October, Nicosia: Mr Rik Daems (Belgium, ALDE) 9.5.
Reply of the Committee of Ministers [Doc 15612, Recommendation 2218 (2022), AS/Soc (2022) 43, Doc 15613, Recommendation 2222 (2022), AS/Soc (2022) 44] Consideration of the Committee of Ministers’ reply to the Assembly’s Recommendation on: ✓ The right to be heard – child participation: a foundation for democratic societies ✓ Beating Covid-19 with public health measures 2 AS/Soc (2022) OJ07 10.
Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize Statement by the Sub-Committee Chairperson on the meeting held in İzmir (Türkiye) on 24 September 11.

Sub-Committee on Public Health and Sustainable Development Statement by the Sub-Committee Chairperson on the meeting held in Strasbourg on 10 October 12.

Network of Contact Parliamentarians for a healthy environment Statement by the Network Chairperson on the meetings held in İzmir (Türkiye) on 24 September and in Strasbourg on 12 October 13.
Changes in Sub-Committees [Lists of the Sub-Committees] 14.

Other business National developments 15.
Date and place of next meetings Plenary committee - Friday, 2 December 2022, Paris (Council of Europe Office), 10 am – 5.30 pm - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg - Thursday, 16 March 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) - Second part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 24-28 April 2023, Strasbourg - Monday, 22 May 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) - Third part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 19-23 June 2023, Strasbourg - Tuesday, 19 September 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) - Fourth part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 9-13 October 2023, Strasbourg - Wednesday, 6 December 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) Network of Contact Parliamentarians for a healthy environment - Monday 21 and Tuesday 22 November, Morocco (date and place to be confirmed; subject to the authorisation of the Bureau) - First part-session 2023 of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg (date to be confirmed) Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter - Friday, 2 December 2022, Paris (Council of Europe Office), 9 - 10 am - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg Sub-Committee on Public Health and Sustainable Development - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg Sub-Committee on Children - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg 3 AS/Ega (2022) OJ 07 rev 2 10 October 2022 Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Draft agenda (revised 2) of the meetings to be held, in Strasbourg, Palais de l’Europe, on - Monday 10 October 2022, from 2 to 3pm (room 6) - Tuesday 11 October 2022, from 8.30 to 10am (room 6) Thursday 13 October 2022, from 2 to 3.30pm (room 9) - On Tuesday 11 October 2022, from 2 to 3.30pm (room 3): joint meeting of the Sub- Committee on Disability and Multiple and Intersectional Discrimination and the Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence On Thursday 13 October 2022, from 9 to 10am (room 3): meeting of the Parliamentary Platform for the rights of LGBTI people in Europe (CEST) All items will be taken in the order in which they appear on the agenda, with the exception of those for which a precise time is indicated.
Monday 10 October 2022, from 2 to 3pm (room 6) 1.

Agenda [AS/Ega (2022) OJ 07 rev 2] Adoption of the draft agenda.
This draft agenda, addressed to full members of the Committee and their alternates, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to secretaries of delegations and political groups Meeting documents are published on PACE extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) when they become available: http://assembly.coe.int/extranet F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 90 21 5652 AS/Ega (2022) OJ 07 rev 2 2.
Appointment of representatives (subject to the availability of funds) [Invitation] Invitation to Ms Yevheniia Kravchuk (Ukraine, ALDE) to participate in the first edition of the Women, Peace and Security Forum, in Pristina, Republic of Kosovo,1 on 22-23 October 2022.

3.
3.

Sexual and reproductive health and rights [open to the public] Rapporteur: Ms Petra Stienen (Netherlands, ALDE) Hearing with the participation of: - Ms Alice Rawsthorn OBE, design critic, author and co-founder of Design Emergency, London; - Ms Jimena Acosta, curator of contemporary design and art at the Museo de Arte Moderno, Mexico City (online).

Tuesday, 11 October 2022, from 8.30 to 10am (room 6) 4.

Statement by the Chairperson of the Committee 5.


Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, in Europe Rapporteur: Mr Momodou Malcolm Jallow (Sweden, UEL) [Doc.

15616; amendments] Consideration of possible amendments to the draft resolution.

Deadline for tabling amendments: Monday 10 October, 4pm Debate in the Assembly will take place on Tuesday 11 October, afternoon [at 9am] 6.
The Istanbul Convention: progress and challenges [open to the public] Rapporteur: Ms Zita Gurmai (Hungary, SOC) [AS/Ega (2022) 37] Hearing with the participation of: - Mr Tiny Kox, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; - Ms Iris Luarasi, President of the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO); - Ambassador Marie Fontanel, Chair of the Committee of the Parties on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), Permanent Representative of France to the Council of Europe.
[at 9.45am] 7.

Denial of women’s freedoms and repression of women’s rights protests in Iran - urgent political action is needed [AS/Ega (2022) 46] Consideration and possible adoption of a draft declaration.
[at 9.50am] Participants are invited to take part in a group photo in support of women’s rights in Iran 1 All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
2 AS/Ega (2022) OJ 07 rev Tuesday 11 October 2022, from 2 to 3.30 pm (room 3): joint meeting of the Sub- Committee on Disability and Multiple and Intersectional Discrimination and the Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence 8.
Preventing and combating violence against women with disabilities [open to the public] Hearing with the participation of: - Ms Reem Alsalem, United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (pre-recorded video); - Ms Helen Portal, Advocacy and Policy Officer, Inclusion Europe; - Ms Elisa Rojas, lawyer, Paris (online); - Ms Claire Desaint, Vice-President, “Women to speak, women to act” Association (Des femmes pour le dire des femmes pour agir).
See separate draft agenda.

Thursday 13 October 2022, from 9 to 10am (room 3): meeting of the Parliamentary Platform for the rights of LGBTI people in Europe 9.

The threatened ban of EuroPride events in Belgrade: an attack on equality, democracy and human rights [open to the public] Exchange of views with Mr Filip Lukić, Head of Communication, EuroPride 2022.

See separate draft agenda.

Thursday 13 October 2022, from 2 to 3.30pm (room 9) 10.
The fight for a level playing field – ending discrimination against women in the world of sport Rapporteur: Ms Edite Estrela (Portugal, SOC) [Doc.

15611; amendments] Consideration of possible amendments to the draft resolution.

Deadline for tabling amendments: Wednesday 12 October, 4pm Debate in the Assembly will take place on Thursday 13 October, afternoon 11.
Finding solutions for marital captivity Rapporteur: Ms Margreet De Boer (Netherlands, SOC) [AS/Ega (2022) 44] Consideration of a draft report and adoption of a draft resolution.

12.

Work programme [AS/Ega/Inf (2022) 01 rev 6; AS/Ega/Inf (2022) 24] i.

Consideration of the work programme ii.

Motion for a resolution on Institutional racism of law enforcement authorities against Roma and Travellers [Doc.

15561; letters; Opinion of the Czech Ministry of Interior] 3 AS/Ega (2022) OJ 07 rev 2 iii.
Appointment of rapporteurs for report2: - Preventing and combating violence and discrimination against LBQ women in Europe, motion for - a resolution tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination [Doc.

15559]; Institutional racism of law enforcement authorities against Roma and Travellers, motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination [Doc.
15561]; - Women in the economy: employment, entrepreneurship and gender budgeting, motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination [Doc.

15562].

iv.

Consideration of a draft motion for a resolution with a view to adoption by the Committee for tabling on Protecting women human rights defenders in Europe [AS/Ega (2022) 45] 13.
Appointment of representatives (subject to the availability of funds) [GEC (2022) OJ 02] - - Invitation to participate in the 22nd Gender Equality Commission (GEC) meeting, to be held in Strasbourg on 16-18 November 2022; Invitation to Ms Zita Gurmai (Hungary, SOC) to participate in the meeting of the Committee of the Parties to the Istanbul Convention in Strasbourg on December 2022 (date to be confirmed).
14. International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 2022 and 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence (25 November to 10 December) - Standing Committee in Reykjavik (25 November 2022); - Activities of the Committee and Network.

15.

Free debate 16.

Other business 17.
Next meetings - Paris, 1 December 2022 (Council of Europe office); - Strasbourg, during the first part-session 2023 of the Assembly (23-27 January); - Paris, 21 March 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed); - Strasbourg, during the second part-session 2023 of the Assembly (24-28 April); - Paris, 16 May 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed); - Strasbourg, during the third part-session 2023 of the Assembly (19-23 June); - Paris, 15 September 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed); - Strasbourg, during the fourth part-session 2023 of the Assembly (9-13 October); - Paris, 7 December 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed).
2 Subject to ratification by the Assembly on 10 October 2022.

4 AS/Ega/Network (2022) OJ 03 5 October 2022 Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence Draft agenda of the meeting to be held in Strasbourg, Palais de l’Europe (room 3), on Tuesday 11 October 2022, from 2 to 3.30pm (CEST) 1.

Agenda [AS/Ega/Network (2022) OJ 03] Adoption of the draft agenda.

2.
2.

Minutes [AS/Ega/Network (2022) PV 02] Consideration of the draft minutes of the meeting held jointly with the Committee on Equality and Non- Discrimination on 22 June 2022 in Strasbourg.

3.
3.

Preventing and combating violence against women with disabilities - Ms Reem Alsalem, United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (pre-recorded video); - Ms Helen Portal, Advocacy and Policy Officer, Inclusion Europe; - Ms Elisa Rojas, lawyer, Paris (online); - Ms Claire Desaint, Vice-President, “Women to speak, women to act” Association [Des femmes pour le dire des femmes pour agir].

4.
Next meeting This draft agenda, addressed to members of the Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence is the convocation to the meeting Copy to secretaries of delegations and political groups Meeting documents are published on PACE extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) when they become available: http://assembly.coe.int/extranet F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 20 00 | Fax: +33 3 90 21 56 52 AS/Ega/Platform (2022) OJ 02 rev 07 October 2022 Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Parliamentary Platform for the rights of LGBTI people in Europe Draft agenda of the meeting to be held in Strasbourg on Thursday, 13 October, from 9am to 10am (room 3) 1.
Agenda [AS/Ega/Platform (2022) OJ 02 rev] Adoption of the draft agenda.

2.

Minutes [AS/Ega/Platform (2022) PV 01] Approval of the minutes of the launch event held in Strasbourg on 20 June 2022.

3.

4.

Statement by the coordinator of the Platform, General Rapporteur for the rights of LGBTI people [Brochure] The threatened ban of EuroPride events in Belgrade: an attack on equality, democracy and human rights [open to the public] Exchange of views with Filip Lukić, Head of Communication, EuroPride 2022.
5.
Date and place of next meetings This draft agenda, addressed to full members of the Platform and their substitutes, is the convocation to the meeting Copy to secretaries of delegations and political groups Meeting documents are published on PACE extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) when they become available: http://assembly.coe.int/extranet Meeting documents are published on the Parliamentary Assembly extranet website (restricted area for national delegations): http://assembly.coe.int/extranet.
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2733 BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 17 October 2022 To the Members of the Assembly Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on Friday 14 October 2022 The Bureau of the Assembly, meeting on Friday, 14 October 2022, in Strasbourg, with Mr Tiny Kox, President of the Parliamentary Assembly, in the Chair, as regards: • • − − • • • • Communication: took note of the statement by the President of the Assembly; Fourth part-session of 2022 (Strasbourg, 10-14 October): approved the follow-up proposals made by the Secretary General of the Assembly to texts adopted by the Assembly, as set out in Appendix 1; held an exchange of views on ways to improve organisational modalities of debates and part- sessions, and instructed its Secretary General to elaborate proposals with a view to their implementation as from the 2023 January part-session; Election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Denmark: took note of the report drawn up by the Committee on the Election of Judges concerning the list of candidates, including its recommendation to reject the list, subject to ratification by the Assembly in the progress report (Doc.
15626 Addendum 2) ; Standing Committee (Reykjavik, 25 November 2022): took note of the programme and of the draft agenda; References and transmissions to committees: approved the references and transmissions as set out in Appendix 2, subject to the ratification by the Assembly; Petition: took note of the petition received by the President and decided to consult the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights on its admissibility; • Issues raised by committees: i. ii.
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee): considered a letter by the Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee, decided to extend the on-going periodic reports on France, the Netherlands and San Marino by six months, and referred the general issue of the duration of the terms of reference of periodic review reports to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs; Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs: considered a letter by the Chairperson of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and decided to seize the Committee to prepare a report allowing for the modification of various provisions of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure; F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 iii.
Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy: authorised − Mr Piero Fassino (Italy, SOC), rapporteur on “Recent developments in Libya and in the Middle East: what consequences for Europe?” to carry out a fact-finding visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, in the framework of the preparation of his report; − Ms Theodora Bakoyannis (Greece, EPP/CD), rapporteur on “the situation in Kosovo”, to carry out a fact-finding visit to Kosovo*, in the framework of the preparation of her report; Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee (14 October 2022 – 23 January 2023): appointed Mr George KATROUGALOS (Greece, UEL) as rapporteur; Meetings elsewhere than Strasbourg or Paris: authorised the Sub-Committee on External Relations of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, to hold a meeting in New-York, United States, from 28 to 30 November 2022; 17th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport (Antalya, 26 October 2022): approved the final list of members of the ad hoc committee (Appendix 3); 2022 World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November): took note of the list of members of the ad hoc committee (Appendix 4); • • • • • Dates and places of next meetings: Thursday 24 November 2022, 3 pm, Reykjavik Friday 9 December 2022, 9.30 am, Paris Monday 23 January 2023, 8 am (part-session) Friday 27 January 2023, 8.30 am (part-session).
Isild Heurtin Copy to: Secretary General of the Assembly Directors and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 * Throughout this text, all reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
2 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 Appendix 1 – Follow-up to the 2022 fourth part-session (Strasbourg, 10-14 October) Urgent procedure debate on "Recent outrageous and inhuman activities of the Russian Federation"  Decided to seize the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report on Political consequences of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine Current affairs debate on "Military hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including strikes against settlements and civilian infrastructures"  Decided to seize the Monitoring Committee on this issue to be taken into account in the preparation of its reports on The Honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan and on The Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia Current affairs debate on "Threatened bans of Pride events in Council of Europe member States"  Decided to seize the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for report on Freedom of expression and assembly of LGBTI people in Europe 3 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 Appendix 2 – References and transmissions to committees A. References and transmissions to committees − − − − − − − − Doc.
15556 Motion for a resolution, Ensuring parliamentary involvement and a rights-based approach in the WHO negotiations of a Pandemic Treaty and for a resolution, Attempts to change the International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization might violate human rights: reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development to take into account in the preparation of the report on “Public health emergency: the need for a holistic approach to multilateralism and health care” Doc.
15582 Motion Doc.

15563 Motion for a resolution, Persecution against political opponents as a new basis of discrimination: transmission to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for information Doc.

15564 Motion for a resolution, Countering the erasure of cultural identity in war and peace: reference to the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for report Doc.
15635 Interconnections between the Council of Europe and the European Political Community: transmission to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report Bureau decision, Modification of various provisions of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure: transmission to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for report Bureau decision, Political consequences of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine: transmission to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report Bureau decision, Military hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including strikes against settlements and civilian infrastructures: transmission to the Monitoring Committee to be taken into account in the preparation of its reports on The Honouring of obligations and commitments by Azerbaijan and on The Honouring of obligations and commitments by Armenia Bureau decision, Freedom of expression and assembly of LGBTI people in Europe: transmission to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for report B.
Request for an extension of reference The Bureau considered and approved the request to extend references: − − − Bureau decision, The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by France (Reference 4568 of 19 March 2021): extension until 19 September 2023 Bureau decision, The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by the Netherlands (Reference 4569 of 19 March 2021): extension until 19 September 2023 Bureau decision, The honouring of membership obligations to the Council of Europe by San Marino (Reference 4570 of 19 March 2021): extension until 19 September 2023 4 Appendix 3 – list of members 17th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport (Antalya, 26 October 2022) AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 Chairperson / Présidente : Ms / Mme Edite ESTRELA (Portugal, SOC) Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media / Commission de la culture, de la science, de l’éducation et des médias Ms / Mme Linda Hofstad HELLELAND (Norway, EPP/CD / Norvège, PPE/DC) Ms / Mme Nina KASIMATI (Greece, UEL / Grèce, GUE) Ms / Mme Fiona O’LOUGHLIN (Ireland, ALDE / Irlande, ADLE) Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development / Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et du développement durable Ms / Mme Sevinj FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan, EC/DA / Azerbaïdjan, CE/AD) Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination / Commission sur l’égalité et sur la non- discrimination Ms / Mme Edite ESTRELA (Portugal, SOC) Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons / Commission des migrations, des réfugiés et des personnes déplacées Ms / Mme Nigar ARPADARAI (Azerbaijan, EC/DA / Azerbaïdjan, CE/AD) 5 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 Appendix 4 – list of members 2022 World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November) Chairperson / Président Mr Tiny KOX – President of the Parliamentary Assembly / Président de l’Assemblée parlementaire Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy / Commission des questions politiques et de la démocratie Lord Andrew ADONIS (United Kingdom, SOC / Royaume-Uni,
 SOC) Ms / Mme Sabrina DE CARLO (Italy, SOC / Italie, SOC) Mr / M. Mehmet Mehdi EKER (Türkiye, NR / Türkiye, NI) Mr / M. George KATROUGALOS (Greece, UEL / Grèce, GUE) Ms / Mme María Valentina MARTINEZ FERRO (Spain, EPP/CD / Espagne PPE/DC) Ms / Mme Isabel MEIRELLES (Portugal, EPP/CD / Portugal, PPE/DC), Mr / M. George PAPANDREOU (Greece, SOC / Grèce, SOC) Ms / Mme Catia POLIDORI (Italy, EPP/CD / Italie, PPE/DC), Mr / M. Alberto RIBOLLA (Italy, EC/DA / Italie CE/AD), Mr / M. Samad SEYIDOV (Azerbaijan, EC/DA / Azerbaïdjan, CE/AD), Mr / M. Krzysztof TRUSKOLASKI (Poland, EPP/CD / Pologne, PPE/DC) Mr / M. Vladimir VARDANYAN (Armenia, EPP/CD / Arménie, PPE/DC), Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights / Commission des questions juridiques et des droits de l’homme Mr / M. Ziya ALTUNYALDIZ (Türkiye, NR / Türkiye, NI) Mr / M. Damien COTTIER (Switzerland, ALDE / Suisse, ADLE) Ms / Mme Maria RIZZOTTI (Italy, EPP/CD / Italie, PPE/DC) Mr / M. Davor Ivo STIER (Croatia, EPP/CD / Croatie, PPE/DC) Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) / Commission pour le respect des obligations et engagements des Etats membres du Conseil de l’Europe (Commission de suivi) Ms / Mme Laura CASTEL (Spain, UEL / Espagne, GUE) Mr / M. Asim MOLLAZADA (Azerbaijan, EC/DA / Azerbaïdjan, CE/AD) Ms / Mme Fiona O’LOUGHLIN (Irland, ALDE / Irlande, ADLE) Mr / M. Manuel VESCOVI (Italy, EC/DA / Italie, CE/AD) Ms / Mme Yelyzaveta YASKO (Ukraine, EPP/CD / Ukraine, PPE/DC) Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development / Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et du développement durable Mr / M. Armen GEVORGYAN (Armenia, EPP/CD / Arménie, PPE/DC) Ms / Mme Emin Nur GÜNAY (Türkiye, NR / Türkiye, NI) Ms / Mme Selin SAYEK BÖKE (Türkiye, SOC / Türkiye, SOC) 6 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 14 Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media / Commission de la culture, de la science, de l’éducation et des médias Mr / M.
 Roland Rino BÜCHEL (Switzerland, ALDE / Suisse ADLE) Mr / M. Constantinos EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus, SOC / Chypre, SOC) Mr / M. Paolo GRIMOLDI (Italy, EC/DA / Italie, CE/AD) Ms / Mme Linda Hofstad HELLELAND (Norway, EPP/CD / Norvège, PPE/DC) Mr / M. Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan, ALDE / Azerbaïdjan, ADLE) Ms / Mme Nina KASIMATI (Greece, UEL / Grèce, GUE) Mr / M. Roberto RAMPI (Italy, SOC / Italie, SOC) Mr / M. Stefan SCHENNACH (Austria, SOC / Autriche, SOC) Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination / Commission sur l’égalité et sur la non- discrimination Mr / M. Jean-Pierre GRIN (Switzerland, ALDE / Suisse, ADLE) Mr / M. Zita GURMAI (Hungary, SOC / Hongrie, SOC) Mr / M. Momodou Malcom JALLOW (Sweden, UEL / Suède, GUE) Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons / Commission des migrations, des réfugiés et des personnes déplacées Mr / M. Pierre-Alain FRIDEZ (Switzerland, SOC / Suisse, SOC) Mr / M. Oleksii GONCHARENKO (Ukraine, EC/DA / Ukraine, CE/AD) Mr / M. Theodoros ROUSOPOULOS (Greece, EPP/CD / Grèce, PPE/DC) Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs / Commission du Règlement, des immunités et des affaires institutionnelles Ms / Mme Ingjerd SCHOU (Norway, EPP/CD / / Norvège, PPE/DC) European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance / Groupe des Conservateurs européens et Alliance démocratique Mr / M. Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom, EC/DA / Royaume-Uni, CE/AD) 7 AS/Soc (2022) CB 07 14 October 2022 To the members of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Synopsis of the meetings held in Strasbourg on 10-13 October 2022 The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, meeting in Strasbourg, on Tuesday, 11 October 2022, with Ms Olena Khomenko (Ukraine, EC/DA) second Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair, as regards: − Addressing the issue of Daesh foreign fighters and their families returning from Syria and other countries to the member States of the Council of Europe (Rapporteur for
 opinion: Mr Stefan Schennach, Austria, SOC): considered and unanimously approved a draft opinion, including 5 amendments to the draft resolution, and 1 amendment to the draft recommendation; − − − Child abuse in Europe: addressing, compensation and prevention (Rapporteur: Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez, Switzerland, SOC): considered an introductory memorandum, authorised a fact-finding visit to a member State to be determined and held an exchange of views with the participation of Mr Guido Fluri from the NGO “Justice Initiative” and two child abuse survivors; Safeguarding democracy, rights and the environment in international trade (Rapporteur: Mr Geraint Davies, United Kingdom, SOC): considered a revised introductory memorandum; Environmental impact of armed conflicts (Rapporteur: Mr John Howell, United Kingdom, EC/DA): considered a preliminary draft report; − Committee’s work programme and priorities: − appointed Committee representatives to external events as follows: ✓ World forum for democracy, 7-9 November, Strasbourg: in addition to earlier appointed members (Ms Selin Sayek Böke (Türkiye, SOC), Ms Emine Nur Günay (Türkiye, NR), and Mr Armen Gevorgyan (Armenia, EC/DA)) proposed Ms Yuliia Ovchynnykova (Ukraine, ALDE) for appointment as member of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau to participate in the Forum; • Thursday, 13 October 2022, with Ms Selin Sayek Böke (Türkiye, SOC), Chairperson, and Mr Alain Milon (France, EPP/CD) First Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair, as regards: − Sports governance and social rights: the protection of workers’ rights in Qatar: held a joint hearing with the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, and with the participation of Mr Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Alasdair Bell, Deputy Secretary General of FIFA, Ms Lise Klaveness, President of the Norwegian Football Federation, Mr Mahmoud Qutub, Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary General and Executive Director, Workers’ Welfare & Labour
 Rights, Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy (Qatar), Mr Dietmar Schäfers, Deputy President of Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI), and Mr Max Tunon, Head of the ILO Office in Doha (Qatar); − The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights (Rapporteur: Ms Selin Sayek Böke, Türkiye, SOC): took position on the 3 amendments tabled to the draft resolution; F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Soc (2022) CB 07 − Committee’s work programme and priorities: − appointed Baroness Doreen E. Massey (SOC, United Kingdom) as General Rapporteur on child participation; − appointed Committee representatives to external events as follows (subject to the availability of funds): ✓ 2nd meeting of the Committee of the Parties (CoP) to the Council of Europe Convention against the Trafficking in Human Organs, 27 October, Strasbourg & online: Mr Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC) and (at no cost to the Assembly) Mr Jean-Pierre Grin (Switzerland, ALDE) ✓ Meeting of the Committee of Ministers’ Working Party on Improving the European Social Charter System (GT-CHARTE), 22 November, Strasbourg: Ms Selin Sayek Böke (Türkiye, SOC) − heard back from the Committee representatives to external events as follows: ✓ Meeting of the Committee of Ministers’ Ad hoc working party on improving the European Social Charter System (GT-CHARTE), 4 October, Strasbourg and online: Ms Selin Sayek Böke (Türkiye, SOC) − − took note of the Committee of Ministers’ reply to the Assembly’s Recommendation 2218 (2022) on “The right to be heard – child participation: a foundation for democratic societies”; issued a call for rapporteurs for report (to be appointed at a subsequent meeting) and noted the candidatures as follows: ✓ “Long Covid” and access to the right to health – Ms Romilda Baldacchino Zarb (Malta, SOC) ✓ Child protection in competitive sports – Ms Sevinj Fataliyeva (Azerbaijan, EC/DA) ✓ Addressing the social and economic effects of sanctions – Ms Sibel
 Arslan, (Switzerland, SOC) ✓ Analysis and guidelines to guarantee the right to housing and to decent housing – Ms Selin Sayek Böke (Türkiye, SOC) ✓ Ensuring a healthy, sustainable and secure food supply – Mr Geraint Davies (United Kingdom, SOC), Ms Maria Jufereva-Skuratovski (Estonia, ALDE), Ms Lisa Marie Ness Klungland (Norway, ALDE) and Mr Simon Moutquin (Belgium, SOC) − Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize: heard a statement from Ms Carmen Leyte (Spain, EPP/CD), Sub- Committee Chairperson, on the meeting held in İzmir (Türkiye) on 24 September; − Sub-Committee on Public Health and Sustainable Development: heard a statement by Ms Selin Sayek Böke (Türkiye, SOC), Committee Chairperson, on the meeting held in Strasbourg on 10 October; − Network of Contact Parliamentarians for a healthy environment: heard a statement from Mr Rik Daems (Belgium, ALDE), Network Chairperson, on the meetings held in İzmir (Türkiye) on 23 September and in Strasbourg on 12 October; − Date and place of next meetings: Plenary committee - Friday, 2 December 2022 (10 am – 4 pm), Paris (Council of Europe Office) - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg - Thursday, 16 March 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) - Second part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 24-28 April 2023, Strasbourg - Monday, 22 May 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) - Third part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 19-23 June 2023, Strasbourg - Tuesday, 19 September 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) - Fourth part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 9-13 October 2023, Strasbourg - Wednesday, 6 December 2023, Paris (Council of Europe Office) (to be confirmed) Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter - Friday, 2 December 2022 (9 - 10 am), Paris (Council of Europe Office) - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize - First part of the 2023 session of
 the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg - Second part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 24-28 April 2023, Strasbourg 2 AS/Soc (2022) CB 07 - Third part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 19-23 June 2023, Strasbourg Sub-Committee on Children - First part of the 2023 session of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg **** The Sub-Committee on Public Health and Sustainable Development, meeting on Monday, 10 October 2022, with Ms Olena Khomenko (Ukraine, EC/DA), second Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, in the Chair: − elected Ms Nigar Arpadarai (Azerbaijan, EC/DA) Chairperson, and Mr Geraint Davies (United Kingdom, SOC) Vice-Chairperson; − Breast cancer awareness-raising event as part of the Pink October events: held a public hearing with: ✓ Mr K. M. Gopakumar, Legal Advisor and Senior Researcher, Third World Network (TWN) ✓ Ms Nathalie Clastres, National Anticancer League (la Ligue nationale contre le cancer), France − Date and place of the next meeting: - first part-session 2023 of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg **** The Network of Contact Parliamentarians for a healthy environment, meeting on Wednesday, 12 October 2022, with Mr Rik Daems (Belgium, ALDE), Network Chairperson, in the Chair, as regards: − held an exchange of views on the Network’s work programme and priorities; − Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and the Council of Europe Landscape Convention: held an exchange of views with Mr Gianluca Silvestrini, Head a.i.
of the Department for Culture, Nature and Heritage; − EUR-OPA Major Hazards Agreement: held an exchange of views with Mr Krzysztof Zyman, Executive Secretary of the partial agreement; − − held an exchange of views on the plans for a Network meeting in Morocco in 2023 and the contribution of members to the preparation of the 4th Summit of the Council of Europe; agreed that until the formal designation of member(s) of the Network by the national delegations, the head of each delegation will be an an interim member of the Network; − Date and place of the next meetings: - Friday, 2 December 2022 (4 – 5:30 pm), Paris (Council of Europe Office) - First part-session 2023 of the Assembly, 23-27 January 2023, Strasbourg - 17-18 March 2023, Marrakech & Benguerir, Morocco (date and place to be confirmed; subject to the authorisation of the Bureau) Aiste Ramanauskaite, Yulia Pererva, Anita Gholami, Guillaume Parent _____________ cc: Secretary General of the Assembly Director and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 3 SECRETARIAT AS/Cult (2022) CB 06 17 October 2022 To the members of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 11 and 13 October 2022 The Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media, meeting in Strasbourg on Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm, Thursday 13 October 2022 from 8.30 am to 10 am and Thursday 13 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm, with Lord Alexander Dundee (United Kingdom, EC/DA) in the chair, Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm, as regards: - - - - - Track and trace
 applications: ethical, cultural and educational challenges (Rapporteur: Mr Duncan Baker, United Kingdom, EC/DA): approved the rapporteur’s request to change the title in English to Contract tracing applications: ethical, cultural and educational challenges, took note of the explanatory memorandum and unanimously adopted a draft resolution, thereby approving the report; Building the Open Council of Europe Academic Networks (OCEAN) (Rapporteur: Ms Marta Grande, Italy, NR): considered a preliminary draft report and held an exchange of views with the participation of Professor Michele Nicoletti, European Academic Coordinator of the Open Council of Europe Academic Networks and former President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; Countering SLAPPs: an imperative for a democratic society (Rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach, Austria, SOC): considered an introductory memorandum and took note of the rapporteur’s proposals therein, on which it agreed; Museum Prize of the Council of Europe: reappointed Mr Roberto Rampi (Italy, SOC) as the representative of the committee for the Museum Prize 2023, and heard his declaration of absence of conflict of interests; World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November 2022): proposed as additional members of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly: Mr Roland Rino Büchel (Switzerland, ALDE), Ms Nina Kasimati (Greece, UEL) and Mr Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC); - Composition of the sub-committees: approved the following changes: Sub-committee on Media and Information Society: • Mr Alberto Ribolla (Italy, EC/DA) becomes an alternate of Mr Francesco BERTI; Sub-committee on Education, Youth and Sport: • • Mr Chris Bonnet (Malta, SOC) becomes a full member; Ms Linda Hofstad Helleland (Norway, EPP/CD) becomes a full member; F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Cult (2022) CB 06 Thursday 13 October 2022 from 8.30 am to 10 am, as regards: - Sports governance and social rights:
 the protection of workers’ rights in Qatar: held a joint hearing with the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development with the participation of: Mr Bjørn Berge, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe; Mr Alasdair Bell, Deputy Secretary General, FIFA; Ms Lise Klaveness, President of the Norwegian Football Federation; Mr Mahmoud Qutub, Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary General and Executive Director, Workers’ Welfare & Labour Rights, Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy, Qatar; Mr Dietmar Schäfers, Deputy President of Building and Wood Workers' International (BWI); Mr Max Tunon, Head of the ILO Office in Doha; Thursday 13 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm, as regards: - - - - - - Other business: took note of a request from Ms Fiona O’Loughlin (Ireland, ALDE), newly appointed Chairperson of the Sub-committee on Education Youth and Sport, to attend the 17th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport on 26 October 2022 in Antalya, Türkiye, and agreed to ask the Bureau to designate her as a member of the Ad-hoc Committee which will participate in the Conference; The Cultural Routes: a platform for intercultural dialogue (Rapporteur: Mr Andries Gryffroy, Belgium, NR): considered a preliminary draft report; Reports on recent meetings: heard from Mr Constantinos Efstathiou (Cyprus, SOC) on the meeting of the 11th Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe Annual Advisory Forum, on the theme “Safeguarding European Values, Heritage, and Dialogue” which took place in Chania, Greece on 5-7 October 2022; Guaranteeing media freedom and the safety of journalists: an obligation of member States (Rapporteur: Mr Mogens Jensen, Denmark, SOC): considered an introductory memorandum and took note of the rapporteur’s proposals therein, on which it agreed; World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 7-9 November 2022): proposed as an additional member of the ad hoc Committee of the Bureau of the Assembly, Mr Paolo Grimoldi (Italy
 EC/DA); Working methods of the Parliamentary Assembly: took note of the letter from Ms Dalloz, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules of procedures, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, and considered and approved the proposals for possible improvements of the Assembly’s procedures and practices (Appendix 1), which the Committee Chairperson will transmit to Ms Dalloz; - Committee work programme References to the committee and appointment of rapporteurs: - - - - postponed until the next meeting the appointment of a rapporteur on “Propaganda and freedom of speech in Europe” (Doc.
15594); appointed Mr Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC) rapporteur for an opinion on “Threats to life and safety of journalists and human rights defenders in Azerbaijan” (Doc.

15521); took note of the motion “Providing a comprehensive response to the SLAPPs issue” (Doc.

15482), which will be taken into account in the framework of the report “Countering SLAPPs: an imperative for a democratic society”; took note of the motion on “Public regulation of the freedom of expression in digital platforms” (Doc.
15555) tabled by Mr George Katrougalos and other members of the Assembly, referred to the Committee for consultation, and entrusted the Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society to examine it and advise the committee on the follow-up to be given; 2 AS/Cult (2022) CB 06 Appointment of representatives for forthcoming events: took note that the Chairperson had appointed, subject to the availability of funds, Mr Stefan Schennach, rapporteur on “Countering SLAPPs: An Imperative for a Democratic Society” to participate in the first European Anti-SLAPP Conference on 20 October 2022, in Strasbourg, and was informed that he could no longer take part in the conference; • appointed, at no costs for the Assembly: Mr Stefan Schennach, former rapporteur on “Ethics in science and technology: a new culture of public dialogue” to participate in the meeting of the Steering Committee on Bioethics on “Dialogue amongst the public, practitioners and policy makers to ensure that patient and public interests is a key priority in the developments and regulation of genomic medicine”, to be held online on 10 November 2022; Draft motions for a resolution and a recommendation: took note of and expressed support for a motion for a resolution on “Risks and opportunities of the Metaverse” drafted by Mr Olivier Français (Switzerland, ALDE); Sub-committees: was informed by Ms Foteini Pipili (Greece, EPP/CD) of the official invitation from the Greek Delegation to hold a meeting of the Sub-committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage on the theme of “cultural heritage and water” in Olympia, Greece on 21-22 February 2023, and accepted this invitation subject to authorisation by the Bureau; - - - Replies from the Committee of Ministers: • • took note of the reply from the Committee of Ministers (Doc.
15589) to Recommendation 2217 (2021) The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on education and culture AS/Cult (2021) 19 and asked the rapporteur, Mr Constantinos Efstathiou (Cyprus, SOC), and the Sub-committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage to prepare an analysis with, if necessary, proposals for follow- up, and to report back to the committee; took note of the reply from the Committee of Ministers (Doc.15596) to Recommendation 2221 (2022) on “Football governance: business and values” AS/Cult (2021) 26 and asked the rapporteur, Lord George Foulkes (United Kingdom, SOC) and the Sub-Committee on Education, Youth and Sport to prepare an analysis with, if necessary, proposals for follow-up, and to report back to the committee; Communications from the Chairperson of the committee: took note of three letters from Mr. Ruben Rubinyan, Chairperson of the Armenian Delegation; Next meetings: took note that the next meeting of the committee will be on: 5-6 December, Paris took note that the next meeting of the Sub-committee on Media and Information Society will be on 21- 22 November, in Vilnius (Lithuania).
- - *** The Sub-Committee on Education, Youth and Sport (of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media), meeting in Strasbourg on Wednesday 12 October 2022 from 2 pm to 3.30 pm, with Lord George Foulkes (United Kingdom, SOC), the oldest member present, then Ms Fiona O’Loughlin (Ireland, ALDE) in the Chair, as regards: - Election of the Bureau of the Sub-Committee: elected by acclamation: • • Ms Fiona O’Loughlin (Ireland, ALDE), Chairperson, Ms Nicole Duranton (France, ALDE), Vice-Chairperson; 3 AS/Cult (2022) CB 06 - Follow-up of the Replies from the Committee of Ministers: considered the analysis of the reply from the Committee of Ministers (Doc.
15116) to the Recommendation 2178 (2020) “Time to act: Europe’s political response to fighting the manipulation of sports competitions” and decided to submit proposals of follow-up to the committee; - Emerging issues and priorities in the domains of Education, Youth and Sport: held an exchange of views with the participation of: • • • Ms Francine Raveney, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS), Directorate of Anti-discrimination, DG II: Directorate General of Democracy and Human Dignity, Council of Europe; Ms Ruxandra Pandea, co-ordinator of the youth campaign Democracy Here | Democracy Now of the Council of Europe; Mr Villano Qiriazi, Head of the Education Department, Directorate of Democratic Participation, DG II: Directorate General of Democracy and Human Dignity, Council of Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- cc: Secretary General of the Assembly Roberto Fasino, Dana Karanjac, Silvia Arzilli, Marc Gruber Directors and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 4 AS/Cult (2022) CB 06 Appendix 1: Proposals by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media on the Assembly’s procedures and working methods 1.
Proposals concerning the organisation of part-sessions and the running of plenary sittings 1.1.

The deadline for tabling amendments established by Rule 34.6 should be harmonised with the one stipulated for hybrid or online meetings by Rule 67.4.d, which provides that “amendments shall be tabled at least two working days before the opening of the sitting concerned”.

1.2.
1.2.

Concerning the discussion of amendments in plenary sitting, the provision according to which “if a committee has not been able to adopt a position on amendments to its report that have been tabled, the floor shall be given to the rapporteur” (Rule 67.4.d) should also be applied when sessions are held under ordinary conditions.

1.3.

The overall speaking time allocated to rapporteurs during sittings to present their report and to reply to speakers' statements should be not less than 12 minutes.
It should not be established that this time is split in 7 minutes for the presentation and 5 minutes for the replies; the committee considers that the rapporteurs must be free to allocate the time which they have been given for their presentation and replies as they deem appropriate, as long as they do not exceed it.

1.4.
1.4.

The arrangement to close online registration 24 hours before the beginning of each sitting should be maintained, to allow notification of late changes while ensuring that lists of speakers and voters can be properly managed.

However, a deadline of three days before the opening of a part-session must be maintained for sittings on Tuesday mornings and Wednesday mornings where electronic voting is to be used for elections.

2.
2.

Proposals concerning the functioning of committees and the running of their meetings 2.1.

The possibility to take certain decisions by written consultation of the members via e-mail should be preserved.

This could apply for example to procedural steps such as authorising the rapporteur to organise hearings or exchanges of views, or to be assisted by an expert for the drafting of a report.
The Committee suggests, however, that decisions adopted by written consultation should in principle be consensual and that, if objections are raised, only in the case of real urgency, a majority decision could be adopted by written consultation.

2.2.
2.2.

Concerning the modalities of examination of draft reports and, in particular, as regards the presentation and consideration of amendments to preliminary draft texts which are submitted to the committee for adoption, as a general rule, these should be communicated in writing to the rapporteur, through the Secretariat, with short explanations (e.g.
as provided by Rule 34.3) not less than 24 hours before the opening of the committee sitting when the preliminary draft texts should be discussed and adopted.

This should not hamper, however, the possibility for the committee to consider simpler proposals which aim at improving the clarity of the text or proposals which the rapporteur might wish to introduce or to endorse.

2.3.
2.3.

The voting procedure for the adoption of individual paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of a draft text should be systematically simplified, and individual paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of a draft text should be considered agreed on by consensus if no one asks for the floor when they are called one by one by the chairperson.

Explicit votes should take place only if there are amendments or objections, and on the text as a whole.

2.4.
Concerning the modalities of examination of amendments to a text adopted by the committee and submitted to the Assembly (draft resolutions / draft recommendations), the committee should be entitled to express its position on amendments that have been tabled also proceeding as follows: • grouping amendments supported by the rapporteur and consider that the position “in favour” is expressed by consensus, if no objections are raised; • grouping amendments which the rapporteur does not support if they are interconnected, so that a coherent position (in favour or against) could be taken by a single vote on all of them considered together; consider that an amendment is withdrawn and falls down if no initiator or committee member takes the floor to introduce or support it when the committee is called to take position on it.
• 5 SECRETARIAT AS/Jur (2022) CB 08 17 October 2022 To the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 11, 12 and 13 October 2022 The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, meeting in Strasbourg on 11, 12, 13 October 2022    on Tuesday 11 October 2022 at 2pm, with Mr Damien Cottier (Switzerland, ALDE) in the Chair, as regards: Misuse of the Schengen system by Council of Europe member States as a politically- motivated sanction (Rapporteur: Mr Ziya Altunyaldiz, Türkiye, NR): took position on one amendment to the draft resolution and decided to present two oral amendments; The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – 11th report (Rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou, Cyprus, SOC): heard a statement by the Rapporteur and authorised two fact-finding visits, one to Romania and one to Azerbaijan, subject to the availability of funds;  Appointment of Rapporteurs: i) ii) iii) The right to freedom of information: ensuring access to historical documents (Doc.
15523): appointed Ms Klotilda Bushka (Albania, SOC) and heard from her a declaration of no conflict of interest; Threats to life and safety of journalists and human rights defenders in Azerbaijan (Doc.
15521); appointed Ms Hannah Bardell (UK, NR) in absentia and noted her declaration of no conflict of interest would be heard at a future meeting; UK reform of its human rights legislation: consequences for domestic and European Human Rights protection (Bureau decision): appointed Mr Kamal Jafarov (Azerbaijan, EC/DA) and heard from him a declaration of no conflict of interest;  Call for expression of interest for a Rapporteur for opinion: i) Safeguarding future rights for future generations Doc.
15513 Rapporteur for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development: Mr Geraint Davies (United Kingdom, SOC): made a call for a Rapporteur for opinion and noted the interest of Ms Margreet de Boer (Netherlands, SOC); F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2702        on Wednesday 12 October 2022 at 2pm, with first, Mr Davor Ivo Stier (Croatia, EPP/CD), in the Chair and then Mr Damien Cottier (Switzerland, ALDE), as regards: Legal and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine (Rapporteur: Mr Damien Cottier, Switzerland, ALDE: held a hearing with the participation of: Mr Jonathan Agar, Special Assistant to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court Ms Tamar Tomashvili, Associate Professor of Law, Free University of Tbilisi, Georgia; European Convention on Human Rights and national constitutions (Rapporteur: Mr George Katrougalos, Greece, UEL): held an exchange of views with Professor Joseph Weiler, University Professor, New York University School of Law, USA; on Thursday 13 October 2022 at 8.30am, as regards: The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on prison population in Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Givi Mikanadze, Georgia, SOC): considered a draft report and unanimously adopted a draft resolution and a draft recommendation; General Rapporteur for the protection of whistleblowers: following the end of the mandate of the current General Rapporteur (Mr Pieter Omtzigt (Netherlands, EPP/CD)) agreed to cease having a General Rapporteur for the protection of whistleblowers, and to revise the mandate of the General Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, to include the protection of whistleblowers; Procedures: Lessons learned from operating in hybrid format: held an exchange of views on the letter from the Chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and noted the points to be transmitted to that committee;  Other business: Annual ticket 2023: accepted the invitation from the Cypriot delegation to hold the  Committee’s annual ticket meeting in Cyprus, next year, at a date to be determined;  World Forum for Democracy: proposed the addition of the following members to the ad hoc committee of the Bureau attending the World Forum on Democracy on 7-9 November 2022 in Strasbourg: Mr Vladimir Vardanyan, Armenia, EPP/CD Ms Maria Rizzotti, Italy, EPP/CD;  Sub-committee on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: agreed to the nomination of Ms Isabel Alves Moreira (Portugal, SOC) as titular member to this sub-committee.
Agreed to add Ms Margreet de Boer (Netherlands, SOC) to the waiting list for the next available seat; on Thursday 13 October 2022 at 2pm, as regards: Preventing vaccine discrimination Rapporteur: Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir, Iceland, SOC : took position on 20 amendments to the draft resolution and decided to table one sub- amendment and to present one oral amendment;    Appointment of a Rapporteur: i) Arbitrary arrest of Russian human rights defender and freedom fighter Vladimir Kara-Murza (Doc.
15514) ii) Systematic large-scale persecution against anti-war protesters in the Russian Federation (Doc.
15578) 2 Agreed to merge the above-mentioned references into a single report entitled: “The arbitrary detention of Vladimir Kara-Murza and the systematic persecution of anti-war protesters in the Russian Federation”, appointed Ms Thorhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC) as Rapporteur and heard from her a declaration of no conflict of interest;  Allegations of systemic torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in places of detention in Council of Europe member States (Rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou, Cyprus, SOC): considered an introductory memorandum and agreed to a hearing with up to 3 experts at a future meeting, subject to the availability of funds; noted that some fact-finding for this report may be done during the Rapporteur’s fact-finding visit to Azerbaijan in the context of his other report on “The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – 11th report”;  Participation of members in conferences, meetings, seminars etc  Feedback from the Chair following the meeting for the ad hoc Committee on the 4th Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government, Sunday, 11 September 2022, in Paris: heard an oral report by Mr Damien Cottier (Switzerland, ALDE);  131st plenary session of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, 17-18 June 2022, Mr Constantinos Efstathiou, Cyprus, SOC: heard an oral report by Mr Efstathiou;  91st plenary meeting of GRECO, 13-17 June 2022: Mr Titus Corlăţean, Romania, SOC: took note of the written report provided by Mr Corlăţean;  Next meetings: noted the next meetings as follows: Plenary Committee - - 14 November 2022, Paris Office 12 December 2022, Paris Office ***** The Sub-Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights (of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights), open to all members of the plenary, meeting in Strasbourg at 3pm on Tuesday 11 October 2022 with Ms Thorhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC) in the Chair, as regards: - The use of bots in the context of war and the undermining of democratic discourse: held an exchange of views with Dr Rolf Fredheim, Principal Scientist, Nato Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, Riga, Latvia; - Next meeting: left it to the Chairperson to convene the next meeting.
Günter Schirmer, Guillem Cano-Palomares, Eleanor Hourigan Copy to: Secretary General of the Assembly Director and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 3 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 4 THE SECRETARIAT AS/Mig (2022) CB 08 REV 17 October 2022 To the members of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Synopsis of the meetings held in Strasbourg from 10 to 13 October 2022 The Sub-Committee on Diasporas and Integration, meeting in Strasbourg with Mr Paulo Pisco (Portugal, SOC), Chairperson, in the Chair: • on Monday 10 October 2022, from 14:00 to 14:30, as regards: – “Addressing the needs of the Ukrainian diaspora in Strasbourg/Alsace/Grand Est”: held an exchange of views with Ms Iryna Petrovska, Vice-President of PromoUkraina Association; – Next meeting: took note of its next meeting in Paris, on 7 December 2022; *** The Sub-Committee on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People, meeting in Strasbourg with Mr Ionuț-Marian Stroe (Romania, EPP/CD), Chairperson, in the Chair: • on Monday 10 October 2022, from 14:30 to 15:00, as regards: – Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2022 - 2027): held an exchange of views with Ms Katrin Uerpmann, Programme Officer, Secretary of the Steering Committee for the Rights of the Child (CDENF), Children’s Rights Division (DGII), Council of Europe, and Ms Maren Lambrecht, Programme Officer, Secretary of the Inter-secretariat Task Force for the Rights of the Child, Children’s Rights Division (DGII), Council of Europe; – Next meeting: took note of its next meeting to be held in Strasbourg during the January 2023 part- session; ***
 The Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, meeting in Strasbourg, with Mr Paul Gavan (Ireland, UEL), First Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair: • on Tuesday 11 October 2022, from 08:30 to 10:00, as regards: – The humanitarian crisis emerging for Afghanistan and Afghan refugees (Rapporteur: Mr Birgir Thórarinsson, Iceland, EPP/CD): considered a draft outline and held a hearing with Ms Rana Refahi, Afghanistan consultant, Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network; authorised the rapporteur to carry out a fact-finding visit to Türkiye in 2023 in the framework of the preparation of his report (subject to the availability of funds); following some explanation provided by the Rapporteur, confirmed that no change in the title was necessary contrary to what was initially proposed in footnote 1 of the draft outline; took F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | asmig@coe.int | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 AS/Mig (2022) CB 08 REV note of the Rapporteur informing of his plan to travel to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran by the end of 2022 in his private capacity, a mission which has no connection with the Council of Europe.
– Integration of migrants and refugees: benefits for all parties involved (Rapporteur: Mr Domagoj Hajduković, Croatia, SOC): considered an introductory memorandum and held an exchange of views with Ms Salomé Brun, Committee’s Communication unit (Médecins du monde), representing the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe, and Mr Samir Hećo, Project Officer, Education Department, Council of Europe; • on Wednesday 12 October 2022, from 14:00 to 15:30, as regards: – Safe third countries for asylum seekers (Rapporteur: Ms Stephanie Krisper, Austria, ALDE): took position on 6 amendments tabled to the draft Resolution and one amendment tabled to the draft Recommendation; – Pushbacks on land and sea: illegal measures of migration management (Rapporteur: Mr Pierre- Alain Fridez, Switzerland, SOC): took position on 15 amendments tabled to the draft Resolution and decided to table two oral amendments ; • on Thursday 13 October 2022 from 08:30 to 10:00, as regards: – European solidarity in the context of asylum and international protection (Rapporteur: Lord Alexander Dundee, United Kingdom, EC/DA): considered a draft outline and held an exchange of views with Mr Tomáš Boček, Vice-Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB); – Follow-up to the Resolution 2448 Humanitarian consequences and internal and external displacement in connection with the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine: held an exchange of views with Mr Tomáš Boček, Vice-Governor of the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB); – Work programme: • Appointment of a Rapporteur: − The theme of migration and asylum in the election campaign and the consequences on the welcoming and rights of migrants: appointed Mr Pierre-Alain Fridez (Switzerland, SOC) as Rapporteur, in replacement of Ms Yolaine de Courson (France, ALDE), no longer member of PACE and heard his declaration of absence of conflict of interest; • Call for candidates: called for candidates for rapporteurs for: − The situation of Ukrainian persons forcefully displaced or
 transferred to the Russian Federation or Ukrainian territories under the de facto control of the Russian Federation: took note of the candidature of Mr Paulo Pisco (Portugal, SOC); − Addressing the specific challenges faced by the Belarusians in exile: took note of the candidature of Mr Paul Galles (Luxembourg, EPP/CD); • The Assembly’s procedures and working methods during sessions and meetings held in physical presence of members: “lessons learned from operating in hybrid format”: heard observations concerning the procedures and practices followed in the Committee, to be notified to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs; – Composition of the Sub-Committees: approved the following changes: Sub-Committee on Migrant Smuggling and Trafficking in Human Beings: • Ms Sophie WILMES (Belgium, ALDE) to become an alternate member of Mr Fourat BEN CHIKA (Belgium, SOC); Sub-Committee on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People: 2 AS/Mig (2022) CB 08 REV • Ms Sophie WILMES (Belgium, ALDE) to become an alternate member of Mr Tom van GRIEKEN (Belgium, EC/DA); • Ms Iryna KONSTANKEVICH (Ukraine, EC/DA) to become a full member; – Next meeting: took note of its next meeting in Paris, on 7 December 2022; Tatiana Termacic, Angela Garabagiu, Marie Martin _____________ cc: Secretary General of the Assembly Director and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 3 SECRETARIAT AS/Ega (2022) CB 07 17 October 2022 To the members of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Synopsis of the meeting held in
 Strasbourg on 10-13 October 2022 The Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination, meeting in Strasbourg from 10 to 13 October 2022, with Ms Annika Engblom (Sweden, EPP/CD), Chairperson, in the Chair: • - - • - - - - Monday 10 October, from 2 to 3pm, as regards: Appointment of a representative: appointed Ms Yevheniia Kravchuk (Ukraine, ALDE) to participate in the first edition of the Women, Peace and Security Forum, in Pristina, Republic of Kosovo,* on 22-23 October 2022 (subject to the availability of funds); Sexual and reproductive health and rights (Rapporteur: Ms Petra Stienen, Netherlands, ALDE): held a hearing with the participation of: - Ms Alice Rawsthorn OBE, Design critic, author and co-founder of Design Emergency, London; - Ms Jimena Acosta, independent curator, editor at Toronja Edictiones, Mexico City (online); Tuesday, 11 October, from 8.30am to 10am, as regards: Raising awareness of and countering Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim racism, in Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Momodou Malcolm Jallow, Sweden, UEL): took position on an amendment to the draft resolution and asked its Chairperson to propose that the amendment unanimously approved be declared as adopted by the Assembly under Rule 34.11 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure; Work programme: took note of the work programme; Motion for a resolution: adopted a motion for a resolution on Protecting women human rights defenders in Europe for tabling in the name of the Committee; Appointment of representatives (subject to the availability of funds): - - appointed Ms Thórhildur Sunna Ævarsdóttir (Iceland, SOC) to participate in the 19th European Conference of Electoral Management Bodies, in Strasbourg on 14-15 November 2022; left it to the Chairperson to appoint a representative to participate in the 22nd Gender Equality Commission (GEC) meeting, in Strasbourg on 16-18 November 2022; * All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security
 Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
__________________________________________________________________________________________ This document is available on the Parliamentary Assembly Extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) http://assembly.coe.int/extranet F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly.coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 20 00 | Fax: +33 3 90 21 56 52 AS/Ega (2022) CB 07 - appointed Ms Zita Gurmai (Hungary, SOC) to participate in the meeting of the Committee of the Parties to the Istanbul Convention, in Strasbourg, in December 2022 (date to be confirmed); - The Istanbul Convention: progress and challenges (Rapporteur: Ms Zita Gurmai, Hungary, SOC): held a hearing with the participation of: - Mr Tiny Kox, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; - Ms Iris Luarasi, President of the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO); - Ambassador Marie Fontanel, Chair of the Committee of the Parties on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention), Permanent Representative of France to the Council of Europe; Denial of women’s freedoms and repression of women’s rights protests in Iran - urgent political action is needed: considered and unanimously adopted a declaration; Thursday, 13 October, from 2 to 2.30pm, as regards: Finding solutions for marital captivity (Rapporteur: Ms Margreet De Boer, Netherlands, SOC): decided to change the French title of the report; considered and approved a draft report and unanimously adopted a draft resolution; Motion for a resolution on Institutional racism of law enforcement authorities against Roma and Travellers: took note of the letter received from members of the Czech delegation and of the opinion of the Czech Ministry of the Interior, as well as of the reply of the Chairperson of the Committee; Appointment of rapporteurs: appointed: - Ms Béatrice Fresko-Rolfo (Monaco, ALDE) as rapporteur for report on Preventing and combating violence and discrimination against LBQ women in Europe; - Ms Sena
 Nur Çelik (Türkiye, NR) as rapporteur for report on Women in the economy: employment, entrepreneurship and gender budgeting; and heard their declarations of absence of conflict of interest; International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 2022 and 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence (25 November to 10 December): took note of information on the Standing Committee meeting of 25 November and on the social media campaign to be launched over the 16 days of activism by the Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence; - • - - - - - Next meetings: confirmed its next meetings as follows: - Paris, 1 December 2022 (Council of Europe office); - Strasbourg, during the first part-session 2023 of the Assembly (23-27 January); - Paris, 21 March 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed); - Strasbourg, during the second part-session 2023 of the Assembly (24-28 April); - Paris, 16 May 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed); - Strasbourg, during the third part-session 2023 of the Assembly (19-23 June); - Paris, 15 September 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed); - Strasbourg, during the fourth part-session 2023 of the Assembly (9-13 October); - Paris, 7 December 2023 (Council of Europe office) (to be confirmed).
***** 2 AS/Ega (2022) CB 07 The Sub-Committee on Disability and Multiple and Intersectional Discrimination and The Parliamentary Network Women Free from Violence, meeting jointly in Strasbourg on Tuesday, 11 October 2022 from 2 to 3.30pm, with Mr Anastasios Chatzivasileiou (Greece, EPP/CD) in the Chair, as regards: - Preventing and combating violence against women with disabilities: held a hearing with the participation of: - Ms Reem Alsalem, United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (pre-recorded video); - Ms Helen Portal, Advocacy and Policy Officer, Inclusion Europe; - Ms Elisa Rojas, lawyer, Paris (online); - Ms Claire Desaint, Vice-President, “Women to speak, women to act” Association [Femmes pour le dire, Femmes pour agir].
***** The Parliamentary Platform for the rights of LGBTI people in Europe, meeting in Strasbourg on Thursday 13 October 2022, from 9 to 10am, with Mr Christophe Lacroix (Belgium, SOC), in the Chair, as regards: - The threatened ban of EuroPride events in Belgrade: an attack on equality, democracy and human rights: held a hearing with the participation of Mr Filip Lukić, Head of Communication, EuroPride 2022.
Penelope Denu, Sarah Burton, Giorgio Loddo, Élodie Fischer, Solène Falk Copy to: Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly Director and all staff of the Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 3 BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AS/Bur/CB (2022) 13 10 October 2022 To the Members of the Assembly Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on Monday 10 October 2022 The Bureau of the Assembly, meeting on Monday 10 October 2022, with Mr Tiny Kox, President of the Parliamentary Assembly, in the Chair, as regards: • • • − Communications: took note of the communications by the President of the Assembly, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and held an exchange of views with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe; Minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2022 in Paris: approved the minutes of this meeting; Fourth part-session of 2022 (Strasbourg, 10-14 October): Requests for debates under urgent procedure: took note of the requests to hold debates on: • Recent outrageous and inhuman activities of the Russian Federation, tabled by Mr Zingeris and 29 members of the Assembly and decided to recommend to the Assembly not to hold this debate; • Political consequences of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine, tabled by the leaders of the five political groups on the basis of an on-going report in the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy with the same title (rapporteur: Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, Lithuania, EPP/CD), and decided to recommend to the Assembly to hold this debate; − Requests for current affairs debates: took
 note of the requests to hold debates on: • Europe half a year after the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, tabled by the leaders of the five political groups and took note of its withdrawal; • Food security in Europe: grain exports through Ukrainian ports, tabled by the Turkish delegation and took note of its withdrawal; • The military hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, tabled by the Monitoring Committee and decided to recommend to the Assembly not to hold this debate; • Military hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, including strikes against settlements and civilian infrastructures, tabled by the leaders of the five political groups, decided to recommend to the Assembly to hold this debate and appointed Mr Paul Gavan (Ireland, UEL) as its first speaker; • The threatened ban of EuroPride events in Belgrade: an attack on equality, democracy and human rights tabled by 20 members of the Assembly, decided to recommend to the Assembly to hold this debate with a revised title as follows Threatened bans of Pride events in Council of Europe member States, and appointed Mr Max Lucks (Germany, SOC) as its first speaker; − − • Draft agenda: updated the draft agenda; Joint Committee (Strasbourg, 11 October 2022, from 3.30 pm to 5 pm): prepared the meeting; References and transmissions to committees: considered and approved the references and transmissions as set out in Appendix 1, subject to ratification by the Assembly through the Progress report; F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 2776 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 13 • • − − • • − − Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (24 June – 10 October 2022), Rapporteur: Ms Selin SAYEK BÖKE (Türkiye, SOC): approved the Progress report; Election observations: Bosnia and Herzegovina: General elections (2 October 2022): took note of the statement by the observation mission; Bulgaria: Early parliamentary elections (2 October
 2022): took note of the statement by the observation mission; 17th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport (Antalya, 26 October 2022): approved the list of members of the ad hoc committee and appointed Ms Edite Estrela (Portugal, SOC) as its Chairperson (appendix 2); Composition of the Monitoring Committee and of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights: Monitoring Committee: • on the basis of proposals by the ALDE group, appointed Ms Stephanie Krisper (Austria), Ms Diana Stoica (Romania) and Ms Liliana Tanguy (France) as members; on the basis of a proposal by the EPP/CD group, appointed Mr Ionuț-Marian Stroe (Romania) as a member; • Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights: on the basis of proposals by the ALDE group, appointed Ms Ingvild Wetrhus Thorsvik (Norway) and Ms Elena-Simona Spărtaru (Romania) as substitutes; • Dates and places of the next meetings: Friday 14 October 2022, 8.30 am (part-session), Strasbourg Thursday 24 November 2022, 3 pm, Reykjavik Friday 9 December 2022, 9.30 am, Paris.
Copy to: Secretary General of the Assembly Director and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 Isild Heurtin 2 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 13 Appendix 1 – References and transmissions to committees A. References to committees − Public regulation of the freedom of expression in digital platforms Doc.
15555, Motion for a resolution Consultation of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media − Child protection in competitive sports Doc.

15557, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for report − Addressing the social and economic effects of sanctions Doc.
15558, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for report − Preventing and combating violence and discrimination against LBQ women in Europe Doc.

15559, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for report − The right to movement: addressing the challenges faced by Turkish citizens and other non-EU citizens in visa applications to Schengen Area States Doc.
15560, Motion for a resolution Transmission to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for information − Institutional racism of law enforcement authorities against Roma and Travellers Doc.

15561, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for report − Women in the economy: employment, entrepreneurship and gender budgeting Doc.
15562, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for report − Promotion of mental well-being and mental health in schools Doc.
15565, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development to take into account in the preparation of the report on “Taking into consideration the impact of the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic on the mental health of minors and young adults” − Analysis and guidelines to guarantee the right to housing and to decent housing Doc.
15566, Motion for a resolution Reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for report − Closer contact and co-operation with Taiwan Doc.

15567, Motion for a resolution Transmission to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for information 3 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 13 − The situation of Ukrainian persons forcefully displaced or transferred to the Russian Federation or Ukrainian territories under the de facto control of the Russian Federation Doc.
15568, Motion for a resolution reference to Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for report − The Parliamentary Assembly should support Kazakhstan to continue its democratic reforms Doc.

15569, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report − The reintegration of persons trapped in prostitution and human trafficking survivors Doc.
15570, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for report − Transfer and resettlement of asylum seekers Doc.

15571, Motion for a resolution consultation of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons − Oppressions through antiterror legislation in Türkiye should stop Doc.
15572, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe to take into account in the preparation of the report on the Honouring of obligations and commitments by Türkiye − Enhancing the right to access to justice for vulnerable groups Doc.
15573, Motion for a resolution transmission to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for information − Impact of job insecurity on the mental health of the population Doc.

15577, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development to take into account in the preparation of the report on “The future of work is here: revisiting labour rights” − Systematic large-scale persecution against anti-war protesters in the Russian Federation Doc.
15578, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to be merged with the reference for the report on Arbitrary arrest of Russian human rights defender and freedom fighter Vladimir Kara-Murza into a single report − Healthy and sustainable food Doc.

15580, Motion for a resolution and Global food security consequences of the aggression of Russian Federation against Ukraine Doc.
15595, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for one single report on “Ensuring a healthy, sustainable and secure food supply” − Legal aspects of preventing the use of explosive weapons in populated areas and explosive contamination Doc.
15583, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to take into account in the preparation of the report on “Legal and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine” and transmission to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for information 4 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 13 − Addressing the specific challenges faced by the Belarussians in exile Doc.
15593, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for report − Propaganda and freedom of speech in Europe Doc.

15594, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media for report − Urgent need to combat state terrorism Doc.
15599, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy to take into account in the preparation of the report on “Political consequences of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine” and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to take into account in the preparation of the report on “Legal and human rights aspects of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine” − The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Doc.
15607, Motion for a resolution reference to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report and to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for opinion B.

− Modification of a reference Safeguarding future rights for future generations Doc.
15513, Motion for a resolution reference to the Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for report and to the Committee on Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion 5 AS/Bur/CB (2022) 13 Appendix 2 – List of members of the Ad Hoc Committee to participate in the 17th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport (Antalya, 26 October 2022) Chairperson / Présidente : Ms / Mme Edite ESTRELA (Portugal, SOC) Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media / Commission de la culture, de la science, de l’éducation et des médias Ms / Mme Linda Hofstad HELLELAND (Norway, EPP/CD / Norvège, PPE/DC) Ms / Mme Nina KASIMATI (Greece, UEL / Grèce, GUE) Mr / M. Alexandros TRIANTAFYLLIDIS (Greece, UEL / Grèce, GUE) Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development / Commission des questions sociales, de la santé et du développement durable Ms / Mme Sevinj FATALIYEVA (Azerbaijan, EC/DA / Azerbaïdjan, CE/AD) Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination / Commission sur l’égalité et sur la non-discrimination Ms / Mme Edite ESTRELA (Portugal, SOC) Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons / Commission des migrations, des réfugiés et des personnes déplacées Ms / Mme Nigar ARPADARAI (Azerbaijan, EC/DA / Azerbaïdjan, CE/AD) 6 SECRETARIAT AS/Pol (2022) CB 12 13 October 2022 To the members of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy Synopsis of the meetings held in Strasbourg on 10-13 October 2022 The Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, meeting in Strasbourg on 10-13 October 2022, with first Mr Zsolt Németh (Hungary, EC/DA), Chairperson, and then Mr Kimmo Kiljunen (Finland, SOC), First Vice- President, in the Chair: • – – on Monday 10 October 2022 from 14:00 to 15:00, as regards: A fourth Summit for a renewed, improved and reinforced Council of Europe (Rapporteur: Ms Fiona O’Loughlin, Ireland, ALDE): considered and declassified an introductory memorandum and held an exchange of views; External Relations: heard a statement by the Chairperson of the
 Sub-Committee, Mr Antonio Gutiérrez Limones (Spain, SOC), and took note that the next meeting of the Sub-Committee would be held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 28 to 30 November 2022 (subject to the authorisation by the Bureau of the Assembly); – Call for candidatures as rapporteur: called for candidates for reports on: • – – – • – • • The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) The Parliamentary Assembly should support Kazakhstan to continue its democratic reforms on Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 8:30 to 10:00, as regards: Supporting a European perspective for the Western Balkans (Rapporteur: Mr George Papandreou, Greece, SOC): took position on one amendment to the draft recommendation and decided to submit an oral amendment; Protecting the pillars of democracy during health crises (Rapporteur: Ms Marietta Karamanli, France, SOC): considered a draft report and unanimously adopted a draft resolution; Call for Famagusta’s return to its lawful inhabitants (Rapporteur: Mr Piero Fassino, Italy, SOC): heard a statement by the Rapporteur on his fact-finding visit to Cyprus and held an exchange of views; on Tuesday 11 October 2022 from 14:00 to 15:30, as regards: Urgent debate: Political consequences of the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine (Rapporteur: Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, Lithuania, EPP/CD): was informed that the Rapporteur could not attend the meeting and had delegated Mr Aleksander Pociej (Poland, EPP/CD) to present the report on his behalf; decided to change the title of the report to “Further escalation in the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine”; held an exchange of views; decided, following a vote, not to consider amendments in the absence of the Rapporteur; considered the draft report; and unanimously adopted a draft resolution; This document is available on the Parliamentary Assembly Extranet website (restricted area for PACE Members) http://assembly.coe.int/extranet F – 67075
 Strasbourg Cedex | assembly@coe.int | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33 AS/Pol (2022) CB 12 – – • – – Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Jordan (Rapporteur: Mr George Loucaides, Cyprus, UEL): considered a draft report and unanimously adopted a draft resolution, following which it heard a statement by Mr Abdel Haleem Alhumood, member of the Jordanian partner for democracy delegation; Recent developments in Libya and in the Middle East: what consequences for Europe?
(Rapporteur: Mr Piero Fassino, Italy, SOC): heard a statement by the Rapporteur; on Wednesday 12 October 2022 from 14:00 to 15:30, as regards: Activities of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights: held a hearing with the participation of Ms Dunja Mijatović, Commissioner for Human Rights; Strengthening the role of the Council of Europe as a cornerstone of the European political architecture (Rapporteur: Ms Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Lithuania, EPP/CD): considered a draft report and unanimously adopted a draft resolution; – Replies by the Committee of Ministers: took note of the replies to: • • Recommendation 2232 (2022) “Safeguarding and promoting genuine democracy in Europe” Recommendation 2228 (2022) “Consequences of the Russian Federation’s continued aggression against Ukraine: role and response of the Council of Europe”; • – – – on Thursday 13 October 2022 from 14:00 to 15:30, as regards: Urgent debate: Further escalation in the Russian Federation’s aggression against Ukraine (Rapporteur: Mr Emanuelis Zingeris, Lithuania, EPP/CD): took position on 14 amendments to the draft resolution, and decided to table three sub-amendments and to present two oral amendments; The impact of Brexit on human rights on the island of Ireland (Rapporteur: Mr George Katrougalos, Greece, UEL): took position on two amendments to the draft resolution, and decided to table two written sub-amendments; The European Political Community (EPC): unanimously adopted a motion for a resolution to be tabled on behalf of the Committee; – Appointments of rapporteurs: appointed by acclamation: - - Mr George Katrougalos (Greece, UEL), as Rapporteur on “The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD”), and heard from him a declaration of absence of conflict of interest; Postponed the appointment of the Rapporteur on “The Parliamentary Assembly should support Kazakhstan to continue its democratic reforms” to its next meeting; – Authorisations by the Committee: authorised: • • Ms Fiona O'Loughlin
 (Ireland, ALDE), in her capacity as Rapporteur on “A fourth Summit for a renewed, improved and reinforced Council of Europe”, to participate in the debate on “The future of the Council of Europe”, Congress session, 25 October 2022, and in the meeting of the GT- SOM4 - Ad hoc Working Party to reflect on the organisational and other arrangements for a possible 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe on 21 October 2022 in Strasbourg; Mr Anastasios Chatzivasileiou (Greece, EPP/CD) to participate in the Conference organised by the German PACE delegation: “Democracy and human rights in times of crisis – the contribution of young people in Europe”, 30 November – 2 December 2022, Berlin (at no cost for the Assembly); 2 AS/Pol (2022) CB 12 • • Ms Dora Bakoyannis (Greece, EPP/CD), in her capacity as Rapporteur on “The situation in Kosovo*”, to carry out a fact-finding visit to Brussels (at no cost for the Assembly) and to Kosovo* (the latter subject to the authorisation by the Bureau of the Assembly); Mr Piero Fassino (Italy, SOC) to carry out a fact-finding visit to Israel and the Palestinian Territories, in the context of the preparation of his report “Recent developments in Libya and in the Middle East: what consequences for Europe?” (subject to the authorisation by the Bureau of the Assembly); – Changes in the membership of Sub-Committees: took note of the following changes in the membership of Sub-Committees: Sub-Committee on External Relations - - - - Ms Edite Estrela (Portugal, SOC) member, Ms Isabel Meirelles (EPP/CD) alternate Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten (Netherlands, EPP/CD) member Ms Fiona O’Loughlin (Ireland, ALDE) member Ms Marijana Balić (Croatia, EPP/CD) member Sub-Committee on the Middle East and the Arab World - Ms Edite Estrela (Portugal, SOC) member – Other business: heard a statement by Ms Dinara Ashimova, Chairperson of the Kyrgyz partner for democracy delegation; – Next meetings: took note of its next meetings as follows: - - - - -
 - - - - - 28-30 November 2022 Sub-Committee on External Relations, UN Headquarters, New York, USA (subject to the authorisation by the Bureau) 13 December 2022, Paris During the January part-session (23-27 January 2023), Strasbourg Monday 20 March 2023, Paris During the April part-session (24-28 April 2023), Strasbourg 17 May 2023, Paris During the June part-session (19-23 June 2023), Strasbourg 12 and 13 September 2023 (place to be confirmed) During the October part-session (9-13 October 2023), Strasbourg Tuesday 12 December 2023, Paris.
cc.
Secretary General of the Assembly Director and all staff of the Secretariat of the Assembly Secretaries of National Delegations and of Political Groups of the Assembly Secretaries of observer and partner for democracy delegations Secretary General of the Congress Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Directors General 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 * All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
3 Fourth part-session of the Assembly 2022 – public meetings and side events, Monday to Thursday, 1 to 2 p.m Quatrième partie de session de l’Assemblée 2022 – réunions et événements publics organisés du lundi au jeudi, de 13 h à 14 h 05/10/2022 09:08 Unofficial events sponsored by Assembly members / Evénements non officiels parrainés par des membres de l’Assemblée1 Date Room Salle Title/ Titre Member responsible for the event / Membre responsable Organiser / Contact person Organisateur(trice) Monday 10 October Lundi 10 octobre in “Crime refocusing the darkness: international attention on grave human rights violations in the occupied peninsula after the Russia large-scale invasion to Ukraine” Ms Mariia Mezentseva (Ukraine, EPP- CD/PPE-DC) Chairperson of the Ukrainian delegation / Présidente de la délégation ukrainienne 3 Zmina HR Center, HR House Foundation and National Office of the Crimea platform Centre DH Zmina, Fondation Maison DH et Bureau national de la plateforme Crimée “La Crimée dans l’obscurité : recentrer l’attention les graves internationale sur violations des droits de l’homme dans la péninsule occupée après l’invasion russe à grande échelle en Ukraine » Ms Yevheniia Kravchuk (Ukraine, ALDE/ADLE) Mr Emanuelis Zingeris (Lithuania/Lituanie, EPP-CD/PPE-DC) Chairperson of the Lithuanian delegation / Président de la délégation lithuanienne Mr Bohdan Veselovkyi, Secretary of the Ukrainian delegation/ Secrétaire de la délégation ukrainienne ukrpacedelegation@outlook.com Ms Inese Libina-Egnere (Latvia/Lettonie, EPP-CD/PPE-DC) Chairperson of the Latvian delegation / Présidente de la délégation lettone Ms Krista Baumane (Latvia/Lettonie, ALDE/ADLE) Mr Eerik-Niiles Kross (Estonia/Estonie, ALDE/ADLE) Chairperson of the Estonian delegation / Président de la délégation estonienne Mr Indrek Saar (Estonia/Estonie, SOC) 1 These meetings are not organised by the Parliamentary Assembly or its bodies.
They remain under the full responsibility of the PACE members sponsoring the meeting / Ces réunions ne sont pas organisées par l’Assemblée parlementaire ni par ses entités.

Elles restent sous l’entière responsabilité des membres de l’APCE qui les parrainent.
Date Room Salle Date Room Salle Organiser / Contact person Organisateur(trice) Tuesday 11 October 2 Mardi 11 octobre “The future of the Council of Europe: civil society contribution to the preparations for a fourth Summit of the Council of Europe " Mr Boriss Cilevičs (Latvia/ Lettonie, SOC) : "L'avenir du Conseil de contribution de la société civile aux préparatifs d'un quatrième Sommet du Conseil de l'Europe" l'Europe Campaign to Uphold Rights in Europe (CURE) Campagne pour le respect des droits en Europe (CURE) Ms Marina Makarova Advocacy Officer for CURE Campaign / Responsable de la Campagne CURE marina.makarova@cure- campaign.org Wednesday 12 October Mercredi 12 octobre “Two years of injustice - Supporting political prisoners in Belarus” 3 “Deux années d’injustice - Soutenons les prisonniers politiques au Bélarus » Mr Iulian Bulai (Romania, Chairperson of the ALDE Group) // (Roumanie, Président du Groupe ADLE) Ms Maria Bigday (ALDE Group / Groupe ADLE) Maria.bigday@coe.int Mr Tony Lloyd (United Kingdom, Vice- Chairpersonn of the SOC Group) // (Royaume-Uni, Vice-Président du Groupe SOC) Thursday 13 October Jeudi 13 octobre “Erosion of the rule of law in Poland: political abuses of the prosecutor’s office” 2 Dr Krzysztof Śmiszek (SOC, Poland) « L’érosion de l’Etat de droit en Pologne : l’abus politique du ministère public » Open Dialogue Foundation Fondation Open Dialogue Mr Massimo Gordini massimo.gordini@odfoundation.eu www.odfoundation.eu Doc.
15627 10 October 2022 Examination of credentials of representatives and substitutes Report on credentials In accordance with Rule 6, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the 1.

Assembly has received the credentials of representatives and substitutes for the fourth part of the 2022 Ordinary Session of the Assembly, which have been transmitted in due form by the competent authorities of member States.
The Assembly is called upon to express its decision on the validation of the credentials of the 2. representatives and substitutes whose names are given in this report.

3.

Belgium has appointed a new substitute following the resignation of Ms Marie-Christine Marghem.

Estonia has appointed a new substitute following the resignation of Mr Raivo Tamm.

One substitute 4. has become representative and one representative has become substitute.
France has appointed eight new representatives and twelve new substitutes following parliamentary 5. elections.

Two substitutes have become representatives.

Germany has appointed a new representative and a new substitute following the resignations of 6.

Ms Sabine Weiss and Mr Marco Wanderwitz.

Hungary has appointed two new representatives and three new substitutes following parliamentary 7. elections.

Two substitutes have become representatives and three representatives have become substitutes.
The Netherlands has appointed a new representative following the resignation of Ms Roelien 8.

Kamminga.

Serbia has appointed four new representatives and seven new substitutes following parliamentary 9. elections.

Slovenia has appointed three new representatives and two new substitutes following parliamentary 10. elections.

One representative has become substitute.

Ukraine has appointed two new substitutes following the resignations of Mr Dmytro Lubinets and 11.
Mr Rustem Umerov and one substitute has become representative.

12.

In the case of reasoned objection or contestation, the contested credentials shall be referred without debate to the appropriate committee which shall report back to the Assembly, in accordance with Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules of Procedure.

Members Belgium Substitute Ms Sophie WILMES (MR) https://pace.coe.int https://pace.coe.int Doc.
15627 Report on credentials Estonia Representative Mr Indrek SAAR (Social Democratic Party) Substitutes Mr Heiki HEPNER (Isamaa Party) Mr Urmas REITELMANN (Conservative People's Party of Estonia) France Representatives M. Bertrand BOUYX (Renaissance) M. François CALVET (Les Républicains) Mme Marie-Christine DALLOZ (Les Républicains) Mme Nicole DURANTON (Rassemblement des démocrates progressistes et indépendants) M. Bernard FOURNIER (Les Républicains) M. Thibaut FRANÇOIS (Rassemblement national) M. Joël GIRAUD (Renaissance) Mme Marietta KARAMANLI (Socialistes et apparentés) M. Claude KERN (Union centriste) Mme Stéphanie KOCHERT (Horizons et apparentés) Mme Hélène LAPORTE (Rassemblement National) M. Frédéric MATHIEU (La France insoumise) M. Alain MILON (Les Républicains) Mme Anne STAMBACH-TERRENOIR (La France Insoumise) M. Bruno STUDER (Renaissance) Mme Liliana TANGUY (Renaissance) M. André VALLINI (Socialistes et Républicains) M. Philippe VIGIER (Démocrate (MoDem et Indépendants)) Substitutes Mme Sabrina AGRESTI-ROUBACHE (Renaissance) Mme Nadine BELLUROT (Les Républicains) M. Roger CHUDEAU (Rassemblement National) Mme Mireille CLAPOT (Renaissance) M. Emmanuel FERNANDES (La France Insoumise) M. André GATTOLIN (Rassemblement des démocrates progressistes et indépendants) Mme Sylvie GOY-CHAVENT (Les Républicains) M. Alexis IZARD (Renaissance) M. Laurent JACOBELLI (Rassemblement National) M. Christian KLINGER (Les Républicains) Mme Brigitte KLINKERT (Renaissance) M. Jacques LE NAY (Union centriste) M. Antoine LÉAUMENT (La France Insoumise) M. Didier MARIE (Socialistes et Républicains) Mme Maud PETIT (Démocrate (MoDem et Indépendants)) Mme Isabelle SANTIAGO (Socialistes et apparentés) Mme Nathalie SERRE (Les Républicains) M. Frédéric VALLETOUX (Horizons et apparentés) Germany Representative Ms Catarina dos SANTOS-WINTZ (CDU/CSU) 2 Doc.
15627 Report on credentials Substitute Mr Jürgen HARDT (CDU/CSU) Hungary Representatives Mr Gergely ARATÓ (DK Democratic Coalition) Ms Mónika BARTOS (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Mme Katalin CSÖBÖR (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Ms Hajnalka JUHÁSZ (KDNP Christian Democratic People's Party) Mr Lőrinc NACSA (KDNP Christian Democratic People’s Party) Mr Zsolt NÉMETH (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Mr László TOROCZKAI (Mi Hazánk - Our Homeland) Substitutes Mr Zoltán BÓNA (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Mr Koloman BRENNER (Jobbik Movement for a better Hungary) Mr Norbert ERDŐS (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Ms Zita GURMAI (MSZP Hungarian Socialist Party) Ms Boglárka ILLÉS (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Mr Attila TILKI (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Mr Barna Pál ZSIGMOND (Fidesz Hungarian Civic Union) Netherlands Representative Mr Jeroen Van WIJNGAARDEN (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD)) Serbia Representatives Ms Dubravka FILIPOVSKI (“Aleksandar Vučić - Together We Can Do Everything”) Mr Stefan JOVANOVIĆ (People’s Party) Ms Elvira KOVÁCS (Alliance of Vojvodina Hungarians) Mr Vojislav MIHAILOVIĆ (HOPE – NEW DSS – POKS) Mr Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ (“Ivica Dačić - Socialist Party of Serbia”) Ms Biljana PANTIĆ PILJA (“Aleksandar Vučić - Together We Can Do Everything”) Ms Tatjana PAŠIĆ (UNITED – SSP, PSG, PREOKRET, SLOGA) Substitutes Mr Aleksandar MARKOVIĆ (“Aleksandar Vučić - Together We Can Do Everything”) Mr Goran MILIĆ (“Aleksandar Vučić - Together We Can Do Everything”) Ms Jelena MILOŠEVIĆ (UNITED – SSP, PSG, PREOKRET, SLOGA) Ms Slavica RADOVANOVIĆ (People’s Party) Ms Dunja SIMONOVIĆ BRATIĆ (“Ivica Dačić - Socialist Party of Serbia”) Mr Dejan ŠULKIĆ (HOPE – NEW DSS – POKS) Ms Jelena ŽARIĆ KOVAČEVIĆ (“Aleksandar Vučić - Together We Can Do Everything”) Slovenia Representatives Ms Iva DIMIC (New Slovenia - Christian democrats) Ms Tatjana GREIF (The Left) Ms Tamara VONTA (Svoboda) 3 Doc.
15627 Report on credentials Substitutes Ms Meira HOT (Social Democrats) Mr Anže LOGAR (Slovenian Democratic Party) Mr Dean PREMIK (Svoboda) Ukraine Representative Ms Larysa BILOZIR (Trust) Substitutes Ms Iryna KONSTANKEVICH (For the Future) Ms Oleksandra USTINOVA (Holos) 4