Parliamentary questions to the Chairperson-in-office of the Committee of Ministers

Parliamentary questions | Doc. 12560 | 11 April 2011

Author(s):

Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, Romania, SOC ; Lord Tim BOSWELL, United Kingdom, EDG ; Mr Bernard MARQUET, Monaco, ALDE

Question from Mr Corlăţean

Political statements were recently made by Hungarian senior officials who stated that Hungary supports granting some collective rights, particularly self-determination on ethnic grounds, to the Hungarian minority living in Romania.

Mr Corlăţean,

To ask the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers,

• if the European standards in terms of protection of national minorities, especially those enshrined in the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, have recently undergone changes, namely if the rights of national minorities are no longer considered and, therefore observed, as individual rights;
• if self-government on a territorial basis has become a generally accepted standard.

Throughout the for the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, as from and including the Vienna Declaration of 9 October 1993, in the text of the Convention itself and in related documents such as Committee of Ministers’ Resolution (97)10, reference is made solely to “the rights of persons belonging to national minorities”. There has been no deviation from this principle of individuality in the of the Council of Europe or in the practice of the Committee of Ministers.

It is clear from the European Charter of Local Self-Government and its additional Protocol (ETS No. 122 and CETS No. 207) that local self-government is a generally accepted standard, the exact scope of which is defined within the limits of the law of the country concerned. However, there is no principle explicitly linking this standard with the question of respect for minority rights.

Question from Lord Boswell

Which member states have been obliged to pay compensation to litigants as a result of their failure to comply with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights? What is the total amount paid in each country over the last five years and what other action has been taken by the Committee of Ministers in this matter?

As far as the European Court of Human Rights is concerned, it does not order payment of compensation as a result of failure to comply with it own judgments. Under Article 41 of the Convention, if the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, it may award just satisfaction to the injured party in the form of a sum of money where the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made. The Convention foresees no other ground for the award of just satisfaction.

Sums awarded under Article 41 are set out by country and by type of damages covered in the Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers, which was first published in 2007. Figures for the years 2007-2009 are thus easily available through the existing reports (available on the website of the Department for the Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights). The 2010 report is due to be published in the course of April 2011.

As far as the Committee of Ministers is concerned, its role under Article 46 is to supervise the execution of the judgments of the European Court. Under the new mechanism foreseen by Article 46, if a state fails to execute a judgment, the Committee of Ministers may refer to the Court the question of whether that Party has fulfilled its obligation. This provision has not yet been used.

Question from Mr Marquet

At the Conference of Ministers of Justice in Istanbul on 25 and 26 November 2010, the MEDICRIME Convention, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in May 2010, was to have been opened for signature and ratification both by the Council of Europe member states and by non-member states.

Today, nearly six months after the founding meeting in Istanbul, the Convention has still not, to our knowledge, been opened for signature and ratification. The Assembly wonders what the reasons for this delay may be, considering that trafficking in counterfeit medical products is constantly growing, and posing a threat to public health.

I can assure the Honourable Parliamentarian that the Committee of Ministers is well aware of importance of the Medicrime Convention and we are actively searching for an appropriate occasion for its opening for signature. Unfortunately, this was not possible for Conference of Ministers of Justice in Istanbul as the Convention had not yet been adopted. I know that many member states are keen to sign and ratify this instrument and are preparing their domestic legislation and practice. I hope to have more concrete information to convey to the Parliamentary Assembly on this subject in the near future.