B Explanatory memorandum
by Mr Mart van de Ven, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. The preparation of the Parliamentary
Assembly’s opinion on the budget and priorities of the Council of Europe
for the biennium 2020-2021 is taking place in a strange context.
The Assembly is required to comment on Council of Europe priorities
on the basis of the participation of the 47 member States in the
Council of Europe’s budget, whereas the reality of the situation
should lead us to present an opinion based on the actual situation
facing the Council of Europe, in other words, without the funding
from one of the five major contributors, namely the Russian Federation.
Part of the current financial crisis is that the Parliamentary Assembly
has no budgetary powers.
Note I
recall that the Council of Europe is an international organization
of a political nature, and without an economic or gainful aim, set
up by sovereign States. The Council of Europe relies for its funding
on contributions by its member States.
2. At present, it must be said that many member States want the
Russian Federation not to leave the Organisation but to pay its
contributions (current and outstanding) to the Council of Europe
budget according to its financial commitments. It can therefore
be asked whether these States are willing to give up the principles of
the rule of law and forget that the Russian Federation has not honoured
the commitments it entered into upon accession, in particular by
failing to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Ukraine, within its internationally recognised borders, as defined
following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
3. It is not acceptable that, for purely political considerations,
a member State is exerting such budgetary pressure on the Council
of Europe to achieve its ends, driving the whole Organisation towards
the abyss at the very time when it is celebrating its 70th anniversary
and when Europe is experiencing a rise in populism and the calling
into question of multilateralism and is faced with a social and
political crisis of a kind unprecedented since the 1930s.
4. Policies that harm the social and democratic rights of citizens
in Europe are being compounded by external challenges such as the
migrant and refugee crisis, ongoing hostilities in many parts of
the world and the constant threat of terrorism. The Council of Europe
must reaffirm its commitment to tackling these issues effectively
and finding long-term solutions. But it cannot do so without strengthening
its standard-setting capacity, implemented through its network of
intergovernmental committees, whose terms of reference could be
reviewed to take account of the challenges.
5. The question is whether, under the current financial outlook,
the Council of Europe can provide all its member and partner States
with the responses enabling them to rise to these challenges and
combat the current negative trends.
2 Audit of the 2016 and 2017 accounts
6. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli (NIK),
External Auditor of the Council of Europe, has examined the consolidated financial
statements of the Council of Europe for the years ending 31 December
2016 and 2017 and issued an unqualified opinion for the two years.
The financial statements give a true and fair view of the financial
position of the Council of Europe and the results of its operations
and cash flows for the years ended.
7. During its audit of the 2016 accounts, the External Auditor
conducted three performance audits in the areas of Council of Europe
pensions, archives and the upgrading of the IT system for human
resources management. For 2017, the performance audits covered administrative
levies on extra-budgetary resources, IT record and document management
systems and the programme line, Education for Democratic Citizenship –
European Centre for Modern Languages (Graz) and the European Centre
for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (North-South Centre) (Lisbon).
8. In both reports, the External Auditor placed emphasis on the
issue of pensions and the financial situation of the Council of
Europe since 2017. Concerning pensions, it should be noted that
employee benefits recorded as liabilities in the financial statement
as at 31 December 2017 totalled €2 795.8 million (€2 757.1 million
in 2016), thereby exceeding the Council of Europe’s total assets
by €1 940.1 million in 2017 (€1 986.1 million in 2016).
9. In this connection, it should be noted that from 1949, the
Council of Europe and its staff members paid into a defined-contributions
pension scheme. This scheme was closed by the Committee of Ministers
on 1 July 1974 and the contributions paid by the member States and
staff were refunded to the member States alone. In April 1977, the
Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution (77) 11 on a new defined-benefits
pension scheme, also in force in five other international organisations.
The staff continued to pay contributions for their pension entitlements,
while the employer – the member States – only paid the additional
amounts required to cover the low level of pension benefits paid
each year.
10. The Council of Europe now has three pension schemes (the above-mentioned
co-ordinated pension scheme; the new pension scheme (NPS), which
came into force in 2003; and the third pension scheme (TPS) established
in 2013. While the two new schemes are self-financing, that is not
true of the co-ordinated pension scheme, which is weighed down by
debt generated in the 1970s and 1980s by the States’ non-payment
of their contributions.
11. For the three schemes, “the Member States of the Organisation
jointly guarantee the payment of the benefits” and “should a country,
being a Member or ex-Member of the Organisation, fail to comply
with its obligations under [the pension scheme rules], the other
countries shall meet the cost thereof in proportion to their contribution
to the budget of the Organisation as fixed annually from and after
the said country’s default”.
12. The member States’ contributions subsequently grew significantly
and in 1996-1997 exceeded twice the amount contributed by staff.
Given this challenge and to meet its obligations, the Committee
of Ministers in 2002 adopted Resolution Res(2002)53 providing for
a Pension Reserve Fund designed to contribute to the financing of
future pension obligations. The resolution was revised in 2006 and
replaced by Resolution Res(2006)1.
13. The Pension Reserve Fund is not designed as a pension fund
and its purpose is to smooth (stabilise), in the medium and long
term, the financing of the member States’ obligations under the
pension schemes. The fund has three main sources of income: contributions
from the Council of Europe and staff (employer’s and employees’
share), direct contributions from the member States (as determined
by the Committee of Ministers based on actuarial studies) and investment
return (income earned on the assets of the fund). As at 31 December
2017, the fund’s assets totalled €362.2 million (€320.4 million
in 2016).
14. Regarding the financial position for 2017, the External Auditor
noted the existence of receivables from the Russian Federation of
€22.3 million as at 31 December 2017, representing the unpaid share
of the country’s obligatory annual contribution for 2017. €2.5 million
of this amount correspond to a direct contribution to the Pension
Reserve Fund.
3 2017
15. In his report on the state
of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe warned member States about the resurgence
of populist politics in Europe, involving not only worrying growth
in nationalist and xenophobic parties in European countries exploiting
Europeans’ anxieties over migration but also certain excesses when
governments openly challenge constitutional constraints and disregard
their international obligations to uphold human rights.
16. Combating terrorism remained on the Council of Europe’s agenda.
At the 127th ministerial session in Nicosia on 19 May 2017, the
Committee of Ministers opened for signature the Council of Europe
Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (CETS No. 221),
on which occasion it was signed by 12 member and non-member States
(Armenia, Cyprus, Russian Federation, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Montenegro,
Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Ukraine and Mexico). Cyprus and
Mexico have ratified it.
17. The Ministers for Foreign Affairs also adopted new guidelines
regarding improvement of support, information and compensation provided
for victims of terrorist attacks in each of the 47 member States.
The guidelines provide for various measures to be taken by member
States, including free emergency assistance, medical, psychological
and social help; and information points for victims, access to justice
and timely compensation. The Committee of Ministers also adopted
a recommendation [CM/Rec(2017)6] on “special investigation techniques”
in relation to serious crimes including acts of terrorism.
18. In the area of migration, the Committee of Ministers adopted
the Council of Europe Action Plan on Protecting Refugee and Migrant
Children in Europe. At the same time, the Parliamentary Assembly,
with the support of Switzerland, continued its parliamentary campaign
launched in 2015 to put an end to the detention of migrant children.
It continued to focus its debates both on broader issues – finding
a humanitarian and political response to the crisis – and on specific
aspects such as the impact of transit migration on human rights, the
integration of refugees in times of critical pressure and the protection
of refugee women. Other key developments included the efforts made
by the Assembly in the fight against corruption, with two reports debated
during its 2017 session and the decision to set up an independent
external investigation body to look into the allegations of corruption
concerning it.
19. In legal co-operation, reference should be made to the adoption
of the Protocol amending the Additional Protocol to the Convention
on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (ETS No. 167) and the requests
by Brazil and Ghana to accede to the convention itself (ETS No. 112).
Reference should also be made to other requests by non-member States
to accede to Council of Europe conventions: Argentina and Burkina
Faso in the case of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals
with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108)
and the Additional Protocol thereto (ETS No. 181); Nigeria and Cape
Verde in the case of the Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185);
and, lastly, the request by Tunisia to accede to the Convention
on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual
Abuse (CETS No. 201).
20. Regarding the Council of Europe’s other areas of activity
(social cohesion, education, culture, youth and sport), reference
may be made to the launch in March 2017 of the Council of Europe’s
new Disability Strategy for 2017-2023, as well as the adoption of
several recommendations in the cultural sector and resolutions concerning
organ transplantation. In addition, a further State, Lebanon, joined
the Council of Europe’s Enlarged Partial Agreement on Cultural Routes
(Luxembourg) and Algeria’s request to join the North-South Centre
(Lisbon) was accepted by the Committee of Ministers.
21. For its part, in addition to the above-mentioned issues involving
migration and the fight against corruption, the Assembly focused,
in particular, on media and journalists in Europe and the functioning
of democratic institutions in several of Council of Europe member
States (Azerbaijan, Turkey and Ukraine). The Assembly also awarded
its Václav Havel Human Rights Prize to Murat Arslan (Turkey).
4 2018
22. The Committee of Ministers
adopted the Organisation’s fourth biennial programme and budget
(for 2018 and 2019). The Secretary General of the Council of Europe
had prepared a budget with 0.5% real growth. Unfortunately, because
of the refusal of two member States, the budget was ultimately adopted
based on zero nominal growth. Moreover, in December 2017, after
the biennial budget had been adopted, the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Turkey notified the Council of Europe that his country was discontinuing
its major contributor status with effect from 1 January 2018. This
sudden decision meant that €14.8 million of savings and efficiency measures
had to be identified in the ordinary budget for 2018. This was compounded
by the Russian Federation’s failure to pay its contribution for
2018. The impact on the Assembly was a €1.5 million cut in its budget
for 2018.
23. In spite of these budgetary difficulties, the Secretary General
chose to make optimum use of the Organisation’s cash flow to enable
it to continue its work and tasks for the member States, supported
here by extra-budgetary resources paid by the member States and
the projects funded by the European Union. At the end of the third
quarter of 2018, a total of €37 611 568 had been received, including
€23 113 670 from the European Union, for the joint programmes.
24. Securing the long-term effectiveness of the system of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) was a matter of
concern for the Committee of Ministers. It endorsed the declaration
adopted at the High-Level Conference held in Copenhagen on “Continued
Reform of the European Human Rights Convention System – Better Balance,
Improved Protection”.
25. In addition, at its 128th ministerial session held in Elsinore
(Denmark) in May 2018, the Committee of Ministers adopted the Protocol
amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals about
Automatic Processing of Personal Data (CETS No. 223), which addresses
the challenges to privacy resulting from the use of new information
and communication technologies and strengthens the convention’s
mechanism to ensure its effective implementation. In this context,
it also called on the States Parties to the European Convention
on Human Rights to sign and ratify Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 (CETS
Nos. 213 and 214) so that they could enter into force.
26. In the case of the data protection convention, it should be
noted that the Committee of Ministers agreed to invite Mexico to
join it and the additional protocol. As far as accession to other
conventions is concerned, it should be noted that Costa Rica has
asked to join the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking
in Human Organs (CETS No. 216).
27. In the area of co-operation and in response to the various
challenges facing the member States, the Committee of Ministers
adopted several multi-year action plans, namely one for Bosnia and
Herzegovina for the period 2018-2021 and two others to help Ukraine
and Azerbaijan for the same period. In addition, the Committee of
Ministers approved the Council of Europe Counter-Terrorism Strategy
(2018-2022), which is structured around three main pillars: prevention
of terrorism, prosecution of perpetrators of terrorist offences and
protection of all persons present on the territories of the member
States against terrorism. Lastly, in the equality field, the Committee
of Ministers in March 2018 adopted the Council of Europe Gender
Equality Strategy for 2018-2023.
28. In terms of relations with non-member States, the Committee
of Ministers approved the Neighbourhood Partnerships for the period
2018-2021 for Morocco and Tunisia. It also took note of a final
report on the implementation of the Neighbourhood Co-operation Priorities
for Kazakhstan for 2014-2015 (extended until 2018) and invited the
Secretariat to continue the discussions with the authorities of
Kazakhstan with regard to the preparation of a new co-operation
document. Lastly, the Committee also took note of a progress review report
on the priorities for co-operation with the Kyrgyz Republic for
2015-2017 (extended until 2019) and with Palestine for the period
2016-2018.
29. Co-operation with other international bodies continued to
be a priority in 2018 and, in this connection, reference should
be made to the establishment with the Organisation internationale
de la Francophonie of a co-operation programme for 2018 and 2019.
30. With more particular regard to the work of the Parliamentary
Assembly, Russia’s role at the Council of Europe was a recurring
issue throughout 2018. In the social field, the focus was on the
rights of migrants and refugees. The Assembly also called for the
ending of discrimination against rainbow families. In the legal
field, the Assembly called for better protection for human rights
defenders and non-governmental organisations.
31. Media freedom was also a key aspect of the Assembly’s work,
with debates on the protection of editorial integrity and the status
of journalists. Lastly, the fight against terrorism and organised
crime was also on its agenda, with several resolutions on how to
deprive Daesh of funding, confiscate illegal assets and combat the radicalisation
of migrants and diaspora communities.
32. Finally, the Assembly elected Ms Dunja Mijatović as the new
Commissioner for Human Rights for a six-year term as successor to
Nils Muižnieks and awarded its sixth Václav Havel Human Rights Prize
to Mr Oyub Titiev, Head of the Grozny Memorial Human Rights Centre
(Chechnya).
5 Priorities
for 2020-2021
33. The opinion prepared focusses
essentially on key policy approaches for the Council of Europe and specific
suggestions to enable the Organisation to plan for the future.
34. Seventy years after it was founded, the Council of Europe
is alarmed to see the rule of law, human rights and democratic institutions
being called into question throughout Europe and is also witnessing
an unprecedented upsurge in hate speech and anti-Semitism. In these
troubled times, the Council of Europe must serve as the last bastion
against attacks on democracy. The Committee of Ministers and the
Parliamentary Assembly have a duty to defend the Organisation and
the member States must make a genuine commitment to support it and
fund it so that it continues to be an effective institution for
guaranteeing human rights, the rule of law and democracy at both
European and national level.
35. The Council of Europe convention-based system has made a major
contribution to improving the functioning of democratic institutions
in Europe, developing the rule of law throughout Europe and protecting and
promoting the rights of all European citizens. The Council of Europe
remains one of the very few multilateral forums able to quickly
draft traditional international instruments (such as conventions)
on a broad range of issues to address social challenges and the
concerns of European citizens.
36. In this context, the Council of Europe could strengthen its
co-operation and establish new legal instruments, in particular
concerning issues related to artificial intelligence, which occupies
an increasingly large place in the functioning of our societies.
37. It is also worth noting the Organisation's willingness to
contribute to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
as called for by the Assembly in adopting
Resolution 2271 (2019) and
Recommendation
2150 (2019) on strengthening co-operation with the United Nations
in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
38. The efforts made by the Organisation in the field of gender
equality are also welcome, in particular in the context of the Council
of Europe Gender Equality Strategy 2018-2023, which underlines the
importance of achieving gender mainstreaming in all policies and
activities of the Organisation.
39. The strategic choices of recent years, which have given precedence
to assistance and co-operation programmes for certain countries
and to certain thematic areas of action, funded almost solely with
extra-budgetary resources, have ended up undermining the system
of intergovernmental co-operation, which is based on the ordinary
budget. Nevertheless, it is this unique system of co-operation between
the member States based on the development of common standards –
with conventions as the main source of the Council of Europe acquis – which forms the Organisation’s raison d’être.
40. The internal political context is currently unfavourable to
maintaining what constitutes the strength of the Organisation, on
account of the attitude of one of the member States, the Russian
Federation, which, in instrumentalising the budget to achieve its
ends, is plunging the Council of Europe into the most serious financial
crisis in its history and may thereby force the Organisation to
take decisions that would be potentially irreversible and would
weaken it.
41. At a meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs in January 2019, to which the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe had been invited, as General Rapporteur
on the Budget I proposed looking into various alternatives for dealing
with the financial crisis rather than merely through cuts in the
budget. In particular, I suggested considering the feasibility of
assigning the Russian debt to a third party.
42. This possibility exists at international level and has been
used by various States in the past. The Assembly studied the issue
of States’ debt in the context of protecting financial aid granted
by Council of Europe member States to poor countries against financial
funds known as “vulture funds” (see
Recommendation 1870 (2009) and related report,
Doc. 11862). Nevertheless, the assignment of international receivables
and the international assignment of receivables are an established
practice in international trade, governed by the United Nations
Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade
of 12 December 2001.
43. It is regrettable that the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe has dismissed this option without seeking to study it
and has preferred to present a contingency plan to absorb the scale
of the debt left deliberately by the Russian Federation (€90 million
at the end of 2019). Implementation of the plan will mean that a
significant number of activities and whole areas of the work of
the Council of Europe could disappear, some of them irretrievably,
for member States. The human cost will also be very substantial,
with a departure scheme for 250 people, or almost 10% of the Council
of Europe’s staff, which the member States will have to pay for.
44. The Programme and Budget 2020-2021, which is part of this
context of uncertainty, nevertheless shows a desire to promote an
Organisation that is increasingly flexible and confident in its
know-how and expertise thanks to reforms aimed at improving its
work processes and procedures. This should lead to a greater focus on
policy priorities, improving synergies and reducing unnecessary
duplication and allowing greater management flexibility for the
implementation of administrative reforms.
45. The Council of Europe is going to have to part with staff
members who have extensive knowledge and experience of the Council’s
fields of action and who will be hard to replace. The human resources
policy pursued in recent years (with large-scale use of fixed-term
contracts) has undermined the transmission of the know-how and acquis of the Council of Europe
to a fresh generation of staff. Despite the budgetary uncertainties,
the Council of Europe will therefore have to introduce a staff policy
that is sufficiently attractive to attract good candidates and offer
them career development prospects. Redundancy payments for the early departure
of staff are not included in the contingency plan, except an amount
set aside for this purpose in the framework of the Programme and
Budget 2018-2019.
46. As part of the administrative reforms that are currently under
development, it is worth mentioning the draft new human resources
strategy 2019-2023 presented by the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe. This strategy, which has been the subject of a broad
consultation process involving Council of Europe staff at all levels,
should make it possible to meet the present and future needs of
the Council of Europe in terms of human resources, with a view to
putting the right people in the right place and encouraging staff
renewal and knowledge transfer.
47. The contingency plan also provides for a reduction in the
range of the Council of Europe’s activities, which could lead to
up to 30% of the activities funded from the ordinary budget being
frozen. All the administrative entities will have to contribute
to the effort. Nevertheless, it is not proposed to make across-the-board
cuts in the programme lines, and some sectors will be harder hit
than others by the cuts, notably in the field of democracy. In addition,
it is envisaged to rationalise the working methods within the Organisation
and to concentrate activities in nine operational programmes for
the coming biennium. The aim is to put more emphasis on political
priorities, synergies and unnecessary duplication.
48. The Secretary General has indicated his intention to preserve
certain sectors, in particular the ability of the European Court
of Human Rights to process cases, the supervision of the execution
of its judgments and the operation of the various monitoring mechanisms
that currently exist in the intergovernmental sector. The other
parts of the Council of Europe, including governing and statutory
bodies (Assembly, Committee of Ministers, Congress) will therefore
have to bear a larger share of the cuts.
49. For its part, the Assembly will not balk at bearing its share
of the collective efforts called for, provided that several conditions
are met:
- all alternatives to
cutting the Organisation’s budget must have been studied seriously;
- all entities and sectors of the Council of Europe contribute
to the overall effort;
- the efforts asked of the Assembly do not jeopardise its
ability to operate.
50. The Assembly will not agree to bear a share which is proportionally
higher than its share in the budget of the Council of Europe and
points out that Article 37.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe
(ETS No. 1) requires the Secretary General to provide such secretariat
and other assistance as the Assembly may require.
51. The Secretary General has called on member States to make
a larger contribution to the funding of the Council of Europe. This
echoes a call made by the Assembly in several budgetary opinions
and in
Recommendation 1812
(2007) on the political dimension of the Council of Europe
budget. In the latter, it called on the Committee of Ministers to
review the method of calculating the scales of contributions so
as to give greater weight to gross domestic product and to set minimum
scales for member States’ contributions so as to cover the administrative
cost of a judge at the Court.
52. The minimum level of the contribution to the ordinary budget
to be paid by a member State should be around €500 000 to cover
at least the annual budgetary cost of a judge, an administrative
officer and an assistant working full time, as well as the annual
administrative expenses pertaining to their work and presence in
Strasbourg. At present, a third of member States (16 out of 47)
pay contributions to the ordinary budget which are lower than that
amount. Yet they all have a judge elected to the European Court
of Human Rights.
53. In
Recommendation 2124
(2018) “Modification of the Rules of Procedure: the impact
of the budgetary crisis on the list of working languages of the
Assembly”, the Assembly suggested that the Committee of Ministers
take several decisions of a budgetary and financial nature, in particular
the opening of an obligatory reserve account fed with part of the
unspent balance recorded at the close of each financial year or
biennium. This is a call which the Assembly has made repeatedly
in opinions on the Council of Europe programme and budget (see amongst
other
Opinions 268 (2008),
279 (2009) and
281 (2011)).
54. In
Opinion 294
(2017), the Assembly also called on the Committee of Ministers
to return to zero real growth in the Council of Europe’s budget,
equivalent at least to the inflation rate for France, to enhance
the Organisation’s operational capacity. This is a call which the
Secretary General would have implemented for the 2018-2019 biennium
if two of the 47 States represented in the Committee of Ministers
had not refused outright. As the Financial Regulations provide for
the budget to be adopted by a two-thirds majority, it is surprising
that the Secretary General did not press the matter further.
55. A new Secretary General of the Council of Europe, to take
office on 1 October 2019 for a five-year term, is to be elected
by the Assembly during the June 2019 part-session. In this connection,
it would be desirable for the Committee of Ministers to make a firm
commitment to ensure real budget growth for the Council of Europe
for five years, or zero real growth to take account of inflation
alone. This would be a strong sign of support from member States
to the future Secretary General.
56. In the final analysis, the contingency plan presented by the
Secretary General is linked to the Russian Federation’s non-payment
of its contribution for 2019 and the unpaid contributions for 2017
and 2018, and amounts to a redundancy scheme. But it is always possible
that such a situation will not arise. The decision adopted by the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe at its 129th session
(Helsinki, 17 May 2019) on “A shared responsibility for democratic
security in Europe – Ensuring respect for rights and obligations, principles,
standards and values” may have paved the way for a possible solution.
At the end of the process, the Russian delegation may decide to
return to the Assembly and settle its unpaid contributions. If it
were not the case, the Assembly, recalling its
Recommendation 2153 (2019) “Role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly: main
challenges for the future”, may ask the Committee of Ministers to
apply Article 9 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. Due to
the current volatile political environment and related uncertainties,
this report does not and cannot take into account consequences for
the activities, operations, sustainability and future of the Council
of Europe in the event that the contingency plan needs to be executed.
