C Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Tiny Kox, rapporteur
1 Origin, aim and scope of the report
1. The origin of the report lies
in
Resolution 2186 (2017) on the call for a Council of Europe summit to reaffirm
European unity and to defend and promote democratic security in
Europe, which was adopted with a large majority by the Assembly
in October 2017, on the basis of a report prepared for the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy by Mr Michele Nicoletti (
Doc. 14396).
2. “The Council of Europe and the values it upholds are today
more necessary than ever”, held the Assembly in
Resolution 2186 (2017) and went on to justify this conviction: “at the origin
of European construction, bringing together almost all European
States on the basis of common values and principles and thus a natural
guardian of ‘unity within diversity’, offering a common legal space
to 835 million Europeans, guaranteeing protection of their human
rights, promoting social rights and democracy and contributing to
the development of a European civil society, the Council of Europe
is today best placed to help meet the challenges raised by growing
nationalism and avoid the building of new walls.”
3. After enumerating the issues which, in its view, should be
the priorities of a political and well-focused Summit, in the concluding
paragraph of
Resolution
2186 (2017) (paragraph 18), the Assembly resolved, for its part,
“to continue its own reflection on its identity, role and mission
as a statutory organ of the Council of Europe and a pan-European
forum for inter-parliamentary dialogue which aims at having an impact
on all member States”. By decision taken on 13 October 2017, the
Bureau of the Assembly referred the follow-up to paragraph 18 of
Resolution 2186 (2017) to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
or report and to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs for opinion.
4. During the January 2018 part-session, in parallel to my appointment
as rapporteur by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy,
the Bureau of the Assembly set up an Ad hoc Committee on the Role
and Mission of the Parliamentary Assembly. The aim was to ensure
a reflection on the issues raised by
Resolution 2186 (2017) in a larger and inclusive composition to which I was
invited to participate in my capacity of rapporteur for the Political
Affairs Committee. From the outset, it was understood that the outcome
of the work carried out in the Ad hoc Committee would feed into
the report to be prepared by the Political Affairs Committee.
5. The Ad hoc Committee, chaired by Mr Nicoletti, former President
of the Assembly, brought together parliamentarians from all 47 member
States of the Council of Europe, including chairpersons of national delegations
to the Assembly, chairpersons of political groups, chairpersons
of committees, and, in line with the terms and spirit of
Resolution 2186 (2017) and by decision of the Bureau, representatives of the
Russian Parliament. In addition to discussions held during four
meetings, participants representing two thirds of member States’
parliaments and all political groups, contributed to the reflection
process in writing. Contributions were reproduced
in extenso in two compendiums. An
unprecedented consultation process, ensuring enhanced democratic
legitimacy, has thus been held in the context of the work carried
out by the Ad hoc Committee on the issues linked to the identity,
role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly.
6. Concrete proposals made by participants were summarised in
a Memorandum prepared by the Chairperson and subsequently appended
to the report of the Ad hoc Committee
Note which was approved and transmitted
to the Bureau on 26 June 2018. On 28 June, a Joint Committee meeting
was held which enabled an exchange of views with the Ministers’
Deputies on the issues raised in the Memorandum. The Bureau took note
of the report by the Ad hoc Committee and made it public at its
meeting of 29 June 2018, together with a list of follow-up decisions.
7. As the Ad hoc Committee had no decision-making power, its
report was transmitted for follow-up action to the two competent
committees, namely the Political Affairs Committee, to be taken
into consideration in the context of the present report, and to the Rules Committee as
regards issues requiring changes to the Rules of Procedure of the
Assembly. It will ultimately
be for the Assembly to take any decisions on the basis of reports by
the two committees.
8. The present report will cover all issues which were specifically
referred to our committee by the Bureau decisions of 29 June 2018.
At the same time, its scope is larger as it draws its origin from
paragraph 18 of
Resolution
2186 (2017) which puts emphasis on the double mission of the Assembly
as “a pan-European forum for inter-parliamentary dialogue” but also
as “a statutory organ of the Council of Europe”. Thus, the relations with
the other statutory organ of the Council of Europe, the Committee
of Ministers, also fall within the scope of the report. The main
issues which will therefore be specifically developed are the following:
- the nature, identity and mission
of the Assembly;
- streamlining the Assembly’s work;
- improving the follow-up given to Assembly texts;
- enhancing the dialogue between the Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers;
- strengthening the Assembly’s relations with the European
Union and the European Parliament as well as with other international
organisations or parliamentary assemblies.
9. The aim of the report is the same for all the issues to be
dealt with: to enhance the Assembly’s impact both within the Organisation
and in all member States.
10. A first discussion on the issues linked to the nature, identity
and mission of the Assembly, as well as on the question of follow-up
to Assembly resolutions, was held at the committee’s meeting on
11 September 2018. A second discussion, focusing on the need to
streamline the work of the Assembly and enhance its dialogue with
the Committee of Ministers took place during our meeting on 5 March
2019, also with the participation of the President of the Assembly
and Ms Nina Nordström, Director at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
of Finland, representing the Finnish Presidency of the Committee
of Ministers. The present report includes, as announced, a final
section on relations with the European Union as well as with other
international organisations or parliamentary assemblies.
2 Identity,
role and mission of the Assembly
2.1 Deliberative
role
11. According to its Statute (
ETS
No. 1, Article 10), the Council of Europe has two statutory
organs: the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly.
12. The Assembly, which held its first session 70 years ago, on
10 August 1949, is the oldest international parliamentary Assembly
with a pluralistic composition of democratically elected members
of parliament established on the basis of an intergovernmental treaty.
It is also the matrix of other European parliamentary institutions
which came after it.
13. The Assembly’s identity, role and mission have been defined
in the 1949 Council of Europe Statute.
14. On the basis of Article 22 of the Statute, the Assembly “is
the deliberative organ of the Council of Europe” and, by virtue
of Article 23, it has been given the right to “discuss and make
recommendations [to the Committee of Ministers] upon any matter
within the aim and scope of the Council of Europe”. This aim is
defined in Article 1: “to achieve a greater unity between its Members
for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles
which are their common heritage”, that is the “principles of the
rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within their jurisdiction
of human rights and fundamental freedoms” (Article 3). These principles,
according to the Preamble to the Statute, “form the basis of all
genuine democracy”.
15. The Assembly has also been given the prerogative to elect
the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General of the Council
of Europe (by virtue of Article 36 of the Statute). Furthermore,
it elects the judges of the European Court of Human Rights (by virtue
of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), Article 22),
the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (by virtue of
Resolution (99) 50 of the Committee of Ministers, Article 9), and
its own Secretary General (according to Statutory Resolution (49)
20).
16. The combination of its deliberative and its decision-making
powers reinforce the Assembly’s importance as a parliamentary platform
not only in Europe but also in the international arena.
2.2 Bringing
Europe together
17. The Assembly has greatly contributed
to the enlargement process of the Organisation as, before admitting
any new member State, the Committee of Ministers must seek the Assembly’s
Opinion (according to Statutory Resolution (51) 30). Thus, the Assembly
has played an important role in bringing Europe together, after
decades of a deep and dangerous divide of the continent.
18. The Assembly has further developed procedures to facilitate
the integration of new member States within the Organisation, including
the practice of asking new member States to undertake a number of
specific commitments (in addition to the statutory obligations incumbent
upon them on the basis of their membership), as well as a specific
country-by-country monitoring procedure to follow up the respect
by member States of the commitments they undertook upon accession.
19. Therefore, the Assembly is now the broadest pan-European parliamentary
forum, to which (almost) all European States are represented through
delegations of members of national parliaments, from both the majority
and opposition forces, who participate in its activities.
2.3 Pan-European
forum for political dialogue and Europe’s guardian of human rights
and democracy
20. Thus, the Assembly provides
a unique, permanent and structured pan-European forum for political dialogue
among parliamentary representatives of the citizens from the whole
of Europe on the (many) issues which fall within the aim and scope
of the Organisation, as formulated in Article 1 of the Statute.
21. During our meetings in Helsinki in November 2018, representatives
of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Finnish Parliament and former
President Halonen underlined that the uniqueness of our Assembly
lay precisely in the fact that it ensures a direct bridge with the
national parliaments, including the opposition.
22. As the European Convention on Human Rights grants the Assembly
the right to elect the judges of the European Court of Human Rights,
the Assembly also plays – together with the Court and the Committee
of Ministers, which oversees the execution of the Court judgments
by the member States – a major role in the unique European system
of protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy, enshrined
in the Convention and underpinned by the Court’s binding judgments.
Therefore, the Assembly is often called Europe’s guardian of human
rights and democracy: through its fact-finding missions, election
observations and reports on the state of human rights, rule of law
and democracy in member States, the Assembly is able to signal positive
and negative developments in these areas and to call on governments
– directly or through recommendations to the Committee of Ministers
– and parliaments of member States concerned to live up to their
binding obligations stemming from the Statute, the European Convention
on Human Rights, the judgments of the Court and all other conventions,
which together form the cornerstone of the Council of Europe.
2.4 Political
engine of the Council of Europe
23. As stated in its
Recommendation 2114 (2017) (paragraph 6) “Defending the
acquis of
the Council of Europe: preserving 65 years of successful intergovernmental
co-operation”,
Note the Assembly, together with the Committee
of Ministers and member States, “bears the responsibility for the
creation, protection, implementation and further development of
the Council of Europe convention-based system”. Through the adoption
of specific recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, the Assembly
has thus greatly contributed to the development of this system,
which has created a single pan-European legal area from Reykjavik
to Vladivostok for hundreds of millions of European citizens. The
Assembly has notably been at the origin of the key Council of Europe
conventions, starting from the European Convention on Human Rights,
and has taken active part in their drawing up. It is therefore often
called the political engine of the Council of Europe.
24. The Assembly has further promoted ratification and implementation
of Council of Europe conventions by member States either through
recommendations or through resolutions. A recent example is the
Assembly’s active support of the elaboration of the Convention on
Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence
(CETS No. 210, “Istanbul Convention”) and its engagement in promoting
its ratification and implementation by an ever-growing number of
member States.
Note
2.5 Findings
of the Ad hoc Committee
25. The work of the Ad hoc Committee
of the Bureau offered a renewed opportunity for the parliaments
of member States to offer their own vision on what they see as the
main mission of the Assembly today. Three missions have been identified
for the Assembly by the Ad hoc Committee, in line also with the
above-mentioned reflections: deliberative organ of the Council of
Europe, pan-European forum for dialogue and human rights and democracy
watchdog. Whether to put the emphasis on one mission rather than
on the others, or how to combine them in the best possible way,
is first and foremost a political choice, rather than an institutional
one, the Ad hoc Committee concluded.
Note
2.6 Current
challenges facing the Council of Europe and its Assembly
26. 70 years after it was founded,
the Council of Europe is in a deep political and financial crisis.
It finds itself confronted with many challenges which seriously
threaten the effectiveness of its statutory organs and of its mechanisms
and instruments, and thus ultimately the statutory aims of the Organisation:
dangerous conflicts in and between member States persist instead
of being solved by using inter alia the
means of the Organisation; the multilateral implementation of international
human rights standards, including through the European Court of
Human Rights, is increasingly being challenged in member States;
the respect for the Organisation’s Statute and the European Convention
on Human Rights is weakening; and the Assembly itself has not yet
been able to effectively assist in overcoming these crises.
27. As regards the Council of Europe’s pan-European mission, the
intended “unity within diversity” has, as of 2014, been seriously
put into question following the illegal annexation of Crimea by
the Russian Federation, an act considered as a clear violation of
international law and the Council of Europe Statute. In reaction
to the Assembly’s decision to apply sanctions vis-à-vis the Russian
parliamentary delegation, the latter stopped participating in the
activities of the Assembly. Since January 2016, Russia has not appointed
a parliamentary delegation to the Assembly. This situation has led
to a rift within the Organisation with one member State being present
in one statutory organ, the Committee of Ministers, while being
absent in the other, the Assembly. As of June 2017, the Russian
Government’s decision, in reaction to this situation, to suspend
payment of its contribution to the budget of the Organisation has
led to a major budgetary crisis threatening the Council of Europe
key activities.
2.7 Proposed
measures
28. To face these challenges, promote
security in Europe, reinvigorate trust in the Council of Europe
and among member States and preserve the future of the Organisation,
I propose that the Assembly:
a calls
on all member States to reaffirm, 70 years after the foundation
of the Council of Europe, their commitment to the ideal of European
unity and the values and principles of democracy, human rights and
the rule of law, and support and further strengthen the Council
of Europe as a unique pan-European organisation which upholds these
values for the benefit of European citizens;
b underlines that Council of Europe membership implies an
obligation of all member States to participate in both statutory
organs;
c calls on the Russian Federation, in accordance with its
statutory obligations, to appoint a delegation to the Assembly and
to resume obligatory payment of its contribution to the Organisation’s
budget, failure of which may lead to the suspension of its representation
rights in both statutory organs, should the Committee of Ministers
decide to apply Article 9 of the Statute;
d calls for intensified dialogue among all actors concerned
in order to preserve the pan-European mission of the Council of
Europe and avoid a situation in which the biggest member State would
be asked to, or chooses to, leave the Organisation with all the
geopolitical implications this would have and also the concrete
consequences for Russian citizens; welcomes in this respect the
commitment and efforts made by the Finnish Presidency of the Committee
of Ministers;
e calls on the governments of member States to consider
all available options to ensure the political relevance and financial
sustainability of the Organisation so as to avoid seriously undermining
its activities and thereby its effectiveness;
f calls on its members to put this issue on the agenda of
their national parliaments as a matter of urgency and urge their
governments to act responsibly, in line with their obligations under
the Council of Europe Statute, so as to ensure the Council of Europe’s
financial sustainability.
3 Streamlining
the Assembly’s work
3.1 Input
from the Ad hoc Committee
29. Written contributions and discussions
within the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau showed a large consensus
among delegations on the need to streamline, restructure and modernise
its work and focus its activities on issues where it can have an
impact within the Organisation and/or in the member States.
30. Against the background of the Organisation’s current budgetary
crisis, it is important to clarify that, at least in my view, the
objective of streamlining should not be linked to the financial
difficulties the Organisation is facing at present. It is rather
one of the main challenges our Assembly is facing if it wants to
remain relevant both within the Organisation and, in particular,
in the member States. Even if the budgetary problems are solved,
one way or another, we should still ensure that our Assembly debates
reports that fall within “the aim and scope of the Council of Europe”
(see Article 23 of the Statute) and are likely to be politically
relevant and have an impact on the work of the Organisation and/or
in the member States, thus making the difference.
Note
31. In this respect, there was general agreement within the Ad
hoc Committee that the strengthening and the further development
of the Organisation’s unique convention system should be the most
relevant priority for the Assembly.
Note Assembly activities should primarily
focus on how to update Council of Europe conventions, including
through additional protocols, propose new ones, accelerate ratification
and enhance their implementation by member States, including the
specific role played by parliaments in this process. The implementation
of the European Court of Human Rights judgments is of special importance
in this respect. Assembly members also have an important role to
play in explaining to their electorate the direct impact these legal
texts have on their daily life, as well as to be the catalysts of
changing the mindsets on a number of ethical or human dignity issues.
32. Strengthening the standard-setting, advisory and monitoring
bodies and mechanisms of the Organisation and promoting implementation
of their recommendations by member States, through resolutions and/or
recommendations, has also been identified as a priority theme. I
would add that our Assembly, with its unique composition, which
brings together national parliamentarians from both the majority
and opposition, is also best placed to promote concrete legislative
changes within member States on the many issues covered by relevant
Council of Europe conventions (to avoid national parliaments engaging
in preparatory legislative work from scratch).
33. Interestingly enough, this priority coincides also with the
first priority of the Finnish Presidency of the Committee of Ministers,
aimed at strengthening the system of human rights and the rule of
law in Europe, including the convention system.
34. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland and Chairperson
of the Committee of Ministers Timo Soini said to our Assembly during
the January 2019 part-session, “at the present situation, it is
very important to highlight the benefits that respect of universal
human rights and rules-based multilateral co-operation has provided
for people in Europe … [and] to communicate about the impact of
the Court’s work to ordinary people”. For Finland, the added value
of the Council of Europe, what makes the difference, is precisely
that its work is for the benefit of the people.
35. At the same time, human rights and the rule of law are at
the centre of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
As a regional Organisation, the Council of Europe has thus a unique
opportunity to contribute to the implementation of this agenda.
This would mean that any relevant work of the Assembly, and of the
Council of Europe member States, would be reflected at global level
through the United Nations system.
36. The development of the Organisation’s convention system should
primarily aim at reacting to developments and new challenges arising
in Europe, and beyond, as the Council of Europe system of human rights
and the rule of law does not function in a vacuum but must be adapted
to guarantee human rights also in the future. Thus, one of the recent
challenges for the Organisation to which our Assembly should also respond
(and it has already started doing so) is to check to what extent
the current Council of Europe instruments are adequate and sufficient,
or whether new ones should be developed, or old ones strengthened or
implemented more effectively to respond to new situations.
37. One of the new societal challenges that has obtained increasing
attention recently is artificial intelligence, which involves legal
and ethical issues but also has implications for democracy, security
and accountability. Climate change is another ongoing societal challenge
which has already been extensively addressed by our Assembly and
is still high on its agenda, due to the need for the Council of
Europe to take an overarching leadership role in facilitating the
implementation of the Paris Climate Change agreement, in particular
at parliamentary level.
38. The advancement of technology and digitalisation and the ever-increasing
use of social media also call for updating existing Council of Europe
conventions. The Assembly should play a pioneer role in promoting such
changes.
39. As the President of the Republic of Finland, Sauli Niinistö,
said to the Assembly during the January 2019 part-session, “in order
to remain relevant, like any organisation, the Council of Europe
needs to be agile and able to address news issues as they arise.
Living in time sounds commonplace as an objective, but it is not
an easy task”. This is also true for the Assembly’s work.
40. Beyond the conventions strictly speaking, the Council of Europe
acquis is also made up of non-binding legal
instruments, namely recommendations and guidelines issued by the
Committee of Ministers and other Council of Europe bodies, such
as the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission).
They also need to be updated in the light of new challenges, such
as the use of social media. Here again, we are at the heart of what
the Assembly should be promoting and doing.
Note
41. At the same time, the Council of Europe’s convention system
is facing many challenges which do not emanate from technological
developments but from negative trends likely to grow in 2019. I
would like to quote the examples the President of our Assembly mentioned
at the opening of the January 2019 part-session: “major attacks
against freedom of expression, freedom of the media and freedom
of assembly, undemocratic and illiberal trends and the rise of nationalist
and populist rhetoric, threats to the rule of law and challenges
to the authority of the Strasbourg Court”. As our President noted,
this is especially alarming in view of important elections in several
member States in the months to come, as well as elections to the
European Parliament. It is our political responsibility and should
be one of our Assembly’s priorities to defend our system of values
and standards against undemocratic and illiberal trends, political
extremism and aggressive nationalism, discrimination, xenophobia,
hate speech, and other threats to the rule of law.
42. Another area that has been suggested as a priority for the
Assembly within the context of the Ad hoc Committee is that of gender
equality and namely ensuring that the Assembly work is gender sensitive.
This theme also coincides with the second priority of the Finnish
Presidency regarding support for equality and women’s rights. The
Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and
Domestic Violence is a remarkable achievement of the Council of
Europe and the Assembly should continue to promote its ratification
and/or ensure its effective implementation by member States.
43. During discussions at the committee meeting on 5 March 2019
in Paris, members referred to the importance of the Assembly work
in the election observation field. The Assembly should further develop
its election observation tools, in close co-operation with the Venice
Commission, in order to improve the legal framework of its member
States on elections and referendums, electoral practice and compliance
by member States with relevant recommendations.
44. The dramatic rise in terrorist attacks in the last years on
the European continent made the prevention of radicalisation leading
to terrorism and the fight against terrorism, while safeguarding
human rights standards, also a priority of our Assembly and the
whole Organisation. Prevention of radicalisation is explicitly mentioned in
the third priority of the Finnish Presidency. Our Assembly has worked
hand in hand with the intergovernmental sector of the Organisation
on issues such as foreign fighters (promoting the Additional Protocol
to the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism,
CETS No. 217), human rights and the fight against terrorism, funding
of Daesh and protection of victims of terrorism. The challenges
raised by the unprecedented migratory and refugee crisis, a consequence,
to a great extent, of the war in Syria, as well as of destabilisation
and dire economic conditions in other parts of the globe, have also
been the focus of the Assembly in recent years.
45. The Assembly’s work on migration and on terrorism has shown
how closely interlinked the stability and security in Europe and
the stability and security in its neighbourhood are. Our Assembly
has been a pioneer in promoting relations with the neighbouring
countries of the Council of Europe and has, in particular, developed the
partnership for democracy tool for the purpose of promoting human
rights, the rule of law and democratic principles in the neighbourhood
as a means of improving life conditions and stability in these regions,
also for the sake of Europe’s security. If, in the context of budgetary
constraints, work on the neighbourhood should be primarily financed
by other sources than the ordinary budget (for instance through
joint programmes with the European Union, which is extremely interested
in Council of Europe work in this field), this should not make us underestimate
its political relevance. After 10 years of successful practice of
the partnership for democracy status with parliaments from neighbouring
regions, discussions have already started in our committee to re-assess
the status with a view to possibly adapting the rules to the actual
practice and underline the importance of political dialogue among
partners (rather than any idea of “monitoring” of the partners),
and also launch the idea of a status with the Organisation as a
whole.
46. As regards other themes raised by delegations within the Ad
hoc Committee, one delegation mentioned the need for the Assembly
to be more active in the field of social rights (beyond civil and
political rights) and another one mentioned the rights of national
minorities. Also, for one delegation, streamlining the Assembly work
should not deprive it of the opportunity to address conflicts in
Europe and in its neighbourhood that could lead to serious violations
of international law, democratic principles or human rights.
3.2 Proposed
measures
47. On this basis of the above-mentioned
considerations and discussions at the committee meeting on 5 March
2019, with the participation also of the President of the Assembly,
I propose that the Assembly:
a resolves
to streamline its work and focus its activities on issues where
it can have an impact along the lines presented above;
b encourages committees to carefully scrutinise motions,
even after they may have passed the filter of the Bureau and of
the Assembly, in order to retain only those which seem politically
relevant and for which the Council of Europe could have an added
value and tangible impact. Topics which may be of interest for only
a limited number of countries or a limited number of parliamentarians
should not lead to the preparation of a report and an Assembly debate;
c resolves to review, based on proposals by its committees,
their mandate, work programme and institutional representation in
intergovernmental committees and other Council of Europe bodies
in order to verify political relevance and added value;
Note
d invites its committees to focus in their reports on proposals
which can be translated into tangible action by the intergovernmental
sector of the Organisation (standard-setting, advisory or monitoring
bodies) so as to enhance their impact and visibility, and to accompany,
where appropriate, criticism addressed to member States (on failures
in the legislative field or in the implementation of legislation
or violations of human rights, democratic principles and the rule
of law) with proposals for support activities aimed at addressing
these shortcomings or lack of compliance; in both cases, such proposals
should be forwarded to the other statutory organ, the Committee
of Ministers, through recommendations adopted by the Assembly.
4 Improving
the follow-up given to Assembly texts
4.1 Co-operation
between the Assembly and national parliaments
48. The question of national-level
follow-up to its adopted texts has always been a central concern
of the Assembly. The Assembly, being an inter-parliamentary forum
for dialogue without any legislative power, is reliant on the co-operation
of national parliaments and governments for a follow-up to proposals
made in its resolutions and recommendations. At the same time, the
recommendations of the Assembly, the inter-parliamentary organ of
the Council of Europe, have to be considered by the intergovernmental
one, the Committee of Ministers, as the Statute stipulates.
49. As early as 1949,
Recommendation
8 (1949) expressed the wish that Assembly recommendations
be immediately discussed by national parliaments. In 1956,
Resolution
104 (1956) led to the creation of a working party tasked
with maintaining links between the Assembly and national parliaments
and transmitting selected texts accordingly. This evolved into the
Committee on Parliamentary and Public Relations, which enjoyed some success.
However, as the 1990s progressed, it was accused by some of being
“overly bureaucratic” and its output was diminished. The committee
did not survive structural reforms in 2000 that saw a reduction
in the number of committees.
50. Resolution 1640
(2008) “Use by Assembly members of their dual parliamentary
role – both parliamentary and European”has
been one of the most important recent texts on enhancing the visibility
and impact of the Assembly in national parliaments. It called on,
inter alia, the Bureau of the Assembly
to single out certain texts (as the Committee on Parliamentary and
Public Relations had done) to communicate to national delegations and
parliaments, committees to monitor follow-up of adopted texts in
national texts, members to promote Assembly work, and national parliaments
to review implementation. However, a follow-up to
Resolution 1640 (2008) in 2009 revealed that the main texts adopted
by the Assembly were still not systematically transmitted to national
parliaments
Note.
51. Since the dissolution of the Committee on Parliamentary and
Public Relations in 2000, there is no specific body for overseeing
the dissemination of Assembly resolutions. Instead, it is mostly
up to the individual parliamentarians to raise Assembly resolutions
in parliamentary questions or the committees they belong to. Former
Assembly rapporteurs have the obligation to report to the respective
committee of the Assembly on the follow-up given to the resolution
or recommendation which the Assembly adopted on the basis of their
report one year after such adoption. However, this “reporting exercise”
in most cases takes the form of a short oral intervention, leads
to no discussion and receives no visibility as the former rapporteur
is given no real means to verify the follow-up given by national
parliaments or member States.
4.2 Survey
on follow-up by national parliaments
52. Most recently, following discussions
in the Ad hoc Committee upon a proposal by its Chairperson, a survey
was issued to the parliaments of the 47 member States of the Assembly
by the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation
(ECPRD) in May 2018 on the follow-up by national parliaments to
resolutions adopted by the Assembly. It sought to gauge whether
or not parliaments were holding follow-up sessions and/or taking
initiatives on resolutions adopted by the Assembly; if resolutions
were referred to relevant parliamentary committees, and if any action
was taken as a result; and whether national delegations drew up
reports on the activities of the Assembly. Based on the 31 responses,
the main conclusions are as follows:
a only
a few parliaments have an automatic follow-up procedure for resolutions
adopted by the Assembly. Instead, Assembly resolutions tend to feature
incidentally in national initiatives, debates or parliamentary questions;
b around half of the parliaments which participated in the
survey do refer resolutions to the appropriate parliamentary committees.
However, this is usually only done on an ad
hoc basis, at the initiative of individual MPs rather
than as a result of an automatic procedure. It appears uncommon
for national parliamentary committees to take direct action as a
result;
c most Assembly delegations draw up reports and deliver
them back to their national parliaments. However, the frequency
of this varies considerably between delegations. Moreover, only
a limited number of those reports are actively debated in parliament.
It appears more common for them to be presented without discussion.
53. With respect to previous attempts at improving national follow-up
to texts adopted by the Assembly and bearing in mind the results
of the recent survey on national parliaments’ involvement, any attempt
at improving the situation should be simple, systematic and sustainable
as well as financially and practically feasible in the current circumstances.
It must equally respect the nature and identity of the Assembly,
being an inter-parliamentary forum for dialogue between representatives
of the national parliaments of 47 member States, instead of a kind
of “pan-European parliament”. The Assembly delivers conclusions
and proposals which are put at the disposal of those who want to
implement them. Lastly, the more focused the Assembly’s resolutions are,
the better the chances that national parliaments take our conclusions
and proposals more seriously.
4.3 Proposed
measures
54. On the basis of discussions
held at the committee’s meetings on 11 September 2018 and on 5 March 2019
and after taking into account also the views expressed by the President
of the Assembly, I propose that:
a the
Secretary General of the Assembly ensures that Speakers of national
parliaments are regularly informed about conclusions and proposals
made in Assembly’s resolutions, especially those concerning their
own country;
b national parliamentary delegations to the Assembly regularly
report to their parliaments on their activities in the Assembly,
preferably after each part-session, and inform the Assembly’s Bureau
on the national follow-up given to Assembly’s resolutions at least
once a year;
c Assembly rapporteurs, in case of follow-up to country-specific
proposals, prepare, with the active involvement of the national
delegation concerned, a memorandum on the follow-up given by the
national parliaments and governments to their report, at the latest
one year after its adoption by the Assembly;
d Assembly committees increase their contacts with relevant
committees in national parliaments, including exchanges of views
between respective chairpersons and/or rapporteurs.
e political groups in the Assembly encourage their members
to ensure appropriate follow up of those resolutions the group considers
relevant and consider creating their own follow-up mechanisms;
f its members promote awareness of and follow-up to Assembly
and, more generally, Council of Europe activities by explaining
to their electorate the direct impact these may have on their daily
life and acting as catalysts to change their mindsets on a number
of ethical issues.
5 Enhancing
the dialogue between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers
55. Another issue on which there
was consensus in the Ad Hoc Committee of the Bureau as regards the need
to step up the political dialogue between the Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers, while respecting each other’s prerogatives. The report
of the Ad hoc Committee includes a useful list of new proposals
and recalls older ones which have not yet been fully implemented
or need to be revived.
56. Some of them are listed in Assembly recommendations adopted
some 15 years ago and others are listed in the Report prepared by
the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on “Enhanced Dialogue
and Co-operation between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers”, published in June 2010 (
SG/Inf(2010)12), following the joint agreement reached between the
Assembly and the Committee of Ministers.
Note A follow-up to this exercise
was conducted by the Assembly exploring ways to expand constructive
co-operation, ensure better interaction between the two statutory
bodies and co-ordinate their activities and positions.
Note Questions
related to specific instruments for dialogue with the Committee
of Ministers at the Assembly’s disposal and the Assembly’s budgetary
role have already been examined by the Committee on Rules of Procedure
or will receive further emphasis in upcoming reports or in its opinion
to the present report.
57. Since the publication of the report by the Ad hoc Committee
and the decisions on follow-up taken by the Bureau of the Assembly,
contacts and dialogue between the Assembly and the Committee of
Ministers have significantly intensified at different levels.
58. As the President of the Assembly said in her opening speech
at the January 2019 part-session, just after her re-election, “there
is a need to strengthen relations between the Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers and continue a frank and open dialogue, respecting
each other’s prerogatives, but focusing on what unites us – the
objectives of the Council of Europe defined by the Statute. It is
our shared responsibility to strengthen our institutional mechanisms,
so as to be able to speak with one voice when the future of the
Organisation is at stake”.
59. For his part, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Finland and
Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, addressing the Assembly
during the same part-session and referring to the issue of participation
of member States in the work of the two statutory bodies of the
Organisation, insisted that “only constructive co-operation between
the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly can bring
answers and resolve deadlocks”. What the Minister proposed was “an
enhanced dialogue between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary
Assembly to form a process resulting in a solution to the question.”
60. Joint Committee meetings have been held at each part-session
of the Assembly since June 2018 including on the report of the Ad
hoc Committee and, in particular, the issue of relations between
the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers.
61. Also, the frequency of informal meetings between the President
of the Assembly and the President of the Committee of Ministers
has significantly increased over recent years.
62. Last but not least, the practice of informal meetings between
the Presidential Committee of the Assembly and the Committee of
Ministers’ Bureau, with the participation also of the Secretary
General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Organisation, has
recently been revived.
Note On
3 April 2019, the fifth such meeting in the last six months was
held in Helsinki. To what extent these informal meetings should
develop into a permanent contact body to ensure frequency and provide
for structured communication between the Assembly and the Committee
of Ministers is an issue for the two bodies to address.
63. Without risking interfering in the process of dialogue between
the two statutory organs as described above, it will be of high
interest for our committee to discuss in more depth the proposals
recently put forward by national delegations in the Ad hoc Committee
but also, as said above, some older ones which may be put back on
the table.
64. The first priority for us, as parliamentarians, is to ask
the Committee of Ministers to ensure that its replies to Assembly
recommendations address fully and substantially all issues raised.
Since the above-mentioned 2010 report by the Secretary General,
the Assembly has reduced the number of recommendations sent to the Committee
of Ministers to issues which fall within the core activities of
the Organisation so as to contribute to improving the substance
of the replies. However, there still seems to be room for improvement
as some replies fail to address all issues raised, as was noted
in the Ad hoc Committee report.
Note
65. As regards the requirement of transparency, the Committee
of Ministers could consider introducing the practice of annexing
to its replies to Assembly recommendations a dissenting opinion
by one or more member States (similar to the practice of the Assembly
or the European Court of Human Rights). This could save time in
the adoption of the reply as one or a few member States which disagreed
with the majority view would not block the adoption. At the same
time, it would ensure that dissenters’ voices were heard and would
allow the Assembly to know why and on which issues some member States
disagreed with the majority view.
Note
66. To improve communication and understanding, we should also
consider reviving the practice of inviting Assembly rapporteurs
to Committee of Ministers Rapporteur Groups and steering committees
to present their reports and explain the content of recommendations.
It would equally be useful to invite Chairpersons of relevant Committee
of Ministers Rapporteur Groups to regularly exchange with Assembly
committees to develop synergies on files of common interest.
Note
67. Similarly, the proposal has been put forward in the Ad hoc
Committee to enhance the practice of joint hearings between Assembly
committees and intergovernmental experts during the drafting process
of new Council of Europe conventions to ensure better support by
national parliaments after the adoption of these conventions.
68. As regards the Joint Committee meetings between the two statutory
organs, while welcoming their increased number (as said above, it
has convened during each part-session since June 2018), what would
be worth exploring is the possibility of setting up a “mixed working
party” following an agreement between the Bureau of the Assembly
and the Committee of Ministers “for the discussion of a particular
item”, in line with Rule 58.1 of the Assembly Rules of Procedure.
Note
69. When it comes to the political dialogue between the Assembly
and the government of the member State holding the presidency of
the Committee of Ministers, it should be welcomed that, in addition
to an exchange of views with the Foreign Affairs Minister in his
capacity of Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, dialogue has
been, in practice, further enhanced by including an exchange of
views with the Prime Minister or the Head of State concerned.
70. The proposal made in 2010 to consult the national delegation
to the Assembly when preparing the future presidency and its priorities
seems also to have been implemented and have contributed to ensuring
closer co-ordination between governmental and parliamentarian components
in the preparation of the presidency. For this purpose, the Assembly
has provided in its Rules of Procedure (Rule 14.3) that the Chairpersons
of national delegations of the member States holding the current,
the previous and the next two presidencies of the Committee of Ministers
shall be ex officio members
of the Bureau entitled to vote.
71. Despite recent progress as regards the political dialogue
between the two statutory organs, there has so far been no concrete
follow-up to the proposals made in
Resolution 2186 (2017) and in
Recommendation
2113 (2017),
Note aimed
at the harmonisation of procedures in case of lack of compliance
by a member State with its statutory obligations.
72. It is therefore still necessary and of utmost importance for
the two statutory organs to engage in a joint reflection in order
to set up a joint Council of Europe procedure of reaction to respond
effectively to the lack of compliance by a member State with its
statutory obligations. Such a mechanism should be able to deal with both
political and legal aspects of the non-compliance by a member State
of its statutory obligations and commitments, in particular with
regard to conventions to which it is a Party (for instance as a
follow-up to Article 46.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights
and failure to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human
Rights).
73. It is for the two statutory organs to decide on the principles
and details of such a joint procedure of reaction. The main idea,
however, should be to provide for a step-by-step process which would,
as an ultimate aim, ensure enhanced impact and relevance of the
measures to be taken, both on the member State and on the Council
of Europe, thanks to the synergy and joint action by the two statutory
bodies (“speaking with a common voice”).
74. Such a joint procedure of reaction could be triggered by either
the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers or the Secretary
General and all three of them would participate in it. It could
consist of a step-by-step process, starting from the notification
of the member State concerned and including a number of concrete
and well-defined steps such us: a co-ordinated dialogue with the
State concerned; the setting up of a special monitoring procedure,
enhanced by a joint task force; the publication of a public statement,
and ultimately the decision by the Committee of Ministers to act
under Articles 7, 8 or 9 of the Statute within a fixed time-frame.
Political action could also be combined, where appropriate, with
technical support to the State concerned.
75. Providing for such a procedure would avoid situations in which
one or the other of the statutory organs would take decisions without
consulting the other and would ensure the synergy and coherence
the Assembly had already referred to one and a half years ago in
its
Resolution 2186 (2017).
76. Of course, a number of issues have to be discussed and agreed
between the two statutory organs (in appropriate fora), for instance
the assessment of the circumstances which could trigger the joint
reaction process.
77. From a procedural point of view, if agreement is reached in
advance between the two statutory organs on precise terms, the new
mechanism could be formally set up by a statutory resolution. In
the past, several statutory resolutions were adopted by the Committee
of Ministers either on the basis of a proposal made by the Assembly,
or after consultation of the Assembly through a request for opinion.
It is worth recalling that, more than twenty years ago, in its 1998
Final Report to the Committee of Ministers (
CM(98)178), the Committee of Wise Persons,
Note when
making proposals aimed at “reinforcing decision-making within the
Organisation and strengthening and consolidating institutional balance”
(see paragraph 40), had suggested (in paragraph 41) that “the Committee
of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly should agree on the
text of a statutory resolution clarifying their relationship as
the two main partners within the Organisation”. However, this has
not yet happened, thus leaving room for misunderstanding and possibly
conflicting decisions.
78. In light of the above-mentioned considerations, I propose
that the Assembly:
a notes that
there is an urgent need to develop synergies and provide for joint
action by the two statutory organs in order to strengthen the Organisation’s
ability to react more effectively in situations where a member State
violates its statutory obligations or does not respect the fundamental
principles and values upheld by the Council of Europe;
b asks the Committee of Ministers to consider its proposal
to put into place, in such situations, a joint procedure of reaction
which could be triggered by either the Parliamentary Assembly, the
Committee of Ministers or the Secretary General and in which all
three of them would participate; this joint procedure could consist
of a step-by-step process, starting from the notification of the
member State concerned and including a number of concrete and well-defined
steps such us a co-ordinated dialogue with the State concerned,
the setting up of a special monitoring procedure enhanced by a joint
task force, the publication of a public statement and ultimately
the decision to act under Articles 7, 8 or 9 of the Statute within
a fixed time-frame; this joint procedure would ensure enhanced legitimacy,
credibility, impact, relevance and synergy of the measures to be
taken, both on the member State concerned and within the Organisation,
without prejudice to each organ’s separate powers and responsibilities;
political action could also be combined, where appropriate, with
technical support to the State concerned;
c calls for stronger and more structured co-ordination between
the monitoring activities of the two statutory organs, the Secretary
General and the Commissioner for Human Rights as well as of the
various specialised monitoring and advisory bodies and mechanisms
of the Organisation, without prejudice to their respective independence.
6 Strengthening
the Assembly’s relations with the European Union and European Parliament
as well as with other international organisations or parliamentary
assemblies
6.1 Relations
with the European Union
79. The need to step up high-level
political dialogue between the Assembly and the European Union,
in particular with the European Commission and the European Parliament,
in full respect of their respective areas of responsibility, and
build up common synergies and partnerships to improve the Assembly’s
visibility and prevent unnecessary duplication of work and resources,
has been another issue on which consensus was reached within the
Ad hoc Committee on the role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly.
80. Many new challenges regarding the relations between the two
European organisations have emerged following the signing of the
2007 Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and
the European Union, based on proposals by Mr Jean Claude Juncker
in the report he presented in his capacity as then Prime Minister
of Luxembourg, following a mandate he received at the Warsaw Summit,
on “Council of Europe-European Union – A sole ambition for Europe”.
Note If the 2007 Memorandum confirmed
the central role of Council of Europe as “the benchmark for human
rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe” and “Europe’s wide
reference source of human rights”, the entry into force of the Lisbon
Treaty in 2009 offered new opportunities for a reinforced partnership
between the Council of Europe and the European Union, based on each
other’s acquis and comparative advantages. The principal aim of
such partnership has been and still is to ensure coherence and complementarity
between the pan-European project promoted by the Council of Europe
and the European Union’s integration progress, while avoiding duplication
and conflicting messages.
81. European Union accession to the European Convention on Human
Rights, which the Lisbon Treaty turned into a legal obligation for
the European Union, as well as EU accession to other Council of
Europe conventions, including the Council of Europe Convention on
Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence,
which also provides for a monitoring mechanism, are expected to
lead to a common legal space for human rights protection across
the continent in the interest of all Europeans. However, EU accession
to the Convention was halted following a ruling of the Court of
Justice of the European Union of 18 December 2014 (Opinion 2/13)
which held the draft Accession Agreement, prepared following lengthy negotiations
between the European Union institutions and the Council of Europe,
to be incompatible with EU Treaties, raising complex legal and political
issues.
82. At the same time, the European Union’s ever-growing role in
the key areas of activity of the Council of Europe (justice, freedom
and democratic security) has increased the risk of duplication between
the two organisations and hence the importance of developing synergies
to ensure coherence of standards. Also, the European Union’s growing
role in these areas affects the interaction between the European
Union and its member States when participating in Council of Europe
steering committees and when negotiating new Council of Europe conventions
falling within these areas. Examples of good co-ordination are available
in the framework of Council of Europe transversal multi-annual strategies,
such as the Council of Europe Gender Equality Strategy 2018-2023
and the Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child 2016-2021,
which have been prepared in close consultation with the European
Union to ensure complementarity and focus on each organisation’s
specific added value in the area.
83. The Assembly has debated a number of reports on the relations
between the Council of Europe and the European Union, prepared mainly
by its Committees on Political Affairs and Democracy and on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights,
Note underlining in its adopted resolutions
or recommendations the above-mentioned challenges, reiterating similar
messages and calling for the European Union accession to the European Convention
on Human Rights.
84. It is no coincidence that the report of the Ad hoc Committee
of the Bureau also raised the need to promote EU accession to the
Convention at the forefront of the Assembly political dialogue with
the various EU institutions, namely the European Commission and
the European Parliament. This is also the reason why I asked to
meet Mr Juncker, President of the European Commission, and the legal
services of both the European Commission and the European Council.
My visit to Brussels took place on 4 April 2019 and I thank the
Council of Europe office there for the excellent organisation.
Note
85. I am particularly grateful to President Juncker for the time
he devoted to our meeting, his hospitality and the assurances he
gave me. President Juncker confirmed to me that, as he had also
recently told the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, he
had taken the initiative to reinvigorate work on EU accession to
the European Convention on Human Rights. He assured me that he would
do everything that was possible so that the Commission, still under
his presidency, would submit to the Council of the European Union
the consolidated proposals in reply to the legal issues raised by
the Luxembourg Court Opinion in 2014. President Juncker underlined
that EU accession to the Convention was not only a long-standing
legal obligation for the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty
but had also important political consequences that should not be underestimated.
86. As the representatives of the legal services of the European
Commission and of the Council of the European Union have also explained
to me, following exchanges between the two of them, technical work
has been completed on the Commission’s side, in the sense that for
each issue raised by the Court an answer is proposed. Once the Commission’s
proposals are submitted to the Council of the European Union, discussions will
take place among the 28 or 27 member States of the European Union
(depending on Brexit) and any agreed proposals will then be discussed
in the framework of negotiations with the 47 member States of the Council
of Europe. In my meetings with the legal services of the European
Commission and the European Council, I also discussed EU accession
to other Council of Europe conventions, in particular the Istanbul Convention
and that on data protection, as well as possible EU participation
in the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).
87. Recent years have seen various EU institutions (European Parliament,
European Commission, European Council, Court of Justice of the European
Union) applying, establishing or proposing various rule of law procedures,
mechanisms or initiatives, with different scope and effects. This
relatively recent development has led to a new challenge as the
Council of Europe is called to ensure, and our Assembly should fully
support the intergovernmental sector in this effort, that any EU
rule of law mechanism needs to be based on the existing rule of
law standards of the Council of Europe, including the case law of
the European Court of Human Rights, relevant recommendations of
the Committee of Ministers, standards and opinions of the Venice
Commission (including the “Rule of Law Checklist”), opinions and/or
findings of the relevant Council of Europe advisory or monitoring
bodies, and should not lead to any conflicting messages or forum
shopping. For its part, the Assembly should in addition ensure that
its own relevant work is also a source of reference for the European Union
when assessing compliance with the values guaranteed in Article
2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in the framework of its
various existing procedures or its initiatives. This should include
the work of the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee but also relevant
work by its general committees, in particular country-specific findings
and recommendations included in country-specific or thematic reports
and resolutions.
88. A report prepared by Ms Petra De Sutter on the “Establishment
of a European Union mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and
fundamental rights”
Note highlights to this new challenge
and reaffirms the need to ensure synergy of action and to avoid
fragmentation of the understanding of fundamental values and their implementation
on the European continent, through practical arrangements at all
levels. For instance, the European Union is invited to provide safeguards
in any existing or future mechanism to ensure that the assessment
of action of the European Union will not affect existing procedures
arising from Council of Europe advisory or monitoring bodies, along
similar lines to Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union.
89. I support in particular the proposal made in this report to
enhance dialogue with the national parliaments, under conditions
favouring an open debate on the recommendations emanating from both
organisations concerning the respect by the member States of human
rights, the rule of law and democracy standards, and to use the
Assembly platform to timely bring European decision-makers and representatives
of national parliaments closer together. The details and precise
format of such a debate should of course be carefully reflected
and agreed. In my view, such a periodic debate (annual, as Ms De
Sutter proposes, or biennial, for practical and logistical reasons)
should be entitled “Debate on democracy, the rule of law and human
rights” so as to make it clear that all three pillars of the Council
of Europe are covered. In analogy to the biennial debate on the
activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) for which the Assembly sits in an enlarged composition to
include parliamentary delegations from the member States of the OECD
which are not member States of the Council of Europe, for a periodic
debate on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, organised
in co-operation with the European Union institutions, the Assembly
could sit in a restricted composition reserved to the national parliamentary
delegations from the member States of the European Union. The European
Conference of Presidents of Parliament could also offer the platform
for such a debate.
90. On the eve of my arrival in Brussels, on 3 April 2019, the
European Commission published a Communication on the Rule of Law,
which includes several references to the work of the Council of
Europe and opens the way for the Council of Europe to advance concrete
proposals on how to enhance the EU rule of law toolbox.
91. When I met President Juncker, I welcomed this recent development
which was also in line with what he had proposed in his own report
from 2006 when stating that “the European Union must base itself
on the evaluations carried out by the Council of Europe. I also
referred to ongoing discussions between the Council of Europe and
the European Union about the possibility of the latter making a
non-earmarked contribution to the Council of Europe’s work on the
rule of law.
Note Such
a contribution would only be fair, as the EU institutions use relevant
Council of Europe work when assessing respect for the rule of law
in common member States or in States that are part of the enlargement
process or the Eastern partnership. President Juncker said that
he valued very much the contribution of the Council of Europe in
the European Commission’s recent initiatives to address rule of
law developments in some EU member States, in particular that from
the Venice Commission, and agreed to consider ways for the European
Union to be supportive to such Council of Europe work.
92. When discussing the Council of Europe’s role in the overall
European architecture, President Juncker underlined that the Council
of Europe was and should remain the place where all European nations
can meet. He also fully supported the proposals which I have included
in this report and which I briefly shared with him as regards the
need to develop synergies and provide for joint action by the two
statutory organs and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe
in order to strengthen the Organisation’s ability to react more effectively
in situations where a member State violates its statutory obligations
or does not respect the fundamental principles and values upheld
by the Council of Europe.
93. In Brussels, I also discussed the need to step up the dialogue
and the co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European
Union with Ms Marja Rislakki, Permanent Representative of Finland
to the European Union. Referring to the high commitment to supporting
the Council of Europe shown by the Finnish Presidency of the Committee
of Ministers, I expressed my hope that Finland would be equally
supportive to the Council of Europe when chairing the Council of
the European Union as of 1 July 2019. Ambassador Rislakki assured
me that Finland would do everything possible to push forward the
EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights if the file
reached the Council of the European Union during its presidency.
94. The report of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau also included
the following proposals on how to enhance the dialogue between the
Assembly and the European Union, some of which I have also included
in the draft resolution:
a establish
direct contacts between the Assembly and the Conference of Parliamentary
Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union
member States (COSAC), including possible joint committee meetings;
b set up a network of European parliamentarism, comprising
the Assembly, the European Parliament and national parliaments for
the purpose of co-ordinating political action, streamlining communication
and facilitating the flow of information, good practice, ideas and
recommendations and thus enhancing the harmonisation of national
legislations;
c organise regular hearings either in committee or in plenary
with senior EU officials (European Commissioner for the rule of
law and human rights, European Commissioner for justice and home affairs,
Head of the Fundamental Rights Agency);
d organise frequent discussions between Assembly committees
and European Parliament committees or otherwise foster co-operation
between the Assembly and the European Parliament, for instance through the
promotion of common projects;
e set up an Assembly–European Parliament Joint Informal
Body to discuss topical issues of common interest, in a variable
composition, depending on the topic, or organise, jointly with the
European Parliament, interparliamentary conferences on specific
topics of common interest;
f enhance co-operation in joint electoral observation missions;
g consider updating the 2007 agreement on the strengthening
of co-operation between the Assembly and the European Parliament
with a view to taking into account the most recent developments
since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
95. It is clear that the issue of relations between the Council
of Europe and the European Union, including the European Parliament,
should remain high on the agenda of our Assembly. As it goes beyond
the scope of the present report, it would be timely for the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy to initiate a new report on the
overall co-operation between the two organisations, following elections
to the European Parliament in May 2019,
6.2 Relations
with other international organisations or parliamentary assemblies
96. A number of participants in
the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on the role and mission of the Parliamentary
Assembly referred to the need for the Assembly to enhance relations
with other international and/or regional organisations or institutions
and especially with their parliamentary assemblies. Reference was made
in particular to the United Nations, the OECD and the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and its Parliamentary
Assembly. One delegation also referred to the need to fine-tune interaction
with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States (IPA-CIS) and
another delegation referred to the need to enhance co-operation
with the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO).
97. As regards co-operation with the United Nations, and in order
to avoid unnecessary repetition, I refer to the report just adopted
by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on “Strengthening
co-operation with the United Nations in implementing the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development Goals”.
Note The draft resolution commits the
Assembly to regularly reviewing the implementation of Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and fully playing its role as a platform
for exchanging national experiences and good practice. Furthermore,
in terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly should strengthen
the parliamentary contribution to, and dialogue with, the United
Nations, focusing on the implementation of SDGs and the complementarity between
the Council of Europe and the United Nations. I also refer to the
report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable
Development on the “Implementation of the Sustainable Development
Goals: synergy needed on the part of all stakeholders, from parliaments
to local authorities”.
Note This report seeks to mobilise national
parliaments and local and regional authorities in support of SDGs.
I fully support the proposals made in these reports.
98. As regards co-operation with the OECD, the Enlarged Assembly
debates were introduced in 1993 to allow delegations of national
parliaments of OECD member States which are not members of the Council
of Europe or of the European Parliament, to participate. These debates
take place in accordance with special rules, adopted by the Enlarged
Assembly in 1992 and amended since. In this respect, concrete measures
were recently taken, proposed by the Committee on Political Affairs
and Democracy and endorsed by the Bureau of the Assembly, following
a meeting between the former President of the Assembly, Mr Nicoletti,
and the Secretary General of the OECD, Mr Gurría, subsequent exchanges
between the secretariats of the two organisations and an exchange
of letters between their Secretaries General in January 2019. These
measures, which I fully welcome, reduce the number of debates by
the Enlarged Assembly on the OECD activities (passing from an annual
to a biennial debate) but at the same time enhance the impact and
visibility of co-operation between the two organisations by providing
for a stronger and more efficient institutional relationship, streamlining
procedures and making better use of both organisations’ strengths.
They include
inter alia the participation
of an Assembly delegation, as an institutional partner, in the meetings
of the OECD Global Parliamentary Network every second year (the
year where there is no debate at the Assembly), the focusing of
Assembly reports on specific themes to be defined by the rapporteur
following contacts with the OECD, rather than on OECD activities
in general, as well as regular exchanges of views between the Political
Affairs Committee and OECD experts.
Note
99. As regards the relations with the IPA-CIS, I recall that our
two Assemblies are co-operating on the basis of an agreement signed
in 1997. Our Assembly regularly participates in or even co-organises,
with the IPA CIS, parliamentary conferences on topics of common
interest, such as the fight against terrorism. These joint activities
offer us an opportunity to emphasise, time and again, our strong
commitment to fundamental values which the Council of Europe is
duty-bound to uphold, and which are not necessarily a priority for
some CIS States.
100. The topic of enhancing relations with the OSCE and its Parliamentary
Assembly as well as possibly with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,
which both have co-operation agreements with our Assembly, deserves further
reflection and perhaps a separate report by the Committee on Political
Affairs and Democracy.
101. In general, it could be timely for the Assembly to evaluate
its co-operation agreements with various international parliamentary
assemblies or organisations with a view to possibly updating them
and enhancing their effectiveness.
7 Conclusions
102. Set up 70 years ago to achieve
greater unity among its member States, on the basis of common values and
principles, the Council of Europe is today in a deep political and
financial crisis, confronted with many challenges which seriously
threaten the effectiveness of its statutory organs and of its mechanisms
and instruments, and thus ultimately the statutory aims of the Organisation.
103. The Parliamentary Assembly, as one of the two statutory organs
of the Organisation, has itself played an essential role in developing
European unity within diversity. The report and draft resolution,
on the basis also of the findings of the Ad hoc Committee of its
Bureau on the role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly, recall
and reaffirm the important deliberative role of the Assembly as
well as its role as Europe’s guardian of human rights and democracy,
political engine of the Organisation and pan-European forum for interparliamentary
dialogue. However, the Assembly has not yet been able to effectively
assist in overcoming the crisis currently threatening the Organisation.
104. Thus, the present report and draft resolution and recommendation
propose measures to face the current challenges, promote security
in Europe, reinvigorate trust in the Council of Europe and among
its member States, and preserve the future of the Organisation.
105. During these challenging times for the Organisation, the report
proposes that the Assembly streamlines, restructures and modernises
its work and focusses its activities on issues within the aim and
scope of the Organisation which are politically relevant and likely
to have an impact on the work of the Organisation and/or in the
member States for the benefit of European citizens. Strengthening
and further developing the organisation’s unique convention system
is considered to be the main priority for the Assembly. Concrete measures
are proposed in the draft resolution.
106. Enhanced impact and visibility of the work of the Assembly
is only possible if the decisions it takes are followed up, in particular
by or through national parliaments. In this respect, the report
and draft resolution propose concrete measures to improve the follow-up
to Assembly resolutions.
107. Noting that the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau underlined
the need to step up political dialogue between the Assembly and
the Committee of Ministers, the report and the draft resolution
and recommendation welcome the fact that contacts and dialogue with
the Committee of Ministers have recently significantly intensified
at different levels and in different formats and propose measures
to further develop synergies and provide for joint action by the
two statutory organs in order to strengthen the Organisation’s ability
to react more effectively in situations where a member State violates
its statutory obligations or does not respect the fundamental principles
and values upheld by the Council of Europe.
108. As regards the need to step up the political dialogue between
the Assembly and the European Union, the report and draft resolution
underline that promotion of the EU accession to the European Convention
on Human Rights should remain at the forefront of this dialogue
as it will lead to a common legal space for human rights protection
across the continent in the interest of all Europeans. They further
draw attention to new challenges in the relations between the European
Union and the Council of Europe in the area of the rule of law and
recall new or older proposals for closer co-operation with the European
Parliament.
109. Last but not least, the report and draft resolution provide
a brief overview of co-operation with other international and/or
regional organisations, in particular the United Nations and the
OECD, and propose an evaluation of the Assembly’s co-operation agreements
with various international parliamentary assemblies or organisations
with a view to possibly updating them and enhancing their effectiveness.
