B Explanatory memorandum by Mr Kumcuoğlu,
rapporteur for opinion
1 Introduction
1. The Parliamentary Assembly’s procedure for monitoring
obligations and commitments, established in 1994-95, was reinforced
thirteen years ago with the setting up of the Monitoring Committee
under
Resolution 1115
(1997). In the meantime the Assembly has sought to improve
and strengthen this procedure by adopting a number of successive
amendments to
Resolution
1115 and the appendix thereto, most recently through
the adoption of
Resolution
1698 (2009) on the amendment of various provisions of
the Parliamentary Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
2. The Monitoring Committee has approved a report on the term
of office of its co-rapporteurs and adopted a draft resolution containing
a number of proposed amendments to
Resolution 1115 (1997) on:
- the limitation of the term of
office of the committee’s rapporteurs;
- the appointment of rapporteurs to deal with the post-monitoring
dialogue;
- the codification of the criteria for appointing the committee’s
rapporteurs.
2 Comments
3. It falls to the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs to examine, in the present
opinion, the proposals set out in the Monitoring Committee’s draft
resolution, in particular from the standpoint of their consistency
with the Rules of Procedure.
2.1 The term of office of the Monitoring Committee’s
co-rapporteurs
4. Concerning the term of office of the Monitoring Committee’s
co-rapporteurs, which the latter committee wishes to limit to five
years, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs considers that this is a step in the right direction, allowing
regular renewal of the rapporteurs. Since the Rules of Procedure
limit the duration of committees’ terms of reference for given reports
to two years (Rule 25.3), the possibility for a monitoring rapporteur
to remain in office for an unlimited duration was becoming hard
to reconcile with the rule of principle applied to the other nine
committees. As the Monitoring Committee points out, the proposed
duration – five years – allows the rapporteur the time to become
acquainted with the file and the possibility of having a significant
influence on the conduct of the monitoring procedure.
5. However, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs proposes to clarify the wording of paragraph
5.1 of the draft resolution (referring to paragraph 11.2 of
Resolution 1115)
which may appear as too restrictive and might be interpreted as
giving an unconditional five-year mandate to the rapporteurs, with
no possibility to replace them in the meantime (see Amendment B,
as well as Amendment C as regards the rapporteurs for post-monitoring
dialogue).
2.2 Appointment of rapporteurs for the post-monitoring
dialogue
6. The committee also concurs with the Monitoring Committee’s
proposal to appoint rapporteurs for the post-monitoring dialogue.
Up to now, the Monitoring Committee’s chairperson has been responsible
for this dialogue with member states for which the monitoring procedure
has been terminated.
7. Nonetheless, as to whether a rapporteur who has dealt with
the monitoring procedure for a given state could be appointed as
its post-monitoring rapporteur, the Monitoring Committee responds
in the negative (see paragraph 5.2 of the draft resolution, referring
to paragraph 12.2 of
Resolution
1115). This approach is perhaps rather drastic. It cannot
be ruled out that, in certain cases to be left to the committee’s
own discretion, the monitoring procedure rapporteurs could be considered
best suited to monitor the further progress of the country concerned
in the context of the post-monitoring dialogue (see Amendment D).
2.3 Criteria for appointing the committee’s rapporteurs
8. The Monitoring Committee wished to incorporate into
Resolution 1115 (1997),
which has para-regulatory force, some of the criteria laid down
in the Code of Conduct for co-rapporteurs on the honouring of obligations and
commitments by member states of the Council of Europe, which is
a document for that committee’s own internal use. The Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs fully
shares the Monitoring Committee’s concern that its decisions be
governed by respect for criteria. It nonetheless considers that
Rule 48.1 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates general criteria
for appointing rapporteurs that must be taken into account (see
Amendment A).
9. Since the Bureau of the Assembly has instructed the Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, to
examine the possibility of including elements of the code of conduct
for the Monitoring Committee’s co-rapporteurs in the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, the committee will have occasion to pursue its
consideration of this question.
2.4 Follow-up action to be taken following the resolution’s
adoption
10. The Monitoring Committee wished, in the context of
its report, to consider the consequences of the changes introduced
by
Resolution 1698 (2009) in
the post-monitoring dialogue procedure. In this connection, the
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
notes that the Monitoring Committee could not, in the limited context
of a report confined to the term of office of co-rapporteurs, go
more deeply into the implications of these changes. The committee
considers it necessary to harmonise
Resolution 1115 and its appendix
in the light of the changes proposed in the draft resolution submitted
by the Monitoring Committee and the amendments already made to
Resolution 1115 with
the adoption of
Resolution
1698 (2009) on the amendment of various provisions of
the Parliamentary Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
11. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs would therefore like the Bureau of the Assembly, in the
context of the follow-up action given to texts adopted by the Assembly,
to instruct it to pursue its reflections and consider whether other
amendments must be made to the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure to
harmonise the provisions governing the monitoring and post-monitoring
procedures (see Amendment E).
