Good morning, everybody.
I wish you good morning and this sitting is open.
The first item of business this morning is a debate under the urgent procedure on “Draft Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law” (Documents 16150 and 16120) presented by Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.
This debate will conclude around 11:00 a.m. to allow time for the replies and the vote.
I call Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, rapporteur. You have 7 minutes now, and 3 minutes at the end to reply to the debate.
The floor is yours. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mister President.
Dear colleagues, dear ladies and gentleman,
Today I am honoured to address this Assembly as a rapporteur on an issue of critical importance: protecting our environment through criminal law.
It is increasingly evident that safeguarding the environment is not only an ecological imperative but also a matter of human rights and international justice.
In recent years our collective awareness about environmental damage caused by human activities has significantly grown. Europe has supported key international frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda, the Paris Agreement and notably the European Green Deal.
More recently through the 2023 Reykjavík Declaration, our member states explicitly recognised the urgency to act on the triple planetary crisis, notably by acknowledging the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
The new draft convention represents the first international and legally binding instrument explicitly aimed at addressing environmental crime. So, it will cover an extensive range of offences, including the category all of us know as "ecocide".
The Assembly has long advocated this process with the aim of recognition and legal codification of ecocide. So this deliberate or negligent infliction of severe, widespread and long-term damage to the environment must no longer be tolerated.
Currently several Council of Europe member states including Ukraine, Belgium, Georgia, Moldova, and Armenia have codified ecocide within their domestic legislation. However, much work is needed across all our member states.
The importance of addressing ecocide has been tragically highlighted by Russia's full-scale invasion in Ukraine. The systematic environmental devastation in Ukraine, and the catastrophic destruction of the Kakhovka hydropower plant exemplify ecocide. Such destruction demonstrates why ecocide urgently requires international recognition as a criminal offence persecutable at the highest level, including through the International Criminal Court.
In line with this, I propose that the Assembly promote not only the recognition of ecocide, as mentioned in the preamble with reference to the relevant base resolution and recommendation, but should also call for its codification in both domestic and international law.
Moreover, our Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, together with colleagues from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, identified areas in the draft convention that need enhancement.
Notably, we propose reinstated provision related to unlawful fishing activities. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing remains a significant global challenge for all of us. It undermines the marine ecosystem, devastating biodiversity, and harms coastal communities. Restoring this offence, the convention would align with existing international standards, including the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), International Plan of Action and EU regulations.
Clearly defining and criminalising unlawful fishing strengthens our collective capacity to save marine ecosystem and their available resources. So another essential addition, we propose to uncover illegal logging, which is the root problem of deforestation. The draft convention not only covers trade in illegally harvesting timber. Moreover, by analogy with the article of the convention concerning ozone-depleting substances, we propose that release of mercury into the environment be explicitly covered under Article 17.
So one proposed amendment concerned the explicit inclusion of fungi alongside protected with wild flora and fauna within the convention. Fungi represent a distinct biological kingdom, playing vital ecological roles, from nutrient-recycling to symbiotic relationships, so supporting plant life. Omitting fungi from protection measures neglects a critical component in biodiversity.
To facilitate the persecution of environmental offences that cause this serious injury to persons and have it damage the environment, we propose amending several articles in the draft convention to cover negligent behaviour, not only international actions: incorporating negligence into the criminal definition, enhancing the legal framework effectiveness, by holding accountable those whose careless actions cause significant environmental harm.
This approach mirrors recent developments in EU legislation and ensures a robust preventive stance against environmental degradation. We also emphasise the need for a robust mandatory and compliant mechanism with the convention: effective monitoring, adherence facilitates international co-operation and promotes transparency, ultimately enhancing environmental protection and justice.
We urge you to support the proposed amendment to Article 39, to ensure the right strategical review of any decision not to prosecute environmental crimes. This would reinforce procedural safeguards, by ensuring public participation and accountability in environmental governance.
In conclusion, the draft Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law is a huge step forward.
Our Assembly's amendment aims to strengthen this instrument to ensure comprehensive, inclusive, and effective protection of the environment. So, we send a clear message to government: environmental crimes can no longer and will no longer be tolerated.
After all, I had the opportunity to work with a great team. Let me thank those involved. First of all, I want to thank the Secretariat of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.
Thank you very much for your powerful work.
Aiste Ramanauskaite I thank you very much for your comprehensive support and wonderful work.
I think the chair of the committee, Ms Saskia KLUIT thank you very much for work together.
Thank you, Mr Constantinos EFSTATHIOU from Greece. We represented and worked together for one year in the Committee of Experts.
I want to thank my expert team: Victor SIPIEIEV, Iryna DEGTIAROVA, Natalia HORELOVA, Petro TESTOV, Volodymyr ZHEREB, Maksym PRYHNENKO, Sophia SHUTIAK, Iryna RADKIVSKA. They're a big, big, but really amazing team.
We call upon all the members to support this draft resolution and support the convention.
Together we must hold our moral and legal responsibility to current and future generations by protecting our planet from irreversible harm.
Thank you very much, dear colleagues.
Thank you, Ms Ovchynnykova, for presenting the report.
Now we follow in the debate with speakers on behalf of political groups.
And I call first Mr George LOUCAIDES from the Group of the Unified European Left. The floor is yours.
Cyprus, UEL, Spokesperson for the group
10:08:45
Good morning, dear colleagues.
On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I wish to express our strong support for the draft Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law, and to thank the rapporteur for her dedicated work.
We are here to reaffirm the obvious and unquestionable: that the destruction of our environment is not simply an unfortunate by-product of economic activity. It is in many cases a crime: often committed knowingly and with impunity. And like all crimes, it must be punished accordingly.
We welcome the Convention's intention to criminalise acts that amount to ecocide – a concept whose time has come to be formalised and codified into relevant conventions and legal frameworks.
The deliberate and widespread destruction of ecosystems is not only an assault on nature, but a violation of human rights, of our shared humanity, and of intergenerational justice.
The recognition of ecocide as a particularly serious offence is both morally and legally necessary.
Dear colleagues, we must be consistent. Environmental crime does not stop at national borders, nor does it end in peacetime.
As the Assembly rightly stresses, the Convention must apply in situations of hard conflict, occupation and war.
In this light, it is impossible to ignore the environmental devastation in Gaza. Over 300 000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted, aquifers poisoned, agriculture obliterated. These are not just tragic consequences of war, but symptoms of environmental warfare. What Israel has committed in Gaza must be seen for what it is: a crime against people and the planet. It is ecocide.
We are equally concerned about the decision to water down the monitoring mechanism of the Convention. Strong legal frameworks require equally strong enforcement. Without robust independent oversight, we risk turning this historic initiative into yet another empty declaration.
At the same time, we welcome the Assembly's proposal to broaden the scope of offences, such as including unlawful fishing, illegal logging and the protection of fungi alongside fauna and flora. The holistic understanding of ecosystem is vital.
As the Left, we have always stood for environmental justice – not as a luxury for the few, but as a right for all. Let us make no mistake. Environmental justice is social justice. The communities who are most affected by environmental crime are always the poorest, the most marginalised, and the least responsible. This is why we must do our utmost to use the tools provided by the Convention to further strengthen environmental rights, and to hold accountable those who violate them.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I call now Ms Agnes Sirkka PRAMMER on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.
The floor is yours.
Austria, SOC, Spokesperson for the group
10:12:17
Thank you, honourable President, distinguished colleagues.
Many of us remember when in November 2002 the oil tanker Prestige suffered structural damage off the coast of Galicia. It carried 77 000 tons of heavy fuel oil. As the damaged vessel drifted for days, denied safe harbour by many countries, it broke into two and sank, releasing massive amounts of oil into the sea. The Prestige oil spill contaminated over 2 000 km of coastline, devastated marine life and destroyed local fisheries.
And yet the legal response fell far short of justice.
The ship, flying a flag of convenience, was operated through a complex network of companies. Responsibility was diluted. For over a decade, no-one was held truly accountable. It was not until 2016 that the ship's captain received a conviction, while the owners and the operators escaped liability.
This is precisely why we need what the rapporteur calls for in his opinion. A Convention that is not only symbolic, but enforceable. A Convention that closes loopholes and ensures that crimes like Prestige do not go unpunished.
The current draft is a step in the right direction, but it must go further.
We fully support the proposed amendments, including the legal codification of ecocide, the inclusion of illegal logging and unlawful fishing, the criminalisation of reckless conduct, like in Prestige, and a stronger independent monitoring mechanism. The Prestige case shows us exactly what happens when responsibility is fragmented, and law is too weak to reach the true perpetrators.
Under the revised Convention envisioned by this opinion, such a case would have clearer definitions, wider jurisdiction and stronger corporate liability provisions. It would provide prosecutors with better tools. And it would signal to polluters that we take environmental crime seriously.
Colleagues, the Prestige disaster may have occurred 20 years ago – over 20 years ago – but the legal and environmental scars remain. Let us not repeat history. Let us adopt a Convention that reflects the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crisis and the values of this Assembly.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Madam Prammer.
Now I call Mr Tekke PANMAN on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Netherlands, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group
10:15:18
Thank you, Chair.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to the rapporteur and her team for their diligent work on this convention.
The urgency to safeguard our planet is undeniable, as is the need for a clean and healthy environment. Who can oppose the right to live in such an environment? Certainly, no-one. However, while we support the principles underlying this convention, we must also approach it with a critical lens. Today, I would like to highlight two concerns: the level of ambition and the potential downsides.
First, let us address ambition. As the Council of Europe, we have already established numerous treaties addressing human rights. In addition, EU member states are bound by various international agreements, such as the UN Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement, the European Green Deal, and the Reykjavík Declaration. These frameworks already emphasise the importance of a healthy and sustainable environment.
It is not that nothing has been done, far from it. Yet we must acknowledge that not all member states fully comply with existing conventions in place. Furthermore, some states within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe may not have had adequate opportunities to join, implement or execute these EU agreements. This difference creates an uneven playing field where not all states are aligned in their commitments or capacities.
Second, we must consider potential downsides. Every convention we adopt inevitably brings challenges in interpretation and implementation. For example, this convention introduces legal standards that could lead to debates over definitions, such as what constitutes "significant and long-term damage to the environment". An environmental activist may interpret this differently than a farmer working tirelessly to produce our food.
Similarly, adjustments like replacing “protected wild animals” with “protected wild fauna, flora or fungi” in Articles 27 and 28, may broaden the scope of legal disputes. Climate activists might link these provisions to broader issues like climate change. While well-intentioned, such changes could inadvertently provide tools for legal debates that disrupt economic activities essential for meeting basic human needs. For instance, if companies are forced to close their businesses due to overly rigid interpretations of these rules, who will produce our basic goods and food? Such scenarios risk undermining other fundamental human rights.
In conclusion, this convention provides clarity and reflects our shared responsibility to protect the environment for future generations, a principle deeply rooted in our stewardship values. However, we must remain cautious about its potential side effects and ensure it does not hinder progress on other critical conventions related to human rights.
For these reasons, while we do not take a strong position against this convention, we urge careful consideration of its implementation, and call for balanced implementation that avoids unintended consequences.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I remind everybody to stick to the 3 minutes allocated. Thank you, Mister Panman.
I'll now call Sir Edward LEIGH in front of European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates. Sir Edward, you have the floor.
United Kingdom, ECPA, Spokesperson for the group
10:20:01
Mister President, we only have one planet.
We all agree it's worth protecting, for instance, from illegal logging and fishing. We are custodians of the natural world, not its masters.
But net zero by an arbitrary date is a fantasy which has been adopted as a dramatic tenet of faith by our political class and is now being weaponised in the criminal law.
G.K. Chesterton once said that when people cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing, but become capable of believing in anything.
Eliminating Britain's or any individual European country's carbon footprint by an arbitrary date would have a negligible effect on the state of the planet. Countries like China and India would not play by the net zero game. They want to industrialise more, build more, manufacture more, make more money and cheat more. The entirety of this gain could be erased in a moment by a tiny increase in China's emissions. Indeed, the entire emissions of Great Britain are less than the annual increase of China, and yet forcing Europe to reach net zero by an arbitrary date would come at an immense economic, industrial and cultural cost.
Where is the proper cost-benefit analysis?
Now, I have children and grandchildren. How can I face them and tell them that they deserve to live in a Europe that is poorer, less stable, has fewer of the advantages my generation have enjoyed, for something that will have zero effect on the state of the planet? In Britain, our blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, near my constituency, are under threat. They are already owned by a company from China, a country which has dumped cheap steel and not very good steel on the world markets and undermined our domestic production.
There is a defence and security threat here.
The Council of Europe was founded to protect our democratic freedoms and to foster and expand them across a continent, half of which was behind the Iron Curtain when we were founded. Ultimately, all our soft power is reliant on the hard power of military strength, and the willingness to defend the just cause of our own people. This is what our family of nations, big and small, is all about. We have seen that kick into gear our Ukrainian friends in recent years. European countries should be ramping up their industrial and manufacturing base, including steel-making. A great country like Great Britain or any other great country in the world must have the ability to make virgin steel.
If this means our government needs to nationalise British steel, then so be it.
But here we have a mad situation where we are imposing green tariffs on production, domestic production, making it uncompetitive. So we live in a mad world where the government may now have to buy the coal from China to keep the blast furnaces going. This is a real threat.
In conclusion, we've got to remember that there's no food without farmers. We have to protect ourselves: the more locally grown, the better our food security is. It is pure foolishness to assume that the way we have done things for the past 50 years will continue. By all means, punish illegal polluters in the criminal law. Find them, lock them up. We need to reduce, reuse and recycle. This is all very welcome. We need to save the planet – not by eliminating our industrial capacity, not by undermining our farmers, and not by pursuing a useless and ineffective policy like net zero by an arbitrary date.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sir Edward.
I now call Ms Larysa BILOZIR on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. You have the floor.
Ukraine, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group
10:23:56
Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur for such an important report. Big thanks to Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA. She did a very good job.
And actually I must say that she has done a big job to contribute to development of this draft Convention for protecting the environment. And Yuliia dedicated all her life to science, environmental protection. I dare say that she is not only the best specialist in our parliament, but the Assembly too in the environmental issues.
This draft Convention is a big step forward in our collective responsibility.
Europe has already supported many initiatives such as the European Green Deal and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda.
But I believe that this draft Convention is important since it ensures criminal liability.
Environmental crimes, including ecocide, often cause widespread, long lasting harm.
Criminal sanctions acknowledge the serious nature of these harms and their public impact, and provide stronger deterrence than civil remedies alone.
The framework of this new draft Convention is significant because it prevents offenders from escaping liability by operating across borders.
This document will also be essential for Ukraine as well, since Russia's full-scale invention, significant environmental damage has been caused, particularly the destruction of the Kakhovka hydropower plant and the ongoing ecological devastation in all of Ukraine, not only Eastern Ukraine. As a result of Russian hostilities, 175 million tons of greenhouse gases were released into atmosphere; 20 million square metres of soil were contaminated and approximately 30% cent of Ukrainian land was mined. There was an unprecedented impact on the Ukrainian agri-food sector. But still the agri-food sector contributes largely to our exports – 40% – and to our GDP, and is the biggest taxpayer.
I would like to draw your attention that soon in June in the EU the tariffs will be provided to Ukrainian production. They will be renewed and the Ukrainian agriculture sector will suffer a lot.
So I ask you and draw your attention to avoid this and to help Ukraine to liberalise the trade with the EU. It's important that environmental justice should be a priority not only in peace time, but also in wartime, which is why I strongly believe that we should urge our colleagues to sign the draft Convention once it is adopted.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
We now follow the speaker's list and next I call Ms Aurora FLORIDIA from Italy.
The floor is yours.
Thank you, Mister President.
Dear colleagues,
The health of our planet and our own health are closely linked. By turning a blind eye to environmental degradation, we are cutting the branch on which we are sitting. By failing to act to curb environmental crime, we undermine our fundamental right to a healthy environment, with dire consequences in sight. To prevent this collective suicide, we need strong collective action.
The new Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law has this much-needed potential for strong collective action, and we need to support it. So thank you, dear Yuliia, for the great work you did on this matter, but also for the great lesson you are teaching us: your country is experiencing a terrible ongoing war, and you are also taking care of a silent victim in this conflict, nature.
The new Convention will be part of the environmental package to be adopted in May this year. The Council of Europe Strategy on the Environment and an action plan will guide our member states and optimise their efforts in the defence of our right to a healthy environment.
Adopting the draft Convention will be a big step in the right direction. However, it is only the beginning of a long road. Further steps must be taken, and we need to work definitively on prevention, because environmental damage is often irreversible. Prevention is always better, and cheaper, than cure, as a wise truism says.
A great work has been done in the last months from the Council of Europe through the Multidisciplinary Group on Environment (GME) to make a decisive contribution to preventing and countering the triple planetary crisis.
In May, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can also decide in Luxembourg whether to open up the possibility to draft a legally binding instrument recognising the right to a healthy environment, a decisive step towards prevention.
This is a tall order, but I trust that our Assembly will play its role fully in urging national parliaments to contribute to this process.
The Parliamentary Network for a Healthy Environment, which I have the honour of chairing, and which I invite you all to join, will do its utmost to promote both: the new Convention and the right to live in a safe, healthy, clean and sustainable world.
It's time to be brave, to open up this possibility and to give concrete follow-up to the words spoken by the heads of state and government of the Council of Europe, set down in black and white in the Reykjavík Declaration in May 2023.
I quote: “We affirm that human rights and the environment are intertwined and that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is integral to the full enjoyment of human rights by present and future generations".
It's time to act, now. We owe it to the present and future generations.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I call now Mr Johannes SCHMUCKENSCHLAGER from Austria.
The floor is yours.
Mister President,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Environmental protection is essential because it ultimately safeguards all aspects of our human existence, and that is why there is a great deal of agreement here across all European states.
The draft report of the European Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law addresses the growing urgency of environmental protection in an international context and the need for stronger legal action. The member states of the Council of Europe have committed themselves through the Reykjavík Declaration 2023 to take into account the human rights aspects of the environment and to identify environmental crime. This is in line with international agreements such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda and the Paris Agreement.
The new draft convention aims to replace the existing Convention of 1998, which never entered into force, and is the first binding instrument under international law to deal with environmental crime. It covers a wide range of crimes, including serious offenses that could be considered ecocide. The draft places great emphasis on prevention, national and international co-operation and minimum standards for dealing with environmental crime.
An important point is the Parliamentary Assembly's request that the draft also cover issues such as illegal logging and illegal fishing, which are not included in the current text. I would like to turn to one issue, because recent raw data from research also shows us that US institutions have awarded substantial sums of money to environmental NGOs. The research shows that environmental NGOs have received around 2 billion US dollars from outside the EU. The donors have a clear rejection of bioenergy and promote the use of fossil fuels. This is also environmental and climate crime at a very established level.
Foreign influence on European opinion-forming in the field of bioenergy and renewable energies is already leading to their restriction and thus to negative environmental and climate impacts. We must not accept this.
In our resolution two days ago, we also addressed the issue of foreign influence on European democracy as a major threat. It is important to investigate the extent to which environmental NGOs and institutions that are heavily funded by US foundations are involved in shaping European climate, energy and agricultural policy. European environmental and climate policy must not be influenced. Renewable energies are a great opportunity to make parts of our energy system self-sufficient in Europe and thus guarantee security in our system and, above all, European independence.
Thank you, Mister Schmuckenschlager.
I now call Ms Olena KHOMENKO from Ukraine. The floor is yours.
Distinguished members of the Assembly,
The adoption of this draft convention and draft explanatory report to it will mark a turning point for international environmental law. This is the first legally binding instrument that meets the demand of the time and treats environmental crimes, including ecocide and the deliberate use of environmental destruction during armed conflict, with the seriousness they deserve.
The inclusion of provisions applying the convention in times of war and occupation is essential. Ukraine knows this reality first-hand.
In the 3 years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion, the scale of environmental devastation in Ukraine has been unprecedented. Over 280 000 buildings and structures have been destroyed or damaged. At least 100 000 of them are beyond repair. These are not just ruins, they are dangerous waste sites, contaminated with chemicals, heavy metals, oil products, and explosive remnants.
This is not collateral damage. It is systematic and deliberate environmental destruction, what many now define as ecocide, committed by the Russian Federation.
Today, a quarter of Ukraine’s territory is mined. 25% of Ukraine's territory is mined. More than 500 000 explosive devices have been neutralised so far. Our forests have suffered immensely: 3 million hectares affected, with over 500 000 hectares contaminated. Only one sixth of these areas have been de-mined.
The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023 caused catastrophic harm. It released 83 000 tons of heavy metals into the Dnipro river, flooded protected areas, destroyed ecosystems, and cut off access to drinking water for 700 000 people, both in occupied areas and those under Ukraine’s control.
The climate toll is equally alarming. Scientists estimate that CO₂ emissions resulting from hostilities, fires, fuel spills, and forced displacement already total 230 million tons. The financial cost of environmental damage is approaching 85 billion euros.
These consequences are not limited to Ukraine. Air and water pollution, ecosystem collapse – their effects are already felt across borders and will continue to endanger the region’s environmental stability. And it will continue to endanger your countries, dear colleagues.
This is why I fully welcome the draft convention together with draft explanatory report and firmly support the rapporteur’s substantial document and constructive proposals to strengthen these texts.
It is essential that the Committee of Ministers incorporates these recommendations, paving the way for more effective prosecution of environmental crimes and stronger international accountability.
We need to bring Russia to accountability for crimes it committed against Ukraine.
Thank you, dear colleagues.
Thank you, Madam Khomenko.
I now call Ms Petra BAYR from Austria. The floor is yours.
Thank you very much.
Indeed our environment needs very robust protection, and the criminal law is absolutely an appropriate measure.
It's very common on a national level, but there are still voids on an international level, so we really should close them.
I would like to focus on the Rome Statute, which is the basis of international criminal law. And crimes against the environment are often linked with other offences the International Criminal Court is dealing with anyway.
So just to mention crimes of aggression against humanity, war crimes or genocide.
I really would like to advocate for a fifth crime under the Rome Statute, which should be ecocide as a statutory offence. The impact of environmental degradation indeed goes far beyond national borders and beyond national jurisdiction. It has a huge impact on human rights when it comes, for instance, on the quality of living in general, or also to the human right to live in a healthy environment. And most importantly, ecocide puts the future of our planet in general at risk, and also the lives of all those future generations who will hopefully live on this planet.
I want to call all these member states, who are also parties of the International Criminal Court, to ask actively for another amendment of the Rome Statute to include ecocide as a fifth crime, including prosecution - that's important, not to have it in a way as we have it with the aggression, where we also do not have the prosecution part. Although the prosecution part, of course, is very important.
And when we do so, considering ecocide as a fifth crime, we also maybe should take the time to think about another missing part in the Rome Statute, which is gender apartheid, which should also be tackled immediately.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Bayr.
I now call Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO from Ukraine. The floor is yours.
Dear colleagues,
When I was a child, for me, "Chernobyl" as a word was very scary. But at the same time, all of us in the Ukrainian delegation, and not only, we were raised with knowledge on Chernobyl and the consequences of Chernobyl.
But I was told that it cannot be repeated if it's not done on purpose.
As a child I was wondering why there are so many bad consequences on the environment. But I was naive in thinking that it's not possible to commit so many crimes intentionally.
But unfortunately in recent years we've learned about Kakhovka, we've learned about, already mentioned by my colleagues, minelands, - direct and indirect consequences to our environment, to our land, to our dead flora and fauna. And that's very heartbreaking to hear the stories when, for instance, the shelter of animals was in absolute fire and was absolutely destroyed because of the missiles and attacks from Russia. That's absolutely heartbreaking to hear these stories, but we often think, okay, it's heartbreaking, but that's not the crime, because it's environment.
So I'm very happy that in this Assembly again we are reaching another milestone. And I want to thank Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA and everyone who is involved in preparing this report for creating real tools for protection of ourselves.
Yes, that's absolutely right, that "ecocide" should have a criminal understanding.
And every time when there is an attack with missiles or with something else, there are always consequences on the environment, whether we hear about them or not. Look at the air quality after each of the attacks. Look at the water quality in Ukraine after all these fish and other animals are dead. Everything is so connected.
So I urge everyone, of course, to adopt this Convention. But also to make decisions on taking part, possibly in the reconstruction of Ukraine, but with a sustainable approach, and making sure that we build an environmentally-friendly and healthy environment. Because if we don't do it, then we will suffer with public health consequences. And that's very important to address.
Thanks to the rapporteur and to the committee and everyone who was working on that, you are doing a great job. Looking forward to the next steps.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Yasko.
And now I call Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO.
The floor is yours.
Thank you, President.
Today we are tackling one of the most critical challenges of our times: the protection of the environment. That is why I would like to thank Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA for this necessary report. The deterioration of the environment not only threatens biodiversity and ecosystems, it also puts at risk both the health and welfare of current and future generations.
These are crimes committed by criminal networks, who also commit other offences such as corruption and human trafficking. Both the Convention of 1988 and this draft highlight the importance of common penal policy in order to protect the environment and to prevent and punish environmental crimes, promoting international and national co-operation involving all the various players. The definition of such terms as illegal, water, ecosystem and waste is essential, as well as establishing a broad range of environmental crimes including pollution and management of hazardous waste, alongside the protection of biodiversity and the fight against climate change are vital for the proper application of environmental laws. These crimes must be recognised and punished accordingly. Industry must also be responsible for its impact on the environment.
It is therefore essential to protect victims and witnesses to ensure that environmental crimes can be reported and prosecuted. We must implement measures to protect those who report these crimes and co-operate with authorities if we really wish to have allies in protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. State co-operation is vital in order to counter environmental crimes which cross borders. We must bolster our international co-operation mechanisms in order to investigate, prosecute and punish environmental crimes as a tool for disuasion and prevention, but we also need bilateral and multilateral agreements in order to promote the implementation of environmental laws and to protect cross-border ecosystems.
In Spain we have successful examples of international co-operation with the LifeWeb initiative and the ecosystem restoration project of Doñana National Park, the cross-border co-operation between Spain and Portugal. Our National Park system also protects natural areas and promotes scientific research and environmental education.
All states must adopt and adapt our legislation in order to include the crimes set out in the Convention. This means updating existing laws and creating new provisions to tackle these new environmental crimes, but we also need adequate monitoring mechanisms and to compile data properly. Our environmental legislation in Spain is an example of how we can have a structured and robust legal network which can significantly contribute to protecting the environment. The combination of national laws with regional and local ones, together with international co-operation, has meant that we have been able to protect nature and the environment and to help counteract climate change.
However, there is room for all of us to do more regarding raising awareness and promoting environmental education in order to protect the environment and prevent the consequences of these environmental crimes. To conclude, I would like to say that it is fundamental for us to continue promoting these policies at all levels in order to ensure co-operation in all these areas, and a healthy and sustainable for us all.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Martinez Seijo.
Thank you.
That concludes the list of the speakers.
I call now rapporteur Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA to reply.
You have 3 minutes to reply to the debate.
The floor is yours.
Thank you, Mister President.
Dear colleagues, first of all, I thank you very much, every one of you, for your thoughts, for your speeches.
It's really very, very important, you know, that environment has no borders.
We have a lot of very big problems: it's causing environmental pollution every time, including the impact of war.
As I said before, environment has no borders. It is happening in every European country, in every country all over the world, and the rights are influential on all of us. Every one of us presents the interest of citizens our country and is fighting for basic human rights.
I'm from Ukraine and to tell the truth, we're fighting for life – our basic human rights. But also, we have been working more than two years in the inter-parliamentary alliance for recognition of "ecocide". I know that this is a very sensitive and very difficult topic for all countries. But all representatives have worked for one year in the committee of experts, and we include it as an aside only in the preamble of the convention. In this amendment of the committee, we pay attention that we continue this discussion.
But we, as I say, our colleagues, must think about our future. Because if you do not think about your future, you cannot have one. And this is very important. I'm very happy that since a lot of years, people, young people involved in this process, have been fighting at every local, regional, national, European level for our human rights, for a clean, healthy environment. But I'm sure every country continues this dialogue, and to find this balance between nature, between other stakeholders. Because this is very, very important. And after all, this convention is one of those factors that will contribute tomorrow where future generations of Europeans will live in clean and protected nature. And I do believe that we can bring this future closer together.
Thank you. Thank you. Very much. And I ask you to support this resolution. And thank you.
Thank you, Madam Ovchynnykova.
Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?
If yes, the floor is yours.
Netherlands, SOC, Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
10:49:57
Thank you very much.
Well, it's not very often as chair of a committee that you have a rapporteur that is so distinguished and knowledgeable on a topic as Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVAY is. And I'm so proud of how you managed the report. You did it together with our colleagues from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. You prepared many meetings, and on topic it was also very good. I'm happy to stand here together.
The report was therefore also adopted unanimously in the Committee. I think that's important to know because we think it's an important step forward that we need to make.
I see all those young people there on our - I don't know, tribune, we would say in Dutch, but I don't know the word. And especially when we talk about the environment, I am always very curious what you would say if you were able to speak in our room, because many of the delegates spoke about the future generations. But you are the policy-makers of the future and you are living in the world that we are preparing for you.
One thing is clear, that the instruments we have now are not enough. We need to have criminal law to be applied to protect the future of our youngsters better. So I'm happy to be here.
We will send a strong signal to governments across Europe, as represented in the Committee of Ministers, that we stand united, if we adopt it, we stand united in defending the environment and taking it so seriously that it's also part of the criminal law.
If you break the law to protect the environment, because the environment is very often a silent victim of abuse, in our room also sometimes. And by protecting it we will protect not only our own well-being, but also your future. And I'm very happy that we can contribute to that. I think I have said a lot about it. We can - maybe to finalise - we can contribute today to making the Convention a stronger piece of legislation than we have now, so that when it's launched and it's implemented, it will be the first international legally binding instrument to address environmental crimes covering a wide range of offences.
The ones in Ukraine are very vivid and very impactful for the people in Ukraine - but also if you talk about food security, it's of the utmost importance for the whole of Europe that we address the topic of ecocide in Ukraine.
So, dear colleagues, I hope you will support our report and recommendation, and let's move from words to deeds and for me we can start to vote.
Thank you, Madam Kluit.
With this the debate is closed.
The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development (doc. 16150) has presented a draft opinion to which no amendments have been tabled.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft opinion contained in Doc. 16150. I remind you that a two-thirds majority is required.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the results to be displayed.
The draft opinion contained in Doc. 16150 is adopted.
Congratulations.
Thank you very much.
And now we proceed to another debate.
Urgent debate “The situation in Georgia and follow up to Resolution 2585 (2025) "Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Georgia"”.
The second item of business this morning is the debate presented by Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ and Ms Edite ESTRELA on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.
This debate will conclude around 12:00 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the votes.
We will begin with Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ and Ms Edite ESTRELA, co-rapporteurs.
You have 5 minutes each now, and 5 minutes in total to reply at the end of the debate.
I call now Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ.
The floor is yours.
Okay, let's wait a minute on the change of rapporteurs.
Can I ask the rapporteurs to leave the floor for the... Thank you.
Are the rapporteurs ready?
Thank you once again.
Now we follow on the debate.
I give the floor for 5 minutes to Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ.
Madam Ćudić, you have the floor.
Madam Estrela, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mister President.
Dear colleagues,
Before presenting to you the content of the resolution on the situation in Georgia, adopted by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), allow me to begin with a personal note.
I have been co-rapporteur for Georgia long enough to say that this is not the resolution I wanted to present to this Assembly. This was not the debate I expected to have at this spring session.
Do you remember that in January, the Assembly approved Resolution 2585 (2025) on the ratification of the credentials of the Georgian delegation? Do you remember that the Assembly expressed its deep concern about the political crisis in Georgia, and condemned the police brutality in the context of the demonstrations, as well as the violation of freedom of assembly and expression, and the crackdown on the opposition and civil society?
Regrettably the situation has not improved since January and no progress can be reported with regard to addressing the recommendations of our Assembly. On the contrary, according to the latest news and reports from representatives of the civil society and the democratic opposition, the situation has deteriorated.
While ratifying the credentials of the delegation, with restrictions, the Assembly outlined a clear set of recommendations and demands with a view to resolving the crisis in the country, on which it expected clear and tangible progress by the time of this session.
So, in the draft resolution that we present here today we therefore take stock of the developments that have taken place in Georgia since our debate in January. We deeply regret that no progress has been made regarding our recommendations but that on the contrary the democratic backsliding has continued unabatedly.
Th situation has deteriorated significantly on practically all fronts. No steps have been taken to implement the Assembly’s call to immediately initiate an inclusive process involving all stakeholders and social actors to create an electoral environment that is conducive to new, genuinely democratic, elections.
On the contrary, we outline in the resolution a number of amendments to the electoral legislation that makes this environment even less conducive for democratic elections and interactions.
The arrest and abuse of legal proceedings against protesters, journalists and civic leaders is continuing unabated.
Pre-trial detentions are renewed repeatedly without proper legal grounds.
The cases of police brutality during demonstrations, while reportedly decreased, are still not being effectively investigated.
Impunity is continuing.
Deeply worrying are the reports by human rights defenders, as well as the Georgian Ombudsperson, that a large proportion of persons detained in connection with demonstrations have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment during arrest and in detention.
This deterioration needs to stop, the dramatic democratic backsliding needs to be reversed. The Assembly’s recommendations and demands need to be implemented without delay.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Estrela.
I now call co-rapporteur Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ.
The floor is yours.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, ALDE, Co-Rapporteur
11:02:11
Dear colleagues,
when we analyse the situation in a member state, we analyse it against the democratic standards and the pillars of democracy.
I will remind you that those pillars are: rule of law, ensuring equality and justice, based, among other things, on separation of powers, second free and fair elections, and three; protection of human rights, safeguarding individual freedoms.
If we analyse the situation in Georgia, for which we are here today, and if we analyse the time between the last time we discussed it and the adopted January resolution, and today, unfortunately we have to report that in all these pillars of democracy the situation is getting worse.
We are experiencing severe democratic backsliding in the country. I will go a little further into detail specifically addressing these pillars of democracy and how the situation on the ground is affecting all citizens of Georgia.
Building onto what my dear co-rapporteur had already covered, I will share with you some information in relation to these criteria, starting with civil society.
Hopefully I don't need to remind you that we all consider robust civil society to be one of the key elements of a healthy democracy. The space for civil society is shrinking in Georgia in the current situation, and continues to rapidly shrink. The parliament has not repealed the law that was the subject of many discussions here on transparency of foreign influence, as it was asked to do, but replaced it with a Georgian version of a law that criminalises non-compliance with foreign agent registration.
The Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) has asked for an urgent opinion from the Venice Commission on this law, and we urge the authorities to fully address any concerns and recommendations that will be contained in it.
However, we are worried about the prospects for that. Only this week Georgian Dream initiated new legislation that would require that any foreign donor, and our Council of Europe is included, to ask for the authorisation of the authorities before it can make a grant to Georgia civil society organisations.
These developments – as we can, I'm sure all agree – do not just endanger civil society. It puts at risk its continued existence, which will be devastating. Again, going back to the democratic standards in the country.
Another key element of a functioning democracy is media. Similarly, the media environment has continued to deteriorate, as underscored by several reports of respected organisations, including again, our very own Council of Europe. We note, with concern, the reports of intimidation and dismissals of civil servants that have been critical of the authorities. Building on again to what my co-rapporteur said on the state of the arrests and intimidation of civil society members, I will reiterate the demands that we issued in the January resolution that we still firmly stand behind.
Lastly, and perhaps most worryingly, we outline one of our key concerns. It's the actions taken by the authorities to ban the full spectrum of democratic opposition in the country. Banning the opposition, besides being in complete violation of the country's obligation under the Statute of the Council of Europe, together with the dramatically shrinking space for civil society and independent media, would signal the establishment of functional autocracy in Georgia. The way we treat the opposition - and on a personal note, I come from one of the leading political parties in my country constituting a majority - the way we treat the opposition and the way we treat media and civil society is the ultimate criteria against which we measure progress of a country, or in this case, severe backsliding.
We therefore call upon the authorities to re-establish dialogue and co-operation with the Assembly and the Council of Europe. And we continue to stand ready to respond. We want to engage, as my dear co-rapporteur said, this is not the report we wish to continue delivering. The report we want to deliver is the one on progress, the one on constructive engagement with the Council of Europe, the one where we see our colleagues – both from the leading parties and the opposition, now and in the future – back here in this chamber discussing this with us.
At the very end, I just want to thank the committee for the overwhelming majority, thank everybody who submitted their amendments and engaged in a very productive discussion we had on this report.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Ćudić.
We now follow on with the speakers on behalf of political groups.
First, I call Mr Frank SCHWABE on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group. You have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mister President.
Thank you very much to the co-rapporteurs Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ and Ms Edite ESTRELA.
May I say a special thanks to Edite, if you allow me, because I really welcome very much and respect very much this kind of work and patience you had with this country. I know that you do your very best to do everything to bring Georgia to a way of democracy, rule of law and human rights. And it's really a pity to see that the current authorities went away from this way, they look like wanting to go, and we have to be clear and fair enough. There was some hope with Georgian Dream.
I can say it as a chair of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, that they were members in our group and we tried to work together in a dialogue to better the situation. I thought at the beginning of the process of their government, I think you can feel it – but meanwhile they went in another direction.
Membership in the Council of Europe is a commitment for democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It's not about geopolitics. Some of the Georgian politicians said to me, "ah, you want to decide in which way we should go?" For sure, I don't like it if you are friends with war criminals, but if you want to be friends with Putin's Russia, you can do it. But what you cannot do is to undermine the values and rules of this Organisation. You have to follow it. And if you change your country to a kind of model like Putin's Russia, then we have a problem together.
This is described in this report.
And because of this, we gave a very clear message in January: please come back. Come back to a constructive dialogue with us and let's go into the right direction together.
But unfortunately, we have to say today the opposite happened. You have to imagine that they follow a little bit the model of other countries every day, putting a new strange law on the table to confuse each and everyone. And this is what the Venice Commission put on the table. They criticised the new law for the local elections. We have a big criticism on the law to change the Central Election Commission. And I would like to say that we are in agreement with the Congress as well about these questions.
What was very strange is that the Secretary General of this Organisation tried to start a kind of dialogue. I was a little bit skeptical whether this would work. But at the end, Georgian authorities used hypocritical reasons to stop even this dialogue.
So please, Georgian authorities come back our way, please. I think you should go for new elections because you need a kind of new legitimisation. We saw the irregularities in the elections, and you should do everything to stop the violence and to release the political prisoners.
Please, let's support the co-rapporteurs with this report.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mister Schwabe.
I now call Ms Ingjerd Schie SCHOU on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party.
Norway, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group
11:11:13
President and dear colleagues,
I am a strong believer in dialogue.
Through the history of the Council of Europe, dialogue has been the most prominent tool. We do not have economic or military power to enforce values or principles on nations or states.
We have the power of dialogue!
That is why I voted in favor of the resolution on Georgia in January. To maintain dialogue, we ratified the credentials of the Georgian delegation, but with some limitations.
Still, the Georgian delegation chose to leave the Assembly and to not take part in any of our activities. This wasn’t surprising. But I was disappointed.
The Council of Europe wants Georgia to stay on their path towards the positive democratic development that we saw until recently. We will do our utmost to support all democratic forces in Georgia, and we want Georgia to choose to stay within the democratic fold.
None of the requirements we listed in the January resolutions are fulfilled. On the contrary, the situation is worse. I am particularly disappointed that political prisoners have not been released. Furthermore, new elections must be held and interference from Russia must be avoided.
I still believe in dialogue, but dialogue is a two-way exercise.
I therefore call on the ruling party of Georgia to engage in dialogue with the Council of Europe, with the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and with the Venice Commission on how to fulfill their membership commitments. To be a member and not participate is not acceptable.
I also encourage the government and the democratic opposition to engage in dialogue with each other. Both position and opposition must meet in parliament and our Assembly. Both sides are needed in a democracy. It is impossible for a country to reach sustainable solutions or to prosper without the position and the opposition listening and talking to each other.
This is what democracy is about. It is a joint responsibility. This Assembly will keep insisting on this again and again, because history has shown that democracy is by far the best way to secure lasting and prosperous peace in Europe.
This also applies for Georgia. The best way for you to secure a democratic and prosperous future for your people is to commit to and fulfil your commitments as member of the Council of Europe, the most prominent human rights organisation in Europe.
Thank you!
Thank you, Madam Schou.
I now call Ms Elisabetta GARDINI on behalf of the European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates. The floor is yours.
Italy, ECPA, Spokesperson for the group
11:14:31
Thank you, Mister President,
Dear colleagues,
We have read the resolution carefully. We recognise that the concerns raised are well-founded and deserve serious reflection: signs of democratic regression, growing tensions between institutions, difficulties in fully guaranteeing the fundamental rights of citizens. All this cannot leave us indifferent.
Precisely for this reason, however, we consider it essential that the dialogue with Georgia remain open. It is at times of greatest difficulty that confrontation becomes most necessary. Therefore, we do not agree with proposals that aim to suspend credentials, nor even less with those that aim to remove Georgia from the Council of Europe. This would, in our opinion, be a serious mistake, a step that would risk isolating the country and pushing it even further away from the principles that this Assembly embodies.
We must remember that Georgia does not end with its government. It is also, and above all, a people who look with hope to Europe, a civil society, active and courageous, so many young people fighting for the values we share: freedom, democracy, the rule of law. And it is precisely to them that we must make our closeness and support felt.
That said, let us be clear: keeping the dialogue open does not mean giving the Georgian Government a free pass to ignore democratic principles. On the contrary, a young democracy like Georgia cannot and should not have political prisoners. When a government comes to fear its citizens, it loses the very foundation of its democratic legitimacy. In that case then, it must have the courage to restore trust or, if it is unable to do so, it must have the courage to give the people their say and call new elections.
We therefore make a strong appeal, a clear appeal to the Georgian authorities. Listen to the recommendations of this House, take on board the observations of the Venice Commission, the Commissioner for Human Rights, and above all, listen to the voice of society.
We sincerely hope that the Georgian delegation will soon be able to return to this Chamber. Because even when it is difficult, even when positions are far apart, dialogue is always preferable to silence. Confrontation, if sincere, is the first step toward a shared solution.
So, we remain firm in our principles but open in our method. With balance, with seriousness, but without ever closing the door to those who are willing to improve, to correct, to reconnect with the values that this Assembly represents.
Let us continue, then, as the Council of Europe, to play our part. Not to please or condemn, but to build, together, a Europe that is fairer, freer and firmer in its fundamental values.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:17:48
Thank you, Elisabetta. [spoken in Italian]
Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.
Ukraine, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group
11:17:54
Thank you President. Dear colleagues, dear rapporteurs.
Thank you for your patience and your work.
In January, this Assembly adopted a very powerful resolution on Georgia. We spoke clearly: the country needs early and fair elections. The release of political prisoners, an independent judiciary, free media, and a rejection of laws that discourage civil society. We sent strong signals, as a partner, as a friend, as part of one European family.
So what do we see just a few months later?
Instead of dialogue, as many of you mentioned: new repressive laws. The parliament is adopting amendments that restrict peaceful assembly. Fines, bans, and attempts to silence dissent. Instead of releasing political prisoners, there are new arrests. Today, many voices that the authorities fear are being held in detention.
The situation with freedom of expression is also deteriorating. Over the past year, Georgia has fallen in the press freedom ranking, from 77th place to 103rd place. New media legislation essentially bans independent media from receiving foreign funding, while the powers of the state regulator have been expanded to dangerously controlling levels. And all of this is happening amid rising authoritarian tendencies.
A government that should be listening to its people is instead trying to silence them.
But it won’t succeed. Because tens of thousands of Georgians are taking to the streets. Because they disagree. Because they are saying: “We want to be with Europe, not Russia. We want the future, not the past”.
It is our duty to stand with them. Not with the politicians who are moving backwards, but with those who raise the Georgian flag alongside the European one: who fight peacefully, honestly, and with dignity for democracy and freedom.
The January resolution was clear. But unfortunately, the authorities did not listen. And that’s why we must say it again. Together with the people of Georgia, we stand for Georgia’s European future, we stand for their rights, and we stand against authoritarian practices, no matter how or where they try to hide themselves.
Thank you, and please support the resolution.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:20:27
Thank you, Yevheniia.
On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, the co-chair of the group Mr Andrej HUNKO.
Thank you very much, Mister President,
We are talking today about the situation in Georgia and the fact that there is no Georgian delegation here. We took a decision in January to sanction the Georgian delegation and to question the credentials in January. They then left, and my group voted against it. We said in the debate that this Parliamentary Assembly had reached an impasse, and I believe we have reached that impasse.
The background to this situation is the elections on 26 October. I was also an election observer in Georgia, including during the pre-election mission. The ruling Georgian Dream party won 54% of the vote. The strongest opposition alliance got 11%. My impression –and I have observed many elections in Georgia– was that the level of irregularities was no different from previous elections and not much different from the situation in some Council of Europe member states.
What has changed in Georgia is the country's geopolitical orientation. After the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in April 2022, there was considerable pressure, and we were informed of this, on the Georgian Government to take part in a confrontation with Russia in one form or another, and the Georgian Government rejected this, not because they are pro-Russian, but because they fear that their country will be destroyed in this war. So the Georgian Dream also ran its election campaign in Georgia with images from Ukraine and Georgia, with destroyed cities and intact cities and said, "We don't want to get into this situation and underneath: Don't vote for war, vote for peace".
Now you can find all this right or wrong, but I think it is urgently necessary that we respect geopolitical diversity here. The Georgian Government, and apparently also with the support of the majority of the population, has chosen this path, not to be pro-Russian, but to stay out of a confrontation, so to speak, to remain neutral. I think it's wrong if that's the reason for sanctions.
We are the only assembly, the only international format that actually needs dialogue, where Georgia is not represented now. I think that's completely wrong.
The German sociologist, last sentence, Mister President. The German sociologist Max Weber said that there are ethics of conviction and there are ethics of responsibility. I believe that we need more ethics of responsibility here in the Assembly. In other words, we need to think about the consequences of our own actions.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:24:03
Thank you, Andrej.
I'm going now to the next speaker on our list, Mr Jone BLIKRA.
Thank you, Mister President.
The strength of the Council of Europe is that we, in all contexts, in all matters, are committed to working for human rights and the rule of law through dialogue and respect for the individual member states.
A lot needs to happen before the issue of excluding member states and not approving credentials becomes an issue, precisely because we believe in dialogue, and the fundamental idea that human rights must always be the basis.
We are now, dear friends, in the special situation that the Georgian delegation itself chooses not to attend this Assembly. For an accredited delegation to attend this Assembly is not optional, it is an obligation.
It makes it even more worrying that the parliamentarians from Georgia are the result of a parliamentary election that election observations from several international organisations have raised serious questions about.
To move forward after this election, several measures and expectations were described. The goal was to enter dialogue with the Georgian authorities and continue working towards a democratic Georgia, and a Georgia that respects human rights and the rule of law.
It is deeply regrettable that the Georgian authorities have not addressed any of the measures and that the situation has worsened regarding respect for basic rules for free and independent elections and citizens' rights.
Where do we go from here?
We must continue to stress the need for dialogue and cooperation, while setting clear demands that call for all detained protesters to be released without delay, and recommend that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visit their places of detention.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:26:24
Thank you.
Mr Christophe BRICO.
Christophe, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mister President.
Since October 2024, Georgian Dream has been leading its people into a descent into hell.
Obviously, it's not up to us to choose political parties or groups. That is not our role. And of course, it's up to us to enter into dialogue with those whom the people have freely and sovereignly chosen to be their leaders.
But all the regulations, legislation and arbitrary arrests we've been seeing for nearly six months are a sign that this country is heading in a direction that, it seems to me, does not correspond to the values of this institution.
Of course, once again, everyone is free to choose. But, in the end, we have a few basic rules: freedom of expression, which can be expressed by taking to the streets and expressing one's opinion, as long as this expression is peaceful; implementing the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to which Georgia adheres; respecting democratic electoral standards. Whatever the situation, it's difficult to talk to a country whose representatives represent only 54% or 60% of the votes cast, even if we accept the results of these elections – which our Assembly has already widely questioned.
Indeed, we must continue our dialogue with Georgia. This is important.
The Georgian people have long since chosen a European, democratic path, in favor of the fundamental rights and freedoms we defend here, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that this path continues. But we must also stand firm on our fundamentals: democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms. That's what brings us together here, and I think it's important to remind the Georgian regime that these principles are non-negotiable.
Thank you all very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:28:55
Thank you, Christophe.
Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO.
April 1989, spring trees are blossoming in beautiful Tbilisi, on Shota Rustaveli [Avenue], and Georgians are standing near their parliament with Georgian flags, fighting for freedom, for democracy, for Georgia, singing songs.
At 4:00 a.m. on the night of 9 April, Moscow gave order to attack these people. Russian soldiers with military shovels attacked these civilians. They killed 20 people, mostly women, with shovels, military shovels, on the Shota Rustaveli near the parliament. That's what happened.
Now again, it's April 2025. Georgians are on the streets. They're on the Shota Rustaveli. They're standing near their parliament. They want democracy. They want a free Georgia. And again Moscow is attacking them, this time not by the hands of Russian soldiers, but by the hands of Moscow puppets, IVANISHVILI, KOBAKHIDZE, and others. That's what's happening right now.
We are here to support the Georgian people, to support democracy in Georgia. They have a right to be free. They have a right to be a democratic European state.
I want to say to the Georgian people that the darkest moment is just before sunrise, and I know for sure that the day will come and quicker than many things. You know, my mother told me one day that, "I always knew that the Soviet Union would collapse, but I never thought that I would see it with my own eyes". Like these Georgians in 1989, they would not believe that in two and a half years, the Soviet Union would disappear.
The same will be now, quicker than many think. Georgia will be free, and we will meet on Shota Rustaveli.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:31:54
Thank you, Oleksii.
Mr James MACCLEARY is next.
Today, Georgia finds itself at a crossroads, not between East and West, but between democracy and authoritarianism. What was once a beacon of democratic hope in the region is now veering dangerously off course. The 2024 elections, which should have been an opportunity to reaffirm Georgia's democratic commitments, have instead revealed a stark and troubling truth. The Georgian Dream (GD) government is systematically dismantling the very democracy it claims to uphold.
The evidence is not vague, nor is it in dispute. Electoral manipulation, intimidation of opposition figures, suppression of independent media and violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters. These are not the hallmarks of a healthy democracy. These are the warning signs of a regime growing ever more authoritarian. Rather than steering Georgia towards its rightful place in the European family, the current leadership is choosing another path. One that leads to deeper alignment with the Kremlin, with all the repression and corruption that entails.
The recent arrest of opposition Member of Parliament (MP) Elene KHOSHTARIA was not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern, a deliberate strategy to silence dissent and consolidate power. Meanwhile, the UK Supreme Court made its own damning judgment, ordering Irakli RUKHADZE, owner of Imedi TV, a Georgian channel infamous for peddling pro-Russian propaganda, to repay millions. The ruling speaks volumes about the malign networks of influence undermining Georgian democracy.
Let us not forget the central figure in this political rot, Bidzina IVANISHVILI. His vast personal fortune, Kremlin ties and stranglehold over Georgia's institutions make him not just a kingmaker, but a democratic saboteur. If we are serious about defending democracy abroad, then let us start with a clear and moral step. Sanction IVANISHVILI and his associates like RUKHADZE now.
Recently, the UK's Foreign Affairs Committee heard a compelling and courageous testimony from President Salome ZOURABICHVILI herself. She did not mince her words. She spoke plainly about the threats facing her country, the pressure placed on its institutions, and the urgent need for the international community, including the United Kingdom (UK), to respond with clarity and conviction.
Georgia's people have made their aspirations clear. They want to be a part of Europe, not just geographically, but politically, economically and morally. They want a future of accountability, transparency and dignity. They are risking a great deal to achieve it. We must not look away. We must not stay silent. I welcome this resolution and congratulate its authors. The people of Georgia deserve our solidarity, our support and our action. Let us stand with them now when it matters most.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:34:49
Thank you, James.
Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS is next.
Dear Emanuelis, you have the floor.
Dear President,
I'm so glad today to have the privilege to overview Georgian affairs and the shape of democracy, which was so downgraded during the last years in Georgia under the leadership of former Russian oligarch Ivanishvili.
From my point of view, we should face a dramatic fight from the European side, helping Georgians - helping Georgians who are dedicated, probably a leading nation in the Caucasus which would like to be members of NATO and the European Union.
That is a tragedy and we cannot allow dictator Putin to have such a victory, trying to recover the captive Soviet – so-called Soviet – Union space which become captive after the Bolshevik Communist Revolution in 1917.
After three years of the freedom of Georgia, it even applied to be a member of League of Nations in the 1920s.
And now, if you remember, I was elected and appointed by you 10 years ago to be a chairman of a delegation observing the first Georgian Dream elections. And then I expressed my very doubtful view. Now, being with you, together with my good friend Mr Pablo HISPÁN and other friends there, I observed – can you imagine – TV cameras by Georgian Dream in every polling station, next to the polling boxes. That was too much. Elections were not free and not fair.
We were in our last resolutions, if you remember, we were asking them to make new elections. There was no dialogue between them and our dear Secretary General BERSET, no co-operation last time. We should carry out a new observation.
News that demonstrations are observed by Chinese-installed TV cameras and face recognition programmes included to recognise every demonstrator and put on them fines, more like a thousand euros, everyone who is demonstrating against this unilateral rule in Georgia.
We should react. We should react unanimously. And from our point of view, the best options are included in this fantastic report done by the rapporteurs. And I will endorse you to support the report in every point of the resolution.
Thank you so much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:38:01
Thank you, Emanuelis.
Ms Zeynep YILDIZ is next.
Zeynep.
Thank you.
Dear President, dear colleagues,
First of all, I would like to draw your attention to a very important but overlooked issue in relation to Georgia, namely Meskhetian Turks. Eighty-one years ago, the Meskhetian Turks, also known as the Ahiska Turks, were displaced forcibly from their homeland in south-western Georgia by the Soviet regime. In 1944, they were exiled in inhumane conditions and in 1989 further violence forced them to flee again. Today they are scattered across Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Türkiye.
Despite the legal framework put in place by the Georgian authorities, they remain unable to return to their homeland, hindered by persistent legal and practical barriers that deny them their civic, political, social, economic and legal rights. Our Assembly has previously recognised their plight in a resolution, but the Meskhetian Turks continue to suffer the lingering effects of forced displacement.
I believe that we need to address this issue and work towards a solution to alleviate the suffering of the Ahiska Turks. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that addressing the challenges and problems of Georgian society and supporting the Georgian authorities in finding a solution to them is indeed the basis of the resolution we are currently discussing, and the key to achieving this is true dialogue and co-operation. Therefore, I believe that promoting dialogue and strengthening co-operation will be the key to achieving constructive and beneficial results in our current debate.
In this regard, I would like to express my concern and regret at the approach of the previous resolution on Georgia and the discussions on it, focused on the threat of sanctions. While it is essential for an independent and sovereign country such as Georgia to remain open to constructive criticism, embracing matters that may resemble coercion can be counterproductive, as this approach has not achieved its intended objectives.
At the moment, we are having a debate on Georgia, but in the absence of the Georgian delegation. If we continue down this path and close the door to dialogue, the only way to find common ground and solutions to problems, we risk undermining the possibility of future co-operation. I therefore urge all colleagues to reconsider this matter. We should support the path of dialogue, understanding and co-operation, rather than continued isolation and confrontation.
Therefore, I will say that I will not be supporting this report.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:41:17
Thank you, Zeynep.
Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO.
Béatrice, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mister President.
In September 2024, the Georgian Parliament adopted the Law on the Protection of Family Values and Minors, despite the opinion of the Venice Commission that it exacerbated prejudices and stereotypes against LGBTI people.
As you will have gathered, this law aims quite simply to restrict the rights of LGBTI people, since with this text the Georgian government wishes to ban the so-called propaganda of homosexuality in schools, the portrayal of LGBTI people in the media, public demonstrations and the sharing of information in schools on sexual orientation. But that's not all. The law also prohibits legal recognition of same-sex couples and the adoption of children.
As for the transgender community, it has been particularly targeted and stigmatised by the obligation to indicate biological sex in official documents and employment contracts. Added to this is the ban on any kind of medical intervention aimed at carrying out a sex change.
Moreover, the combination of the Foreign Agents Act and anti-LGBTI legislation has made it almost impossible for civil society organisations and activists to operate in Georgia. As a result, their room for maneouvre is very limited, while the living conditions of this Georgian community are made extremely difficult, particularly in terms of employment.
In fact, these laws have led to more general attacks on the rights of LGBTI people. This community was instrumentalised during the campaign for the October parliamentary elections. Their use as scapegoats showed us the existence of real political homophobia in Georgia.
Dear colleagues,
We are witnessing a stigmatisation of LGBTI people, who are now designated as agents bringing influence from abroad. We are witnessing an increase in homophobic violence and a lack of trust in the police for the victims of such violence. We are witnessing an erosion of human rights. Incidentally, a proposal to ban rainbow flags has also recently been tabled.
Dear colleagues,
The situation in Georgia is more than worrying. We must support citizens who wish to exercise their freedom of expression.
We must support their right to be who they are, who they want, and their right to love who they want, by once again calling on Georgia to repeal the anti-LGBTI law and the law on foreign agents without delay.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:43:59
Thank you, Béatrice.
And the last speaker in my list is Mr Didier MARIE.
Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Following disputed elections and major demonstrations, at the last session of our Assembly, after a lively debate, we left the door open and extended our hand to the Georgian delegation and the Georgian authorities to return to the path of democracy and respect for human rights.
Since then, unfortunately, the situation has continued to deteriorate, and Georgia is sinking deeper into authoritarianism. Repression of demonstrations, arbitrary arrests, cases of torture and ill-treatment, restrictions on media freedom and freedom of assembly, the stifling of NGOs, new legislative provisions to modify the electoral process and ensure victory in the next local elections, changes to the law on administrative offences. In short, the power of the Georgian Dream is turning into a nightmare for Georgians who courageously continue to demonstrate.
In the unlikely event of a new delegation coming to our Assembly, we cannot validate their credentials as they stand. Georgia is moving away from the values on which our Organisation is founded. We must, however, support civil society, send out positive messages, support political prisoners and all those who dream of a different future for Georgia.
I would like to thank the rapporteurs and tell them that, of course, I will support their conclusions.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:45:52
Thank you, Didier.
Now, dear colleagues, you know the procedure.
The co-rapporteurs, Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ and Ms Edite ESTRELA have 5 minutes to respond.
Edite, would you like to start first?
Dear President, dear colleagues.
Just some comments, but first of all I'd like to thank colleagues who participated in this urgent debate on the situation in Georgia. It was a very good and fruitful debate. I would like to thank the secretariat of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) and of course, Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ, co-rapporteur, my dear colleague.
Despite the different perspectives, we are united in our concern about the political and social crisis that has taken hold in Georgia. I am and we are deeply concerned about the current situation. To be honest, I don't see a solution in sight. Society is polarised. There is no dialogue between the government, ruling parties, civil society and the opposition parties.
But I still believe in dialogue, so I call on the government and opposition parties, and other important stakeholders to engage in a constructive and open dialogue to rebuild trust in democratic institutions, and create the conditions to regain the status of member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) with all rights. We rapporteurs remain strongly committed to dialogue and constructive co-operation with all the authorities, opposition parties and civil society.
Georgian citizens deserve a peaceful and democratic future, and our Assembly should remain dedicated to supporting efforts to achieve this goal.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:48:52
Thank you, Edite.
Sabine, it's your turn.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, ALDE, Co-Rapporteur
11:48:58
Dear colleagues,
I consider it an enormous privilege to stand here today. This is my first time being a rapporteur. This privilege also comes, as we all know, with certain responsibilities. The same goes with the membership in the Council of Europe. I consider my country's access to the European Court of Human Rights, to the Venice Commission, and to this chamber to be an enormous privilege.
But that privilege – and I hope we all agree with this, comes with great responsibility. And that responsibility is that we share the paradigm in our commitment to protecting democracy and what constitutes a democracy, as I spoke about earlier.
Perhaps we don't all agree here today on the course of action, but I do consider us all in this chamber to be friends of Georgia. And if we don't agree on the course of action, hopefully, I hope, that we will be fully united in welcoming Georgia, and our Georgian colleagues, back to this chamber.
However, hope, as powerful as it usually is and can be, cannot be relied on alone. There are actions and recommendations that we need to take. The opinion that you have in front of you today, the resolution, is not based on personal opinions. It's not based on geopolitical struggle. It's not based on ideological preferences of me or my co-rapporteur. It is based on the commitment to the pillars of this institution.
Therefore we invite you to support this resolution that invites dialogue, but also invites criteria.
I will remind you, it is not this chamber that decided that our Georgian friends are not here today with us. We want them in this debate. But the entire delegation resigned. So in order to have a dialogue, it needs to be based on certain criteria. And I invite you to uphold the criteria of this wonderful institution that we are members of, and that we have the responsibility for.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:51:24
Thank you, Sabina.
I will now give the floor to the chairperson of the committee, Ms Zanda KALNIŅA-LUKAŠEVICA.
Zanda, you have 3 minutes.
Latvia, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
11:51:35
Dear President, dear colleagues, this is indeed an important debate. Despite the fact that the members of the Georgian delegation all resigned from the Assembly, thus rejecting dialogue, the Monitoring Committee continued to follow the developments in Georgia closely. It has sought to invite the ruling majority to participate in its discussions, but unfortunately this was rejected.
However, it is important to underscore that we have continued to show our willingness to maintain a dialogue. So the committee organised, during its last meeting in March, a hearing on the human rights concerns in the context of the ongoing crisis, with the participation of two respected former ombudspersons and human rights defenders, as well as representatives of the extra-parliamentary opposition.
Moreover, rapporteurs have stayed abreast of the rapid developments that occur on an almost daily basis. In other words, the committee was well prepared for the urgent debate on the continued democratic backsliding in Georgia. This is clear from the quality of the resolution, which is proven by the very few amendments tabled to it. I would therefore like to thank and compliment the rapporteurs for their excellent and brilliant work, which many of you have recognised in your speeches.
The resolution does not make for pleasant reading. Not only was no progress made with regard to the demands and recommendations of the Assembly, as expressed in its January resolution, but the situation has further deteriorated and the backsliding continues. Nevertheless, we should not give up. On the contrary. Our efforts to find a solution for the ongoing crisis in the country, in close dialogue with all political portions of civil society, need to continue.
I would like to make a special appeal in this respect. Civil society has always been one of the driving forces for democratic consolidation in Georgia. As is outlined in the report, the space for civil society is dramatically shrinking and its very existence is at risk. We should all go home to our national parliaments and see how we can assist and support civil society in Georgia, and protect it from the onslaught against it. We have to work hard to protect the people who fight for democracy.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:54:43
Thank you, Zanda.
Dear colleagues, the debate is closed.
And now the difficult part of the day.
The Monitoring Committee (doc. 16153) has presented a draft resolution, to which 7 amendments have been tabled.
I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendment 7 to the draft resolution, which was unanimously approved by the committee, be declared as definitively approved.
Is that so, Zanda?
Latvia, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
11:55:15
Yes.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:55:17
Yes. If no one objects, I will consider the amendment to be approved.
Is there an objection? No objections.
So the amendment is approved.
I understand that the chairperson of the committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 5 and 1 to the draft resolution, which were rejected by the committee with a two-thirds majority, be declared as definitely rejected.
Is that so, Zanda?
Latvia, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
11:55:55
Correct.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:55:57
If there are no objections, I will consider the amendments to be rejected.
Is there any objection?
No.
The amendments are rejected.
Now we're going to Amendment 3.
I call Ms Boriana ÅBERG to support Amendment 3.
Boriana, you have 30 seconds.
Boriana, have you inserted your badge?
Thank you, Mister President.
The claim to release all political prisoners needs to be explicitly expressed in the draft resolution.
So, please, support this amendment.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:56:50
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
No.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Zanda?
Latvia, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
11:57:02
The Committee supported it with a big majority.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:57:08
OK.
I will now put the amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 3 is agreed to.
Now we go to Amendment 2 and oral amendment, Doc. 16153.
I understand that Ms Boriana ÅBERG would like to withdraw Amendment 2 in favour of an oral amendment of conciliation.
Is that so?
"Yes, it's correct" is the answer.
I have been informed by the committee of an oral amendment as follows:
In the draft resolution, paragraph 6, replace the words “While welcoming” with the following words “While noting”.
In my opinion the oral amendment meets the criteria of Rule 34.7.a.
Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?
No. That is not the case.
I therefore call Ms ĆUDIĆ to support the oral amendment.
You have 30 seconds.
Sabina, I need you to support the oral amendment.
Latvia, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
11:58:41
The oral amendment. The sub-amendment.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, ALDE, Co-Rapporteur
11:58:44
Yes. The amendment of compromise, right?
We considered that it would be more reflective of the actual situation to change the word "welcome" with "noting", essentially recognising reports of decreased violence. However, at the same time understanding that it's a developing situation.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
11:59:06
Okay.
Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?
No.
So the committee is obviously in favour.
I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The oral amendment is agreed.
I understand that the movers of Amendment 4 would like to withdraw Amendment 4 in favour of an oral amendment of conciliation.
Is that so?
Yes, absolutely.
And I want to thank the rapporteurs for their brilliant work and the Secretariat of the Committee.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:00:13
Thank you, Mister Goncharenko.
Amendment 4 is therefore withdrawn.
I have been informed by the committee of an oral amendment as follows:
“In the draft resolution, paragraph 12, replace the second sentence with the following sentence: “It is concerned that criminal charges have been brought against former UNM members as well as other personalities, including from other opposition parties and civil society representatives, who have declined to appear before this commission”.
In my opinion the oral amendment is in order under our rules. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?
That is not the case.
I therefore call Ms Sabina ĆUDIĆ to support the oral amendment.
You have 30 seconds, Sabina.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, ALDE, Co-Rapporteur
12:01:02
Okay.
Dear President, we essentially think it covers the parties that were listed in the original amendment with the more general term, including opposition parties and members of civil society. So to include future parties, existing parties, and also, more broadly, those who are targeted by these actions.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:01:25
Does anyone wish to speak against the oral amendment?
No.
The committee is obviously in favour.
I shall now put the oral amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The oral amendment is agreed.
Amendment 6 and oral sub-amendment. I understand there is an oral sub-amendment proposed to Amendment 6.
Boriana, would you like to support Amendment 6?
Thank you, Mister President.
It's completely unacceptable that our former colleagues from Georgia's delegation of 2008 could be prosecuted for their votes for the resolution – the consequences of the war between Russia and Georgia.
So please support this amendment. In the sub-amendment replace "have been brought" with "could be brought to prosecution". We agreed in the committee about that.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:02:58
I have been informed by the committee of the following oral sub-amendment:
In Amendment 6, replace the words “have been brought “ with the following words “who are brought“.
In my opinion, the oral sub-amendment is in order under our rules.
Sabina, would you like to support the sub-amendment on behalf of the committee?
Bosnia and Herzegovina, ALDE, Co-Rapporteur
12:03:23
Thank you again, President.
We believe that in terms of grammar and also covering the time span, "who are brought" covers current and future instances and occurrences, and we find it to be more suitable.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:03:38
Thank you.
Is there anyone who wants to speak against? No.
What is the opinion of the movers of the main amendment?
I agree, Mister President.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:03:50
You agree, Boriana.
The committee is obviously in favour of the sub-amendment.
I shall now put the sub-amendment to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
And I call for the result to be displayed.
The sub-amendment is agreed.
Now we come to the main Amendment 6, as sub-amended.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment as sub-amended?
No.
The committee agreed to this amendment as sub-amended, and I shall now put Amendment 6, as sub-amended, to the vote.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
Amendment 6, as sub-amended, is agreed to.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution, as amended, contained in Doc. 16153. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The draft resolution in Doc. 16153, as amended, is adopted.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:05:45
Dear colleagues, the next item of business this morning is the debate on the report titled "Legal aspect of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights", Document 16126, presented by Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
This debate will conclude around 1 p.m. to allow time for the replies and the vote, and I will call the rapporteur to take the floor.
Titus, when you are ready, you can take the floor.
Mister Corlăţean, when you are ready, you have 7 minutes. Okay, you can take the floor. You have 7 now and 3 minutes at the end to reply to the debate.
Dear colleagues. Silence.
Thank you very much, President.
Dear colleagues, the purpose of this report was to follow the process of negotiations between the European Union (EU) and the Council of Europe member states on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and to address any legal concerns from the Assembly's perspective.
As you know, this is a very old story dating back more than 40 years. The EU Lisbon Treaty in 2007 finally created a legal obligation for the EU to accede to the Convention. Negotiations started in 2010, and in 2013 all parties agreed to a package of instruments that would allow the EU to accede to the Convention.
Unfortunately, in 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the 2013 package was not compatible with the EU treaties for different reasons that are explained in this report.
After negotiations were resumed in 2020, a provisional agreement was reached on the draft accession package in March 2023, more than two years ago.
This agreement, which was unanimous and celebrated as an important accomplishment by our heads of states and governments some months later in Reykjavik, solved all the objections that had been raised by the Luxembourg Court (CJEU) in its Advisory Opinion except one. You can find the most relevant and substantial changes to the 2013 agreement in my explanatory memorandum.
In my view, the draft agreement accommodates the Court of Justice of the European Union's position on the specificities of EU law while preserving the integrity of the Convention-system and the role of the Court.
What remained to be solved was the exclusion, according to the EU treaties, of cases relating to the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union: the so-called "Basket Four" issue.
This was problematic as it meant that these cases would have to be decided by the Strasbourg Court (European Court of Human Rights) without any prior assessment by the Luxembourg Court (CJEU). The EU informed the 46 plus 1 group that this issue would be resolved internally within the EU.
On 10 September last year, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an important judgment in a case known as the EULEX Kosovo case, in which it has clarified the scope of its jurisdiction in relation to CFSP acts. It found that the existing limitation of its jurisdiction in this area can be reconciled with the right to judicial review and to an effective remedy. The new rule set by the Court of Justice of the European Union is that it will have jurisdiction over CFSP acts or omissions that are not directly related to political or strategic choices. This means introducing, in a way, a political doctrine question into EU external relations law.
This judgment has generally been perceived as a positive step that could potentially solve the Basket Four issue and facilitate EU accession to continue its course. The Steering Committee of Human Rights of the Council of Europe welcomed this judgment as a promising avenue to be explored for resolving the outstanding issue, and encouraged the EU to take the necessary decisions at the earliest opportunity.
The only way to be sure that this judgment fully resolves the last obstacle to a final accession agreement would be to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for another opinion on the new draft accession agreement. We have been informed that the European Commission are preparing a request for opinion to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I hope that all EU member states will agree or at least will not object to this. In the draft resolution we make a call to the EU institutions, and in particular to the European Commission to submit a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union without delay and, if the opinion is positive, to proceed with the conclusion of the agreement as soon as possible.
This will of course take time, because the Court of Justice of the European Union could take between 18 and 24 months to deliver its opinion. Then, if the opinion is positive, there are several steps that need to be taken. Consent by the European Parliament with two-thirds majority and a unanimous decision by the Council of the European Union. Once the final agreement is reached and submitted to the Committee of Ministers, the Committee of Ministers will seise the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) for a statutory opinion on the accession agreement before adopting an opening for signature.
Let me also draw your attention to an important provision on the draft accession agreement which concerns us directly. The new Article 7 addressing the election of judges by the Assembly, and the participation of the European Parliament delegation, the Assembly and its competent bodies for that purpose. The agreement provides for the participation of a delegation of the European Parliament and the assembly when it exercises its function of electing judges to the Court, and not only for the election of a judge in respect of the European Union, but for all judges. If the agreement is finalised, we will have to move quickly and update the informal agreement reached with the European Parliament already in 2011, in order to regulate the participation of the European Parliament in the Bureau of the Assembly and the Assembly's Committee on the Election of Judges.
The Assembly has always been a powerful and insistent advocate of EU accession for more than 40 years. The time has come for the Assembly to send again a strong political message to all relevant actors, and call for action, and avoid any further delays. EU accession to the Convention is needed to fill a gap in the human rights protection-system in Europe for the benefit and the protection of all EU citizens and persons within the jurisdiction of the European Union.
It would also send an important political message to the world at a time when war has returned to Europe and the rule of force is threatening the international legal order. It would show that the EU is committed to the human rights standards of the Council of Europe and to the rule of law, and that it accepts to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, in the same way all EU member states do. EU accession would certainly be a great example on how we can strengthen the rule of law and the international legal order in Europe in accordance with our values.
This saga has been ongoing for too long. We need to finish the work done, and make EU accession to the Convention a reality. This may seem a very technical issue, but accession will have a great impact on the protection of fundamental rights of all European citizens and will make the EU legal order a more credible and robust system.
Thank you so much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:15:07
Thank you.
On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Bertrand BOUYX.
Bertrand.
France, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group
12:15:20
Thank you, Mister Chairman.
Mister Chairman,
Mister rapporteur,
Ladies and gentlemen,
I take the floor today on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe to express our firm support for the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a commitment that our Assembly has held for decades, since the 1980s, and which the rigorous and lucid report by our colleague Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN has today forcefully revived.
As the report reminds us, this accession is a long-standing project, initiated in the 2000s, legally provided for by Protocol 14 to the Convention, and legally required since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Yet, dear colleagues, the European Union is still not a party to the Convention. This situation is not only paradoxical; it has become untenable.
The paradox is well known. All EU member states are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, but the European institutions are not. European citizens can take action against their states before the Strasbourg Court, but the institutions of the European Union themselves are not.
This dissociation introduces an imbalance in the protection of fundamental rights in Europe, as our colleague's report rightly points out. This imbalance is detrimental to the coherence of the European system for protecting human rights; it is legally unsatisfactory, politically risky and fosters the idea of a two-speed Europe in terms of fundamental guarantees.
As the report points out, accession would make it possible to harmonise the jurisprudence of Strasbourg and Luxembourg, to guarantee external judicial control over the Union's institutions and to offer effective access to the Court to all its citizens, including against acts of the Union.
The report also underlines that decisive progress has been made. The provisional agreement of 2023 among the "46+1" has made it possible to overcome the obstacles raised in Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
As the rapporteur pointed out, the Eulex Kosovo ruling of 10 September 2024, hailed in the report as a promising way forward, has helped to remove the last remaining uncertainties linked to the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
So, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to turn intentions into action.
The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the rapporteur's appeal. The Union's institutions must refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for an opinion without delay, and then conclude the accession agreement. The credibility of the Union as a community governed by the rule of law is at stake, as is the legal certainty of our fellow citizens. Above all, our collective duty to be consistent and exemplary in defending human rights is at stake.
As the report so rightly points out, the Convention is a constitutional instrument of European public order. Its universality within the continent must include the Union. Now is not the time to hesitate, but to complete this historic project.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:18:41
Thank you, Bertrand.
Mr Andrej HUNKO on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Dear colleagues,
The Lisbon Treaty, the EU's basic treaty, was adopted in 2007 and came into force in 2009. This treaty states that the EU will accede to the Convention on Human Rights. It doesn't say it could join, should join. It says it will join, and that should have happened in 2009 or in the following years. But it still hasn't, and that is indeed a scandal.
Why is that important? There are also communitised institutions such as Frontex, Europol, the ECB and others that cannot be traced back to a member state. There is no right of action against possible human rights violations by these institutions. In the Council of Europe, in contrast to the EU, we have the European Court of Human Rights, which gives every citizen living on the territory of the member states of the European Union the right to bring an individual action. There is nothing comparable in the EU. That's why it's included in the treaty.
What has happened? In 2014, the Luxembourg Court of Justice described in detail over 150 pages that this accession is not possible. It could also have written a sentence, "We do not want an external court that is above us in matters of human rights. So, only the sky is above us".
That is a logic that I have often criticised in the German Parliament. I was on the Europe Committee there for 15 years, and then there was a long period where nothing happened. I repeatedly raised the issue in the German Parliament when Germany held the Presidencies of both the EU and the Council of Europe at the same time. The negotiations actually started again at that time. And there was only the problem of foreign policy, where the French were against it.
I actually regret the fact that human rights violations in connection with military missions, for example, cannot be punished now. That has now been excluded. But at least now there seems to be progress, and I think that the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights should finally be implemented.
In this respect, I support Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN's report and hope that we can finally close this chapter, which is a bit of a disgrace, especially for the European Union.
I thank you for your attention.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:21:48
Thank you, Andrej.
On behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, Ms Petra BAYR.
Petra.
Thank you very much, Mister President, and thank you, Titus CORLĂŢEAN, for this really important report.
It is clear that we speak about one legal space, when it comes to the member states of the European Union (EU) within the Council of Europe, which is quite harmonised. Let me also focus on the implications of the participation of the European Union at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This will help unfold the human rights protection umbrella over all people living in European Union member states when they consider that their human rights might be infringed by European Union institutions, so far beyond the possible infringement of national institutions only. Of course, this will give those people a new options, in terms of both remedies and also of juridical guarantees.
When it comes to the election of judges regarding the European Union, members of the European Parliament (EP) will have the possibility to participate in our respective bodies, which are, on the one hand, the committee that hears and elects the judges for the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It might also be the Bureau, because when a judge or the results of the Committee on the Election of Judges is included in the progress report, we also have that in the Bureau. So, they would probably also be in the Bureau, and they would also participate in these parts of our Plenary Session when we vote on the judges. Of course, not only on the judges as regards the European Union, but of all judges, because it is a common court, so they would be included in more or less every session.
I am convinced that the European Union (EU) institutions will also follow, not only the criteria when it comes to Article 21 of the Convention and also its interpretation, which is the important thing, but also we will meet all the requirements which set standards for the selection procedure. I am really curious, of course it will be quite different from a national procedure, and I consider it much more complex, when the European Union (EU) will have agreed on three potential candidates. Maybe with their new procedures, they also will set new standards when it comes to this procedure, which is, of course, fine. They will also consult the Advisory Panel of the Committee of Ministers, which reviews both the procedure and also the quality of the candidates. So, I am sure they will suggest three candidates who are appropriate.
I hope the necessary procedures within the European Union (EU) institutions to prepare and to finalise the accession to the Convention will be conducted quickly and efficiently. I also hope that maybe within this term of the European Parliament (EP), we can hear the first candidates in respect to the European Union for the Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:25:24
Thank you, Petra.
On behalf of the Group of the European People's Party, Mr Benjamin DALLE.
Belgium, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group
12:25:31
Thank you, Mister President,
On behalf of the Group of the European People's Party, I would like to express our strong support for this report and for the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.
This is not only a technical exercise. It is also a political moment, and an opportunity to reaffirm what the European Union stands for: a Union based on the rule of law and human rights.
Accession will bring the EU under the same external judicial scrutiny as its member states. That is not a threat to the Union’s legal autonomy, it is a sign of confidence in our shared values. It will strengthen legal certainty, ensure consistency across European human rights jurisprudence, and confirm that no institution is above the standards it promotes.
This matters not only internally, but also externally. The EU is a global actor, and its foreign and neighbourhood policies must be subject to the same human rights standards as its internal ones. Reference has already been made through recent judgments of the EU Court of Justice, delivered in September of last year, which clarified that the Court’s lack of jurisdiction in foreign policy matters applies only to matters directly linked to the political or strategic choices of the Union. Crucially, the Court remains competent to review the implementation of EU foreign policy.
This approach fully aligns with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In line with its acte de gouvernement doctrine, the Court exercises restraint in reviewing high-level political decisions in foreign affairs, but it does assess acts of implementation where individual rights might be affected.
Over the years, there have always been reasons to postpone accession: legal complexities, institutional sensitivities, and practical challenges. But the real question, dear colleagues, is this, do we truly believe that human rights must apply equally to all people, and to all institutions, including the European Union itself?
At a time when multilateralism is under pressure, and when some global actors retreat from international legal commitments, EU accession to the ECHR would be more than a legal milestone. It would be a political statement.
A statement of commitment. Of consistency. Of credibility.
The Group of the European People's Party believes that this accession should not be delayed any longer. It is time to act, and to show that Europe’s commitment to human rights is more than words.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:28:34
Thank you, Benjamin.
Ms Sigríður Á. ANDERSEN, on behalf of the European Conservatives, Patriots and Affiliates.
Iceland, ECPA, Spokesperson for the group
12:28:43
Mister President,
First, let me inform you that I’m no fan of the European Union (EU) institutions. There is a good reason why Iceland is not a member of the EU. In my view many EU institutions could very well do with firmer control in respect of human rights, namely private property rights, right to privacy of the home, freedom of speech and so on.
However, I’m inclined to team up with the European Court of Justice on the original thought of the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.
There would indeed be many practical and legal issues to deal with, such as the ridiculously heavy case load at the European Court here in Strasbourg and the threat of conflicting ruling and unclear allocation of competences between the EU and the European Court of Human Rights. It is also worth mentioning here that there would be legal implications for the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries and the EFTA court. That, in my opinion, needs further discussion.
In my country, Iceland, there is now a judicial system of three instances: namely district court, appellate court and, for a large chunk of cases, also a Supreme Court. For the past two decades, an increasing number of cases that have been fully heard by Icelandic courts are now being referred to the Court here in Strasbourg. And now that the Court here in Strasbourg has firmly confessed to its creative jurisprudence, the case load is bound to get even heavier. So, now we have a de-facto four-instance judicial system in my country. Some EU member states would therefore have to endure a judicial system of five instances or even six in some cases.
This kind of judicial process of repeated appeals diminishes the trust in the judicial system in general and diminishes also the ever so important coherence in application of the law.
I agree with the rapporteur who finds it problematic that increasingly broad competences have been transferred to the European Union which cannot be held responsible for breaches of the Convention rights.
However, I disagree with the rapporteur on the means to mend this.
The solution is not adding one more layer of institutions over the lives of EU citizens. This Council should advocate for transferring the competences of the EU back to the member states of which all are fully fledged democracies, valuing and protecting human rights and encourage strengthening of the European Court of Justice in terms of human rights.
Thank you.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:31:24
Thank you, Sigríður.
Ms Wanda NOWICKA is next.
Mister President,
While we are today discussing the brilliant report by Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN on the legal aspects concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, we are focusing on the issue of how: how to do it, why it takes so long, what needs to be done in order to to do it, what we strongly support should happen as soon as possible.
Myself, I would like, in my short time I have to focus on the issue why – why we are doing what we do, why we want to do this exercise, why we want to connect those instruments.
Actually, we know very well that although the European Convention on Human Rights is a very important and strong instrument, it is still not fully implemented, as we discussed yesterday in another report on this very subject. There are some deficiencies, especially on the side of politics, that countries are not necessarily willing to implement the Convention. But having the instrument of the Council of Europe, the Convention, combined with European mechanisms, which are actually not very strong to protect individual human rights, because the European Union Charter on Fundamental Rights does not have any measures to really implement the human rights of individuals.
By connecting those two instruments or two different systems, it can only help people. Because, like many of us here in the European Union countries, we know very well that sometimes the government changes and then the protection of the European Court of Human Rights is not sufficient.
Just mention my country. Unfortunately, this is the past now. The Constitutional Court, fully controlled by the former government, decided that the European Court of Human Rights is against the Polish constitution, which is completely absurd. But such things are happening in politics.
So, having the protection of human rights of individuals and communities will help depoliticise the issue of the implementation of human rights that individuals will be better protected, being able to either come with a claim from the country or from the European Union. It is very important that this process continue.
Thanks again, Titus, for this report you prepared. Hopefully, it will contribute to the European Union's final decision to join the European Convention on Human Rights.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:34:48
Thank you, Wanda.
Mr Pedro NEVES DE SOUSA is next.
Dear President, dear colleagues,
All 46 Council of Europe member states, including the 27 European Union countries are already bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, the European Union itself is not.
This means that the actions of the European Union institutions, agencies and other bodies cannot currently be challenged by the European Court of Human Rights.
This is something that has to change and we must transform words into concrete acts.
There's no doubt that accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights involves several legal aspects that impact both the European Union and the Council of Europe.
To achieve that goal, we need to reinforce the commitment to align European law with human rights standards.
In light of this purpose, it's useful to remember that the Lisbon Treaty of 2009 included the legal commitment that the European Union will accede to the Convention.
But the extensive negotiations that took place since then never led us to success in this matter.
Despite these legal matters we hope that the European Union's accession to the Convention will strengthen the protection of human rights in Europe by giving European Union citizens the right to lodge an application with the Court (European Court of Human Rights) when they consider that their fundamental rights have been violated by a European Union institution.
This accession will be the best way to ensure the harmonious development of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in human rights matters.
This accession will confirm the essence of the European Union as a union based on the rule of law, and strengthen the principle of legal certainty.
This accession will send a strong political message of clear commitment to the protection of human rights and international law, not only within the European Union boundaries, but also Europe-wide and worldwide.
At a time when war has returned to Europe and the common values shared by the Council of Europe and the European Union are under threat, this accession will reinforce synergy, complementarity and co-operation between the Council of Europe and European Union, which is the main institutional partner of the Council of Europe, in line with the Reykjavík Declaration.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:37:34
Thank you, Pedro.
Mister Didier MARIE, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mister Chairman.
First of all, I would like to thank our colleague Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN for his report, which takes stock of the legally sensitive subject of the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty.
Our Assembly has supported this accession for many years. It would confirm the European Union's commitment to the values on which our Organisation is founded, and strengthen the links between the Union and the Council of Europe. In legal terms, accession should eliminate any risk of jurisdictional divergence between the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, and thus any legal uncertainty.
Following negotiations between 2010 and 2013, an accession agreement was submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union to verify its conformity with the Union treaties. In its opinion delivered in December 2014, the Court identified seven grounds for incompatibility, which effectively, at the time, prevented accession. In particular, it referred to the difficulties of attributing exclusive control of the Common Foreign and Security Policy to a judicial body external to the Union, when the competences of the Court of Justice of the European Union are limited, resulting in the de facto absence of a court of first instance in this field.
To get around this difficulty, the Commission had proposed the adoption of an interpretative intergovernmental declaration, on the basis of which the Court of Justice of the European Union could extend its jurisdiction to acts falling within the scope of the common European security policy, in order to rule on a possible violation of fundamental rights at first instance, before the European Court of Human Rights gave its ruling. In response to this proposal, the French Senate, of which I am a member, recalled that the accession of the European Union to our Convention must not affect either the competences of the Union or the remit of its institutions, considering the European Commission's proposal to be contrary to the Treaty.
The ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 10 September 2024 attempts to define the role of this jurisdiction in matters of common foreign and security policy, by ensuring the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of our Convention, without calling into question political and strategic choices in this area. This decision would mean that the Court of Justice of the European Union's limited competence in matters of common European security policy would no longer necessarily constitute an obstacle to the decision.
However, we believe that we must remain cautious on this issue. The new technical agreement drawn up by the 46+1 ad hoc negotiating group should soon be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union for its opinion.
Like all of us, I hope that the European Union will adhere to our Convention, and that the remaining difficulties will be resolved in compliance with the treaties and the values we defend here.
Thank you all very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:40:45
Thank you, Didier.
Ms Octavie MODERT.
Octavie, you are the last speaker on my list.
Dear colleagues,
I'll be brief, for a story that's twelve years long, if not much longer, as I welcome Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN's report and support the European Union's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.
A long story which, since the draft accession agreement of 2013, has taken over twelve years for legal reasons that require clarification before this accession process can be completed. Now is the time to get back on track, and the year 2025 is particularly appropriate, as it is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. So, let's get the process underway again in this symbolic year, for this emblematic Convention guaranteeing our fundamental rights.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, for his report, which describes in detail the stages and steps to be taken to achieve this.
Dear colleagues,
Accession should make it possible to avoid, or even counteract, a fragmentation of the fundamental rights set out in the Convention on Human Rights, and thus achieve more comprehensive protection of citizens' rights. This will not and must not prevent the autonomy of European Union law.
The prominent question of European external security policy also seems to have been answered by the European Court of Justice, with the Eulex Kosovo ruling cited by the rapporteur. Of course, there are still many detailed issues to be dealt with and, in any case, there will be many procedural stages to go through, and it will be some time before accession becomes a reality, with, ultimately, the 47 ratifications required.
So, let's get on with it.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:42:57
Thank you, Octavie.
So, now that concludes the list of speakers, as I have said.
And I will call Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, rapporteur, to reply.
Titus, you have 3 minutes now.
Mister Chairman,
Dear colleagues,
I'm going to start in French.
I'd like to thank all my fellow speakers, including my fellow leaders who have expressed their position and support on behalf of the European political groups. This is important, including French voices, as we need to ensure unanimity of position within the European Union to enable us to move towards this historic solution, the accession of the European Union to the European Convention, while taking into account the complexity and sensitivity of this issue of common foreign and security policy.
Thank you for your attention.
Just two brief comments on the merits.
But I will start first by reminding colleagues that this Organisation, the Council of Europe, is at the origin of the European standards, the rule of law and the fundamental human rights standards.
It is the Council of Europe. This is why we need to celebrate this year correctly. We are celebrating the anniversary of 75 years after the adoption of the European Convention of Human Rights that maintained the pre-eminence of our system established by the Council of Europe at the level of our European continent.
It is not by accident the fact that during the years, the decades, different treaties of the European Communities and then of the European Union made the reference all the time, until the Lisbon Treaty, the reference to our Convention of Fundamental Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
This is why it's important to take the final step towards assuring a cohesion-system, European system for the respect of the fundamental human rights, having as the most important pillar, the last pillar, the European Court of Human Rights.
My second comment as concerns some questions related to the possible dilemma concerning the fact that it might be a last supplementary layer, that is, let's say, put it once again in the system. I want to draw your attention about one key element which is extremely important.
We should, in a context of war, of serious challenges against fundamental human rights on our European continent, including or starting against the right to life, that we need to assure this cohesion. We need to ensure a system that will avoid duplication, will avoid even contradictory jurisprudence solutions coming from the Luxembourg Court, and our European Court in Strasbourg. This is why, when we are discussing our system based on the European Convention of Human Rights, we should not, let's say, forget the fact that our system established an important role for the subsidiarity principle and for the margin of appreciation of the states.
So, we already have the solution.
My final comment is the following one. We are quite close, after more than 40 years of hard work, with ups and downs to reach this historical goal. I make an appeal to the Council of Europe member states, through you, dear colleagues, which are also members of the European Union, to generate a strong political consensus within the EU to take the final step.
I want to thank, retroactively during the years, some important people who worked hard in this Organisation. I will start with two general directors whom I have met here in different other periods, in a different capacity 28 years ago, to Pierre-Henri IMBERT, the General Director of Human Rights and his team to Mr Guy DE VEL and his team, the General Director on Legal Affairs who worked hard for this project, to the leaders of this Organisation that contributed during the years. We should finalise this process. We should support... and your vote today will be extremely important to launch a clear political system to support the finalisation of this project.
Thank you. I want to thank last but not least Mr Guillem CANO PALOMARES and colleagues from the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and previously Mr Günter SCHIRMER for the hard work that supported the rapporteur during the last five years for this report.
Thank you so much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:48:12
Does the Vice Chair of the Committee, Mr Pablo HISPÁN, wish to speak?
3 minutes.
Spain, EPP/CD, Second vice-chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
12:48:21
Thank you, President Rousopoulos.
Colleagues, the committee adopted the draft resolution unanimously last January. I would like to thank Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN for his excellent work as rapporteur on this important issue, which he started some years ago, back in 2020.
He closely followed the resumed negotiations between the European Union and the Council of Europe member states, which have resulted in a draft accession agreement provisionally agreed in March 2023.
The committee has held several changes of views with some of the negotiators, including Ms Tonje MEINICH, Chair of the so-called 46+1 negotiating group.
Now it's time to move things forward and conclude the agreement without delay. I very much hope that this resolution will give some impetus to the process and encourage the European Union institutions and the Court of Justice of the European Union to facilitate the final agreement. The Assembly has always supported the European Union's accession to the Convention.
This is not only important legally, but also politically. We need more rule of law and more judicial review of our institutions, including the European institutions.
The European Union is the Council of Europe's most important institutional partner. We have made many joint co-operation programmes. The European Union participates in the negotiation of most of our recent conventions, and we intensify our work together in order to ensure accountability for the war of aggression against Ukraine, for example, with the creation of the damage and hopefully the Special Tribunal.
To be current, the need of the European Union to accede to our most important convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and to be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
We need more multilateralism, not less. This mechanism will strengthen the Council of Europe and the European Union.
Today, thanks to the effort of Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, it's a good day for Europe.
Thank you also to the members of the secretariat, especially Mr Guillem CANO PALOMARES, who has worked a lot on this report.
Thank you very much.
Greece, EPP/CD, President of the Assembly
12:50:34
Thank you, Pablo.
Dear colleagues, the debate is closed now.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has presented a draft resolution, to which no amendments have been tabled.
We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Doc. 16126. A simple majority is required.
The vote is open.
The vote is closed.
I call for the result to be displayed.
The draft resolution in Doc. 16126 is adopted.
The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3:30 p.m. with the agenda approved on Monday.
The sitting is adjourned.
