Ensuring protection against attacks on a person's honour and reputation
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Text adopted by the
Standing Committee, acting on behalf of the Assembly, on 25 November
2011 (see Doc. 12703, report
of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs, rapporteur: Mrs Bemelmans-Videc).
- Thesaurus
1. Freedom of expression, enshrined
in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5),
as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, is a fundamental
right and one of the pillars of a democratic society, to which the
Parliamentary Assembly has on many occasions expressed its deep
commitment. The freedom of public debate and the right to communicate
and publish freely constitute the cornerstone of democracy in so
far as they guarantee the pluralism of political expression.
2. Freedom of expression, “while precious for all, is particularly
so for an elected representative of the people”, as stated by the
European Court of Human Rights, is essential for the discharge of
parliamentarians’ duties and is an essential precondition for their
independence. Nonetheless, the immunity attached to parliamentarians’
freedom to express their opinions and cast their votes should not
be misused for aims other than its primary purpose, which is the
protection of free debate in the public interest.
3. This freedom should be exercised with a sense of responsibility
vis-à-vis another fundamental right, also enshrined in the European
Convention on Human Rights, namely the right to respect for private
life. Accordingly, it is imperative to strike a fair balance between
freedom of expression in the Assembly and the protection of a person’s
reputation and honour. Indeed, statements which are totally unfounded
and unrelated to the context of the debate do not contribute to
the constructive dialogue in which the members of the Assembly are
engaged.
4. Certain serious allegations regarding members of the Assembly
or persons who are not members of the Assembly have recently been
made by Assembly members. The people against whom the allegations
were made considered these allegations to be an affront to their
honour and reputation.
5. The Assembly’s Rules of Procedure comprise provisions relating
to the discipline of members in plenary sittings, granting the President
of the Assembly certain prerogatives so as to ensure the smooth
conduct of debates. The Assembly notes, however, that there is a
case for supplementing the current provisions in order to be able,
where necessary, to effectively prevent any attacks on a person’s
honour and reputation which may occur in the plenary sittings of
the Assembly or in committee meetings.
6. Furthermore, the Assembly considers it necessary to provide
for a mechanism whereby an individual who believes that his or her
reputation or honour has been harmed by statements made in an Assembly
debate can, subject to certain conditions, have a right of reply.
7. Accordingly, the Assembly decides to amend its Rules of Procedure
as follows:
7.1 in Rule 21.6, after
the words “Words or expressions which affront human dignity”, add
the words “, undermine the right to respect for private life,”;
7.2 replace Rule 45.6 with the following:
“The chairperson shall open, suspend and close the meeting
and shall direct the committee’s debates. He or she may take part
in the committee’s debates. He or she does not participate in a
vote except in the case of a tie. He or she shall ensure observance
of the Rules and maintain order.”
8. Furthermore, the Assembly decides to supplement the additional
provisions relating to Assembly debates, by introducing a right
of reply in the event of a violation of the right to respect for
private life:
“vii. Protection
against attacks on a person’s honour and reputation (Rule 21.6 of
the Rules of Procedure) – right of reply
1. Any member of the Assembly who has been named or referred
to directly and considers that his or her reputation has been adversely
affected by a statement made in the course of a debate by another member
may ask the President of the Assembly the authorisation to take
the floor for not more than two minutes at the end of the debate.
The President has the discretion to decide on how to respond to
such a request. He or she may ask the person who made the statement
to provide an explanation.
2. Any person who has been named or referred to directly
and considers that his or her reputation has been adversely affected
by a statement made in the course of a debate by a member of the
Assembly may submit a written request to the President of the Assembly
for an appropriate response to be included in the official report.
3. The written request shall be reasoned, make reference
to the impugned statement in the report and shall not contain any
vexatious or offensive wording; it shall be submitted within three
months of the date of the sitting during which the statement at
issue was made.
4. The President shall examine the request and decide:–
either to include in the report
a note in respect of the impugned statement along the following
model: “ ‘By letter dated …, [person’s name] disagrees with the
assertion/statement appearing in this report, on the ground that
…’ ”;
– or not to include such a note.
5. This provision shall not apply if the words spoken
have been struck from the report in accordance with Rule 21.6.”
9. These amendments to the Rules of Procedure shall enter into
force with effect from the opening of the Assembly’s 2012 ordinary
session.
