Good morning.
Dear colleagues.
The sitting is open.
I remind members that, in order to be registered for the sitting, you should insert your badge when you take your seat, and keep it inserted for at least 30 seconds.
You should also insert your badge in order to speak or vote. To request the floor, please press the “request” button once.
I also remind the Assembly that members who have not submitted an annual declaration of interests are required to start any intervention with an oral declaration of interests under Paragraph 20 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Parliamentary Assembly.
This morning the Agenda calls for the election of one judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The list of candidates and biographical notices are to be found in Document 16462. The opinion of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights is presented in Document 16484 Addendum 2.
The voting will take place in the area behind the President's chair. At 1:00 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of five tellers.
Each political group has appointed a teller according to the rules. The tellers are Ms Bisera KOSTADINOVSKA-STOJCHEVSKA, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Baroness Thérèse COFFEY, Ms Sona GHAZARYAN and Ms Katrin FEY.
I would like to remind them that they will have to be in the room set aside for this purpose at 1:00 p.m. The result of the vote will be announced, if possible, at the start of this afternoon’s sitting.
For these first ballots, an absolute majority of the votes is required. If a second round has to be organised, it will take place this afternoon.
I declare the ballot open.
We continue our work in the meantime of course.
Our next business is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of Committees. These are set out in Document Commissions (2026) 11 Addendum 1. Is the proposed change in the membership of the Committee agreed to?
I do not see anybody disagreeing, so there is no objection, and following Rule 44.8, I refer the disputed nomination back to the national delegation concerned.
So we now come to the first item of business this morning. It is a general debate on “Council of Europe: grounded in core values to meet the challenges ahead”, introduced by Mr Knut ABRAHAM who has been chosen by the Bureau to open the debate.
Given the limited time available, participation following the opening contribution will be restricted to speakers on behalf of the five political groups and chairpersons of committees.
The debate will conclude at around 10:50 a.m.
I call Mr Knut ABRAHAM. You have 7 minutes. Please.
Madam President.
Thank you very much, Secretary General.
Dear colleagues,
We are living through dangerous times. As we speak here in Strasbourg, 2 000 Ukrainians – Europeans – amongst them children, are trapped in the town of Oleshky in Russian-occupied Ukraine. They have had no food delivered since May. The occupiers will not let them leave.
Three years ago, this Assembly recognised the Holodomor, Stalin's famine in Ukraine, as genocide. Ninety-three years later, Ukrainians are again starved by Moscow.
Today, crises are converging. International law is under sustained assault. At this moment, the Council of Europe must stand firm and must stand ready. Strong in its origins, created in response to the devastation of war, to protect the values on which free and peaceful societies depend. Human rights, democracy and the rule of law are more than a mandate. They are the pillars of European identity.
Strong in its law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights have transformed the protection of individual rights across our continent.
Strong in its achievements, a unique body of common European law against torture, corruption, human trafficking, for the protection of children against violence against women.
This Assembly, as a statutory organ, is the right place, helping to identify priorities, shaping reforms and turning our values into real protection. Any reform must sharpen our capacity to act and to focus on impact. The Council of Europe must have the political weight to ensure that its standards and recommendations are heard, respected and translated into action. Human rights must remain at the heart of the Council of Europe's mandate. At the same time, its work must become more effective, more cost-efficient, and its voice must more clearly be heard.
The Council of Europe's political role must serve its values, while its values must give direction and credibility. Let me highlight eight concrete matters. They show that this Assembly and the Council of Europe as a whole have the right instruments, but that we have to focus on implementation if we want to stay relevant.
First and urgently, there is the issue of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression. Mariupol, Bucha, Olechky. Those responsible for the aggression that led to these crimes must stand trial.
Second, let us remember another important lesson. In March 2022, we voted unanimously to expel Russia. We should be proud of that vote, and we should admit that it came too late. For years, Russia refused to implement Strasbourg judgements. Ignoring violations in a member state is not tolerance. It is, in the end, a security risk for all of us. Democratic security means implementing our Convention.
Third, the lesson for reform credibility in upholding our core values is that it is our most important asset. Supervision and accountability turn these values into protection. This must remain a house of democracies bound by our statute and the Convention. And we must see to it that every member honours that commitment.
Fourth, we rightly honour those individuals who defend these values at great risk. In 2014, Mr Anar MAMMADLI received this Assembly's Václav Havel Prize in prison for monitoring elections and defending human rights in his home country, Azerbaijan. This month, he was once again sentenced on political charges.
Fifth, protecting democracy in our member states. In January 2025, we said we would ratify the Georgian delegation's credentials on two conditions: new elections and the release of political prisoners. Neither condition has been met. Article 3 of our statute says every member must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is the bedrock on which we stand.
Sixth, the same applies to all of us and each of our countries. Every Strasbourg judgement must be implemented. Non-compliance must never become normal. It too often did in recent decades.
Seventh, bring more Europeans under the umbrella of our protection mechanisms where we can. In April 2024, this Assembly recommended Kosovo's accession by a large majority. Nothing has happened since.
Eighth and last, we must never tire of telling a young generation what this institution is, where it came from and why it matters. Let us ensure that this legacy is known, appreciated, valued and shared.
Europe, dear colleagues, needs the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe must rise to the challenge.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. And you will have 4 minutes to reply later.
I now call Mr Frank SCHWABE, speaker on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.
Madam Secretary General,
Dear Mr Knut ABRAHAM,
Dear Secretary General, Dear Ambassadors,
In historical times it's always important that all the different dimensions of the Council of Europe work together constructively. Sometimes it's a little bit warm when we discuss something, but at the end I think the outcome is always a good one.
Thank you very much, Mr Knut ABRAHAM, for this united perspective, to express our united view, to make a memorable olfactory signature in this debate that we are having.
This organisation was built really on the results of the Second World War, on the Holocaust. And the story of the Council of Europe was a success story. Today the Council of Europe and especially the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a leading example for the whole world. Everyone watches how we do it, how we deal with human rights, how we deal with the Court.
For sure, we had a long history. We had a history after the Second World War, the founding of the Council of Europe. Then we had a new phase from 1990, having those countries who were not free before 1990 and now it's kind of a new phase. We have, I don't want to say rising authoritarianism, but we have the challenge of authoritarianism. But that doesn't mean that our values are old values. They are very modern. Human rights, rule of law and democracy are not at all old-fashioned.
But for sure, every organisation needs an update, regular updates. And we are prepared for such an update and to discuss this update. I think if we look into the elements of the Council of Europe, we have a common interest, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General. And we ask the Committee of Ministers, I know you are not governments, you represent governments, but in this situation, where we discuss democratic global security, where we discuss and we have to face real wars, is it a good idea to invest heavily in weapons? Yes, it is necessary. But is it a good idea not to invest in the core values of this organisation?
So is it a good idea to really proceed with zero normal growth? This is my question.
If you go three steps back and you look into this institution, if you want to be more political with the more political part of this organisation, if you look into the Reykjavík process, if you look into pushing out Russia, dealing with supporting Ukraine with clear messages on authoritarian countries as members of this organisation. If you look into the accession process, for example, Kosovo is the leading political part of this organisation, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
So we say it with self-consciousness: in this situation, we want to be a very active part of the next step, of the future next steps of the organisation. So whatever we renew, whatever we discuss, whatever we update, we are a part of it. You can count on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr Frank SCHWABE.
I now call Mr Pablo HISPÁN, speaking for the Group of the European People's Party.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dear colleagues,
I want to start by thanking Mr Knut ABRAHAM for his clear words.
At a time when the rules-based international order is in retreat, the multilateral institutions that embody it are facing a deep crisis. The Council of Europe, one of these institutions, has never had an easy path. Founded in the dawn of the Cold War, with Europe divided and on the brink of conflict, and with more than half of its citizens living under dictatorship, it seemed that the successive waves of democratisation that had expanded the organisation since the 1970s were an unstoppable force.
Today, we know that this is not the case. We are witnessing some countries gradually transforming into competitive autocracies, while in others, seemingly democratic governments are undermining the separation of powers. Against this backdrop, the Council of Europe, with its bodies established in 1949, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), assisted by the Secretary General, must remain united in addressing the challenges we set ourselves in Reykjavík.
Perhaps the first of these challenges is the protection of the European Court of Human Rights, the ultimate guarantor of its rights and freedoms, as we see it in the European Convention on Human Rights, the cornerstone of our common identity. The challenges are clear, and ensuring the implementation of the Court's judgment is perhaps the most important of them all.
The Chișinău Declaration provides a solid roadmap toward this objective. Establishing the compensation mechanisms through the Register of Damage, the Claims Commission and the Compensation Fund, together with the Special Tribunal, whose relevant protocol has yet to be ratified by the majority of the member states, represents an enormous and urgent task.
Over the years, we have gradually developed a range of instruments to address the situation of crises and strengthen democratic standards, both through PACE committees and through newer bodies such as the Venice Commission and the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). Of course, we can discuss whether these instruments should be reviewed, but we must always bear in mind the specific nature as defined by the Treaty of London.
From the perspective of my political group, we are concerned that the budgetary reforms implemented over recent decades have resulted in the decline of PACE's share of the organisation's budget. If democracy is in retreat, perhaps this is partly because investment in democracy has come to be regarded as something secondary.
The task before us is immense, and we must avoid haste and improvisation. Let us avoid unnecessary friction and assume our responsibilities. That is what our citizens expect of us and what the challenges of our time demand.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr Pablo HISPÁN.
I now call Mr Zsolt NÉMETH, speaking on behalf of the European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates.
Zsolt.
Madam President,
Secretary General,
I'm sure you know the Protestant Christian motto: "the Church must always be reformed" [spoken in Latin].
Reform is needed always and reform is not a bad thing. To make the Council of Europe visible and influential globally and externally is good and I think we could encourage that process.
Obviously, there are procedural and content-wise preconditions to this. Procedurally, I would like to underline its importance. If we look at the Council of Europe from the perspective that we are the soul of Europe, then I would say that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is the soul of the Council of Europe.
Concerning the content, we will have to discuss in the coming weeks and months budgetary aspects, but also the activity of the organisation. Concerning the budgetary aspects, the role of the political groups is something that we cannot disregard.
Dear colleagues,
We have 2 500 people working in this organisation and only five people work for political groups. I think we need to increase the role of PACE and the role of political groups in the budget in the future.
Concerning our activity institutions, the most important precondition, I would say, is courage. In the past couple of weeks we have experienced very strange developments in some member states, like Hungary and Poland. Revolutionary justice is the flag and we experience state capture and we experience that the positions of presidents and courts are endangered and the intimidation and sometimes annihilation of political opponents turn up. Yesterday, for example, three ministers have been arrested in Hungary.
I would like to welcome all the efforts by our monitoring bodies, especially the Venice Commission in this regard. And I would like to welcome that the Venice Commission is now determined to investigate this legislation.
Courage will really make the Council of Europe much more relevant than it is now. And I look forward, dear colleagues, to our January debate on a report on this very subject. And I would like to be grateful to Mr Knut ABRAHAM for his work and hope that in January we will be able to discuss and also vote on these matters what we are discussing.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you very much, Mr Zsolt NÉMETH.
I now call Mr Iulian BULAI, speaker for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party.
Madam President,
Dear Ambassadors,
Secretary General,
Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly,
Dear rapporteur, Mr Knut ABRAHAM,
Europe is living through a time of profound changes and threats. War has returned to our continent. Democratic institutions are under pressure. Disinformation spreads faster than truth and technology is changing our societies faster than our laws. In such times we need to look for new answers. But these answers must be rooted in solid ground, the values on which this organisation was founded: human rights, democracy and rule of law.
When the founders drafted the statute of the Council of Europe, they made a far-sighted choice. They created not one organ, but two: the Committee of Ministers representing governments and the Assembly representing the people of Europe. The Assembly is a statutory body, part of the very architecture of this House. That is what makes the Council of Europe unique. Here members of 46 national parliaments sit together, ruling parties and opposition side by side, reflecting the full diversity of our societies. Our role is concrete and we are the source of democratic legitimacy. We are the bridge between Strasbourg and our citizens. But we also are the driving force of this organisation. And I'm fully aware that Mr Secretary General is aware of that.
When the Council of Europe took the decision to expel Russia in 2022, it acted on unanimous voice of this Assembly. It is this Assembly who, immediately after the start of the war, demanded that there should be a system of accountability and a tribunal to judge the crime of aggression. We address the challenges, we bring the innovation and we, the Assembly, also ring the alert.
Colleagues,
The Secretary General has announced his plans to reform this organisation. We too believe that our unique organisation must have renewed relevance in a changing world. We too think that relevance is also about bringing the highest level of politicians, both in the Committee of Ministers and also in the Assembly, to work together on the challenges ahead.
Mister Secretary General, the message on behalf of the Liberals is that we fully support you to invest your energy outwards of this House, outside the Council of Europe. We fully support you to ask every day the release of Ms Elene KHOSHTARIA, mother of four in Georgia, still in prison. And by the way, they are about to ban all the opposition parties. We fully support you to ask for the release of Mr Anar MAMADLI in Azerbaijan, in prison for many years, to ask for the release of Mr Osman KAVALA, and also doing so publicly, that is very important for us to have a bigger voice than we are in terms of demands that are very relevant to this House. And we also support you to do reforms in order to give us more power, in order to do better together. And we wish you good luck in this process.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr Iulian BULAI.
And now I call Mr George LOUCAIDES, speaking on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.
Cyprus, UEL, Spokesperson for the group
10:31:04
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear colleagues, in 2019, our Assembly reaffirmed its role as the political engine of the Council of Europe. Already in 2017, it had called for a new summit to reaffirm European unity around our common values.
Our sustained efforts contributed to the Reykjavík Summit in May 2023. Many of the priorities advanced by this Assembly were reflected in its declaration, which gave our organisation a political roadmap for strengthening human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Three years later, reform must be judged by how effectively it advances these commitments. Our Assembly must participate fully in assessing their implementation and shaping the organisation's future. As one of the two statutory organs, our role cannot be confined to commenting on choices already made.
Reform cannot be reduced to a managerial exercise. Efficiency must not become a justification for weakening programmes, reducing democratic scrutiny or asking the organisation to do more with fewer resources.
At the same time, any external advice informing this process must be open to scrutiny. We need full information about its mandate, methodology, cost and relationship to the Reykjavík commitments.
External expertise cannot replace the political responsibility of the Committee of Ministers, the Secretary General and this Assembly, of course.
For the Unified European Left, reform must strengthen our capacity to uphold rights consistently, without double standards or concessions to powerful governments. Our contribution to peace rests on this mission. A shift towards geopolitical competition or a new mediation role risks diverting attention and resources from the protection people need.
Social rights, at the same time, must also receive greater weight. Insecurity, inequality and exclusion undermine both human dignity and confidence in democracy. Protecting housing, healthcare and decent work must be integral to our priorities.
We therefore seek a reform that strengthens parliamentary scrutiny, protects institutional independence and provides the resources required to fulfil our mandates.
The Reykjavík commitments remain our starting point. We should assess what has been achieved, identify what remains undone and agree how to deliver it. This Assembly must help shape those decisions, together with the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General, with the protection of people's rights as our common purpose.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr George LOUCAIDES.
The speaking time now is limited to 2 minutes for the Committee's chairpersons.
And we will start with Ms Elisabetta GARDINI speaking on behalf of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy.
Elisabetta.
Italy, ECPA, Chairperson of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
10:34:25
Thank you, President.
Dear colleagues, we are facing major political challenges. War in Europe, hybrid attacks, new technologies transforming our societies and democracies.
We are also witnessing a broader challenge. Multilateralism itself is under pressure. The rules-based international order is increasingly contested. Power politics and confrontation are gaining ground. Yet the challenges we face cross borders. This is not the time for less multilateralism, it is the time to make multilateralism work better.
For more than 75 years, our organisation has brought European nations together around our core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. We should build on this experience by making our action more effective, more concrete and more capable of responding to the challenges our citizens face.
We need a Council of Europe that is agile and outward-looking, firmly anchored in human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and able to use its standards and expertise to contribute to international responses to emerging challenges. A Council of Europe that strengthens co-operation with other regional and international organisations and promotes joint initiatives where it can bring real added value.
We have shown that we can do this. Our open instruments, such as the Convention on Cybercrime, developed with partners from across the world, are powerful examples of our outreach and the promotion of our values. At a time when multilateralism is being challenged, the Council of Europe must show that co-operation between nations can deliver concrete results. Our strength lies in bringing our member states together around the values we share, while respecting their democratic responsibilities. Our ambition should not be to do more for the sake of doing more, but to make the Council of Europe more effective where it can make a real difference. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms Elisabetta GARDINI.
I now call Mr Daniel MILEWSKI, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Poland, ECPA, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
10:37:06
I was in my mid-twenties when I took my first steps in this Assembly 11 years ago. So for a few months, I've been here longer here than I have been married. However, in both, long enough to know that crises and difficulties are a part of life. It is up to us how we solve them.
When Mr Winston CHURCHILL called for the creation of the Council of Europe, he called us a family. Are we today here, a family in crisis? We must look in the mirror, not fear the truth, and be able to admit our mistakes.
What needs reform? Yes, we wish to consider this Chamber as a temple of values. But at the same time, over the years I have spent in this Chamber, I have seen a corrupt President of this Assembly; I have seen tolerance toward Russia, just to balance the budget; I have seen a Secretary General whose name is linked to one of the world's biggest sexual and corruption scandals.
In every family, we know that actions speak louder than words. And yes, it is about the rule of law and human rights. Indeed. But first of all, this is about trust. If the Council of Europe is to have a future, it must be founded on the rebuilding of that trust. We must be reliable.
Thanks to the work of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the death penalty is no longer carried out in Europe. It was this Committee that initiated the creation of the Special Tribunal for Crimes against Ukraine, and it plays a crucial role in AI-related issues. This is our legacy. This is the legacy of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
The people of Europe will appreciate us focusing on real challenges that matter in their lives, not just our imaginations. Our political grandfathers – Mr Robert SCHUMAN, Mr Winston CHURCHILL, Mr Alcide DE GASPERI, Mr Konrad ADENAUER – the founding fathers of this organisation, would surely feel proud of you then – proud of us – exactly the same way as our grandchildren.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Daniel MILEWSKI.
I now call Ms Saskia KLUIT speaking for the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.
Netherlands, SOC, Chairperson of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development
10:39:45
Thank you very much, Chair.
2026 has been marked by two political declarations adopted in Chișinău. One was on migration and human rights, and the other one was on the European Social Charter. And the latter deserves our attention, because social rights, including the rights to housing and health, are not necessary or secondary rights, but they are the cornerstone of social justice. And social justice is the foundation under a strong democracy. They are, and should remain, at the heart of our response to the major challenges that face our societies, such as democratic backsliding and the triple environmental crisis.
Because one of the lessons we learned from the Second World War is that democracy cannot be strong without social justice. We need strong and a confident middle class, and we need societies in which people feel secure and free to speak their mind and to feel empowered to defend and build democracy. Social and environmental rights are essential for reaching this goal.
If we want to remain relevant in this changing world, we also must find courage to find modern answers to modern problems. Our organisation must, more than now, put purpose before procedures. We should also ask ourselves what democracy means within our own organisation. A modern Council of Europe should be less hierarchical and more participatory. We should put our money where our head and heart are, which is democratic participation of all employees, because our credibility ultimately depends on how much impact we are making in the lives of our citizens in our 46 countries and the social rights they deliver every day on the well-being of our citizens.
Thank you.
Thanks a lot, Ms Saskia KLUIT. And I now call Ms Sandra ZAMPA, speaking for the Committee on Migration, International Protection and Economic Co-operation.
Italy, SOC, Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, International Protection and Economic Co-operation.
10:41:48
Thank you. Thank you, President.
As the Chairperson of the Committee on Migration, International Protection and Economic Co-operation, I would like to recall the importance of the Council of Europe's achievements when it comes to protecting migrants and refugees, in particular through the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Indeed, the rights guaranteed in the ECHR belong to all of us. And weakening them for one group weakens them for everyone.
Any proposals to adapt our organisation to current challenges must rest on a simple truth: a democracy is only as secure as the way it treats those who are most vulnerable. When migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are protected by law, our society becomes more cohesive, more resilient to fear and disinformation, and therefore more secure.
I would like to call for courage. The courage to keep the promise of the Convention. The courage to guarantee a dignified life to every person. And the courage to stand firm when some voices would close Europe's doors. We must continue to defend the key values on which Europe was built and which the Council of Europe was created to uphold: democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms Sandra ZAMPA.
I now call Mr Mogens JENSEN, speaking for the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.
Denmark, SOC, Chairperson of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media.
10:43:49
Madam President,
Secretary General,
Dear colleagues,
I would like to share four points with you.
First, we must have the courage to change at a time when the world is changing at a pace that is difficult to follow, let alone anticipate. Europe’s oldest regional organisation, that's what we are and we should have an even greater duty to change to ensure that our core values, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, continue to be protected and defended throughout the continent. We owe this transformation to the people in Europe that we represent.
Secondly, culture and education are the intellectual infrastructure of our societies. We see that also now when we are witnessing repeated attempts to destroy them. Russia’s destruction of books, schools and theatres in Ukraine is a stark example. Culture, arts, education, sport, freedom of expression are the lungs of democracy. They have the power to transform lives and create the conditions for living together.
When culture is dismissed, when academic freedom is threatened, when freedom of expression is questioned and when sport is misused for financial or political power, public trust in institutions is weakened, and democracy itself is put at risk.
That's why we work and should also work hard on this in the future.
Thirdly, the Assembly and its parliamentarians are the direct link to the people that we represent. The parliamentary dimension must be strengthened in any transformation of our organisation. We need a Council of Europe that is even more relevant to people’s lives, and we must build it for and with young people.
And at last, let me end with the basics: the Council of Europe is a value-based organisation. It is not an organisation for countries that do not respect democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We have red lines, and they must be respected by every member state of our European family.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Mogens JENSEN. I now call Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO to speak on behalf of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.
Monaco, ALDE, Chairperson of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination
10:46:19
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Honourable members,
When the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted, Europe had not yet fully recognised equality for all as a right. Many people were still subject to discrimination on the grounds of their identity, origin, beliefs, sexual orientation or because they lived with a disability.
Throughout its 75-year history, the Council of Europe has evolved alongside our societies, whilst keeping the Convention as its cornerstone. As a living instrument, the Convention has enabled the Council of Europe’s institutions to develop standards and carry out work that would have been unimaginable at the time of its adoption.
The Court, our Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and bodies such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) have all contributed to strengthening protection against discrimination. The Istanbul Convention and the work of the Group of Experts on Action against Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (GREVIO) have advanced protection against violence against women, whilst the recent adoption of the Council of Europe’s strategy on equal rights for LGBTI people is a further example of this development.
We can be particularly proud that the Committee of Ministers’ recent recommendation on equal rights for intersex people also demonstrates how the Assembly’s work on sometimes controversial issues can play a leading role in advancing the organisation’s position. Unfortunately, we are now seeing that this progress cannot be taken for granted. Hate speech and exclusionary rhetoric are on the rise on social media, on our streets, and are sometimes even voiced by state actors themselves.
As we reflect on the future and on possible reforms to our organisation, let us remember the importance of the legacy left to us by the elected representatives who came before us, thanks to their commitment and vision. Any proposal for change must respect and preserve these essential achievements, whilst maintaining the ability of the organisation and its various institutions to evolve together and in synergy.
Let me remind you that equality is a cornerstone of human rights. Together, let us continue to uphold the principles upon which the Council of Europe was founded: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Thank you.
"Thank you, dear Béatrice" [spoken in French].
I now call Sir Christopher CHOPE, speaking for the Special Committee on the New Democratic Pact.
United Kingdom, ECPA, Chairperson of the Special Committee on the New Democratic Pact
10:48:48
Madam Chair,
The Special Committee on the New Democratic Pact is busy preparing its input to the Secretary General's consultation. But the Secretary General has not yet explained clearly how his latest reform proposal interacts with his New Democratic Pact for Europe. And I'd be grateful if he would be able to explain with more clarity what that interaction is.
The core values of the Council of Europe are not in dispute. What is in dispute is how to enforce those core values. Enforcement should be the primary focus for any reform of the Council of Europe. I give two specific current examples of where effective enforcement is paramount. What is to be done about Türkiye's continuing defiance of the European Court of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in the case of Mr Osman KAVALA? The Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers have shown themselves to be impotent. What is to be done about the dismantling and destruction of the rule of law in Georgia? These current examples of challenges to democratic security need to be addressed now.
But the Secretary General describes democratic security as a strategic asset. He's correct in that. But why then does he not use his reform paper to set out how to enforce those core values. His paper calls for a democratic security anticipation and early warning mechanism. We don't need that. That is a dangerous distraction. The threats to our core values and democratic security are current and obvious. What we need is enforcement and implementation of sanctions.
Impunity emboldens rogues. Appeasement results in conflict. I still believe that our appeasement of Russia following the 2014 invasion of Crimea emboldened them to attack Ukraine. The great jurisprudence expert Mr Albert VENN DICEY said that there's no point in having a command in law unless you have a sanction. Let's have some sanctions and effective ones.
Thank you, Sir Christopher CHOPE.
I now call Ms Elvira KOVÁCS, speaking for the Monitoring Committee. Elvira.
Serbia, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)
10:51:36
Fine? Yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
Dear Colleagues,
In the context of the current developments, this debate is both timely and necessary.
I will focus on the important and positive contribution made to the role and achievements of the Council of Europe by the Assembly's monitoring and election observation process.
When we talk about a strengthened Council of Europe that is ready to meet the challenges ahead and is firmly based on our core values, we should emphasise two important principles on which this organisation is founded.
Firstly, the Council of Europe is a values-based organisation, where its members have formally committed themselves, as our statutes say, to safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles on which this organisation is based.
Secondly, this commitment is not merely declaratory. The Council of Europe also monitors and assists our member states in honouring their obligations. The Assembly's monitoring procedure plays an important and unique role in this respect. It provides a holistic, values-based procedure for all member states, grounded in the principle of dialogue and partnership with stakeholders and political forces in the countries it monitors. Rather than lecturing, it assists and encourages member states to address common standards and principles.
Since the Council of Europe's enlargement, the Assembly has done so for each new member state, and since 2015, also for those that joined before the fall of the Berlin Wall. This has had a very positive impact on consolidating democratic and rule of law principles in the countries concerned. This was recently emphasised by the Moldovan Foreign Minister, who explicitly underscored that Moldova's successful EU membership trajectory was based on the hard work and dialogue that took place in the context of our monitoring procedure.
Due to its experience and holistic approach, our monitoring procedure has also served as an important early-warning mechanism when democratic institutions malfunction, mediating and finding solutions in cases where this has led to tensions or political chaos.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms Elvira KOVÁCS.
And then I'll call Mr Christophe BRICO, speaking for the Committee on Rules, Ethics and Immunities.
Monaco, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, Ethics and Immunities
10:53:59
Madam President,
Madam Secretary General,
Mr Secretary General,
Your Excellencies,
Dear colleagues,
One of the key functions of the Committee on Rules, Ethics and Immunities is to continually reform this House and its operating rules.
This is what we do all the time. Consequently, this already demonstrates that reform – internal reform – is an integral part of this Assembly’s work. These reforms – and this is very important – are undertaken in particular to ensure that we, as political leaders, act in an ethical and professional manner. This is something that is truly close to our hearts and which drives our debates.
But I would also like to point out that it is through this committee that we appoint the person who, from amongst us, will conduct the budgetary dialogue with the Committee of Ministers. And in this regard, let me remind you of a few figures. A few simple figures. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe comprises 612 members, to which must be added 30 observers and 30 democracy partners – so nearly 700 people who devote their time, energy and expertise to ensuring this institution runs smoothly.
It also accounts for a relatively small proportion of the organisation’s overall budget, since the Assembly represents 5.6% of the operating budget. And in this regard, I would like to point out that 15 years ago, the Assembly’s share of the overall budget stood at 7.6%. This Assembly has already made a 2% reduction over the past 15 years.
And finally – and I shall conclude on this point – I spoke of ethics. The last figure I shall mention is three. The three pillars, of course: democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental rights and freedoms. But also the three statutory bodies: the Committee of Ministers, the European Court and the Parliamentary Assembly. Any reform must be carried out with these three statutory bodies at its heart.
Thank you.
Thank you for this interesting calculation, Mr Christophe BRICO.
And then I'll call Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, speaking for the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights.
Ukraine, EPP/CD, Chairperson of the Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights
10:56:29
Thank you, Madam President.
Should we discuss the possible reform of our organisation? For sure, yes, who doubts? Should we look for the added value for our organisation? For sure, yes, who doubts?
But I also think that we should look in a little bit different angle also. I came here just from the joint meeting of our Committee with the Bureau of the Court and we discussed a lot of challenges the Court is facing right now, at that moment: length of the procedure, national selection procedure, post-mandate recognition of the judges and the implementation of the Court's decision.
So I think that talking about the reforms, about the possible reforms, we shouldn't forget to improve the existing instruments, the existing instruments of this organisation and, first of all, the European Court of Human Rights, which is the jewel in the crown of the whole Council of Europe. So I think that we shouldn't defocus ourselves. We have a lot of jobs to do with the existing instruments, to improve them and to make it better and better and better.
We start developing the Register of Damage for Ukraine, we start talking about the establishing of the Claims Commission, we are dealing with the Tribunal. So we, I mean all constitutional bodies of this organisation, have a lot to do in this direction. But yes, at the same way, at the same time, we should look on additional value, we should look on some reforms and so on. But please improve the existing instruments.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO.
And Mr Knut ABRAHAM, you now have 4 minutes to reply if you want.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Dear colleagues,
Let me draw together aspects that I've heard in this debate. First, and again, this Assembly matters. It's where governments are held to account in public, where we name violations and where we honour those who defend our values at great risk. Secondly, we do not lack instruments. We have the Convention, the court monitoring and the Statute. What we too often lack is the will to implement them. A judgment that is not implemented is a suggestion, not a judgment.
It is legitimate to discuss reform. It is legitimate to ask whether we are efficient and whether we spend our money well. Those questions deserve honest answers. Reform must make us stronger. Efficiency serves the mission, it must never replace it. And let us remember, in May 1990, Mr Václav HAVEL stood in this hall. He spoke of the dream of a European policy based on respect for man and human rights. That dream was not a gift. It was won by people who refused to give up. And it can be lost by those who grow tired of defending it. So let us be worthy of it. Let us defend it here with our words and beyond this hall with our actions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for this very rich debate on how the Council of Europe can really be fit for purpose, be grounded in our values and meet the challenges of the time ahead.
I had many, many arguments. Thank you for that. And I would like to single out four where I think we really have a broad agreement:
First, to focus: indeed, we must do fewer things and do them with more impact.
Second, speed: when democracy is under attack, our answer cannot arrive years later. We must react faster, and we must speak with one voice.
Third, commitment: a strong Council of Europe needs member states that fund it, respect it and implement the judgements of our courts. Standards on paper protect no one. Standards in practice protect millions.
Fourth, the role of our Assembly: we are one of the two statutory organs. The democratic heart, the beating heart, they always call it, of the Council of Europe. We elect the judges for the European Court of Human Rights. We elect the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General, the Commissioner for Human Rights. We bring the voices of our citizens into this House. And we carry the standards of this House back into our national parliaments.
Governments negotiate, parliaments legitimise. A Council of Europe fit for the future needs a strong Assembly, not a weaker one. Our strength has never been size or money. Our strength is our values, our Convention and our Court that makes it very much unique. And that is, of course, also what we have to defend.
Dear colleagues, this debate will not end today, as you have heard. It will serve as food for thought for a report that the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy should prepare swiftly, with a view to a fully-fledged debate in January 2027. This will allow the Committee to appoint a rapporteur this week, subject to a formal decision by the Bureau on Friday this week, following this debate.
So this is not the end of a discussion; it is the beginning of work. Because the Council of Europe, grounded in our values, to meet the challenges ahead, really counts. And it not only counts for the people living on our continent, but it also counts for many more.
And I'm very much looking forward to our common work, hand in hand with the Committee of Ministers and with the Secretary General. So, thank you very much.
That concludes this debate.
And I must remind you that the vote is in progress on the election of the judge for the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will be closed at 1 p.m., so please do not forget to cast your vote. Those who have not yet voted, please do so just right behind me.
The next item of business this morning is a current affairs debate on Solidarity with Ceuta: a test case for Europe.
As I announced at the end of yesterday’s sitting, the speaking time is limited to 3 minutes, except the first speaker, chosen by the Bureau, who is allowed 7 minutes.
The debate will end at 12:10 p.m.
In the debate I call first Lord Michael GERMAN who has been appointed by the Bureau to introduce the debate. You have 7 minutes and 3 minutes at the end of the debate, to reply.
I hope you are on your way.
Madam President, the Table Office told me to stay here.
Thank you very much.
I hear it's a mistake. Sorry for that.
So please take another minute and come to the front where we usually introduce and start a debate.
So, sorry for that misunderstanding.
Thank you for your patience, Madam President.
And I apologise for the wrong information that sent me to my original seat. This is a very important debate and one, of course, which will concern so many people. But as the title of the debate says, it's also about the future for Europe and the future about these issues. So, it's not just about solidarity for Ceuta, it's also about the test for Europe as a whole.
Colleagues, between 30 and 31 July 2026, the Spanish city of Ceuta experienced an unprecedented surge in irregular arrivals, with more than 72 000 people crossing by land and sea into a city of 83 500 inhabitants. It overwhelmed the city and its services in the space of just a few days. This situation was intolerable for all, both for the people of Ceuta and for those attempting to enter. Tragically, more than 141 people reportedly lost their lives during the perilous journeys, including many minors. So let me start by expressing sorrow to the victims and solidarity with their families, whose suffering cannot be ignored.
But how could this happen? Such a sudden and large movement of people was clearly not spontaneous. There are some indications that it could have been orchestrated. One Spanish police report has documented Moroccan law enforcement officers who appeared to direct or co-ordinate the crowd on the days of the crossings. But significantly, the same report also indicates that social media played a crucial role in encouraging and co-ordinating the crossings.
But colleagues, I invite all of us not to jump to conclusions. Firstly, we need to listen to all the parties to fully understand what happened. I will be conducting a fact-finding mission to take evidence from Spanish and Moroccan national and local authorities, including in Ceuta and nearby, to talk to citizens and migrants themselves, to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and to anyone with relevant information on this matter. And I will use part of my journey to speak with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in Warsaw to understand the history and also to understand previous events which may have a comparison. I commit to get back to you in January to share with you my findings so that we can have an informed debate based on evidence, not on partial information and speculation.
Colleagues, seeking accountability and answers should not distract us, however, from the humanitarian crisis that resulted from this event. Even if eventually I find that this movement of people across the border was orchestrated, I remind everyone that desperate, unarmed migrants are not bargaining chips or weapons, they are human beings, men, women and children. They may have been manipulated, but they still have full human rights under our European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Rights are for all, both for the citizens of Ceuta and those who may have been influenced to travel.
Most of those who crossed in late July returned to Morocco in the following days. But the scale and speed of the arrivals has placed exceptional pressure on local reception capacity in Ceuta. Many migrants, including children and other vulnerable persons, have been living in precarious conditions, with limited access to shelter, sanitation, healthcare and food. Access to screening and asylum procedures has also been challenging. As of 18 September, an estimated 10 000 people remained in Ceuta, of whom 3 000 are still living on the streets.
This protracted situation has led to an increase in social tension. Incidents of violence have been reported, including excessive use of force, and also allegations of all sorts between immigrants, local people, and immigrants themselves. But colleagues, whatever our position is on migration, acts of violence can never be condoned. And before you take the floor in this debate, I invite you to think twice about the consequences of your words and make sure they don't add more fuel to the fire already symbolically burning in Ceuta.
So what answer can we then give to this and other situations of its type? This situation is untenable for both migrants and for the people of Ceuta. In such a tense and critical moment, our collective response must be based on solidarity, human rights and the rule of law. As we have a clear legal base for dealing with migration issues, we must also respect within them the human rights and the rule of law. The law provides a robust, firm and fair legal architecture to deal precisely with situations like this: quick screening of vulnerabilities, humane reception conditions, access to asylum border procedures and more flexibility in cases of instrumentalised migration.
The ECHR prohibits collective expulsions and returning people to places where they may be ill-treated. Colleagues, let there be no misunderstanding, following the law does not mean borders are open. Giving people the chance to make their case does not reward irregular entry. It does not mean that they can all stay within our countries, with or without resident purpose. Those found not in need of international protection must be returned in line with the principle of non-refoulement.
But pursuing expulsions outside the legal framework, which has been agreed upon by all our member states, is not only a breach of our obligations, it runs a real risk of leading to inhumane treatment of individuals and will weaken Europe's reputation and the whole ECHR system, of which we are so rightly proud.
Colleagues, laws will only work if its strict application at the border is followed by solidarity among member states. This is a test case for our whole continent. Ceuta needs our solidarity and practical support. And Europe as a whole is seeking answers on how best to deal with migration, including mass movements of this kind. And at such a critical juncture, we should neither panic nor instrumentalise the situation for political gains. This is the moment to rise up to this challenge.
Colleagues, we do this together. We do this with the best tools that we have, and we do it with human rights and the rule of law.
Thank you.
Thank you, Lord Michael GERMAN. And greetings to you all, from the Chair and from me.
And I continue with the speakers on behalf of political groups. And I first call, on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party, Ms Dora BAKOYANNIS please. You have 3 minutes.
Microphone.
Please put your badge in there.
Greece, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group
11:13:27
Dear colleagues,
A government may choose its migration policy. But it cannot choose to make the rest of Europe pay for its mistakes. That is what is at stake in Ceuta, a city which was Spanish long before the United States were either "united" or "states".
Its citizens have every right to expect their border to be defended. Geography does not make them second-class Europeans. And no country guarding a European border should stand alone. We Greeks know what that means. At Evros in 2020, we experienced Türkiye’s use of migration as a weapon of political pressure. Poland, Lithuania and Latvia faced similar pressure from Belarus, with Russian complicity. Different borders, the same method: exploit human desperation to test European resolve.
We should have learned by now. Yet Prime Minister Pedro SÁNCHEZ's government still proclaims the generosity of its approach while leaving others to bear the consequences. Twenty-two European leaders have raised the alarm. How many warnings does Madrid need? A court ruling is no excuse for political paralysis. Respecting a judgement does not strip a government of its duty to govern. Mass regularisations send a message far beyond Spain: get in, wait it out, and you may get to stay. Madrid may say that this is not its intention. But migration responds to expectations, not intentions.
You cannot share a European border and pretend that your decisions have only local consequences. The price is paid by overwhelmed communities. By overstretched police officers. By migrants who risk their lives on fake promises. There is nothing compassionate about encouraging a dangerous illusion. Compassion requires responsibility. Responsibility requires control.
Dear colleagues,
Every time a government dismisses legitimate concerns, it hands the extreme right another argument. Every time it promises control and delivers disorder, it hands the extreme right another opportunity. We cannot keep expressing alarm at the rise of extremism while refusing to confront the failures that feed it.
Democratic government must deliver. Deliver security. Deliver fairness. Deliver order. Solidarity with Spain must go hand in hand with accountability in Madrid. The people of Ceuta deserve protection. The people of Europe deserve responsible government. And those who seek to exploit our borders must encounter a Europe whose resolve is stronger than their pressure. Defend the border. Protect human life. Restore public trust.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And on behalf of European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates (ECPA), my next speaker, Ms Cristina Gabriella DUMITRESCU, please have the floor.
Romania, ECPA, Spokesperson for the group
11:17:03
Thank you.
Dear colleagues,
Ceuta must be considered a T0 moment. And if we all fail to do so, then we have a huge problem.
This is not about Ceuta, Spain or Morocco. The Spanish citizens would like the immediate return of migrants who remain in Ceuta to Morocco, military support along the Ceuta–Morocco border and infrastructure improvement.
But the implications are greater and more dramatic. Showing solidarity with Ceuta simply means that European Union governments must take the most dramatic measures when it comes to illegal migration. They need to recognise the danger to which the continent is exposed.
Look at the example of Poland. They did it. The goal of every government must be to envision a long-term future as a European nation. Petty, cynical interests must not take precedence. Governments should not look merely two metres ahead, content simply with having secured votes and winning elections thanks to them. Look at the example of Sweden at the next election.
We have become a laughing stock for the Americans. They are warning about the danger of this wave, saying, "Do something now; don't become like Europe".
So you can say what you want, but they aren't coming here to integrate. Instead, they have a four-step plan: migration, population, agitation and domination.
And now, just think about it. At which stage is your country? Europe cannot accept large-scale illegal migration without the capacity to ensure effective integration and respect for our laws and values. This is happening thanks to – or because of – our laws and a tolerance that is perceived as weakness.
We must decide now for the future of our next generation and for their safety.
Thank you.
Thank you. And the next speaker, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Szymon HOŁOWNIA. Please.
Poland, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group
11:20:06
Madam Speaker,
Dear colleagues,
What we need the most, after these heartbreaking events in Ceuta, are facts. Not political narratives. Not slogans and stories designed to stir up our voters about how we are defending our civilisation or humanity.
In Ceuta, just as it was recently on the Polish-Belarusian border, it is not a clash between good and evil. On both sides, there are people who simply want a good life for themselves and their loved ones. So it’s a conflict between two forms of good. On the one hand, the right to a safe, peaceful life for the residents of Ceuta, or the towns of eastern Poland. On the other, the desire for a better life of people whose children do not have a fraction of the opportunities that our children enjoy.
On both sides, there are people. People. Not electorates, not "waves of refugees", people.
It’s simple, really. Residents of Ceuta wants peace for their children. Migrants from Gambia wants peace for their own. Migrants cannot expect us to tear our societies apart for the sake of their rights. We cannot expect them to give up their humanity for the sake of our rights.
So, if not a people are the problem here, who is? People-smugglers and their political sponsors. President Alexander LUKASHENKO lied, lured, and then pushed thousands of innocent people towards our Lithuanian, Latvian border, brutally preventing them from returning home. We can only speculate today who sought to exploit people’s good intentions in Ceuta, but we want to find out. And we hope that Lord Michael GERMAN's report will help us in this regard.
In response to the situation at the border, Poland had to implement radical measures to protect it. Attempts to cross the border illegally have fallen to almost zero. In my country, I have taken part in thousands of debates on this issue. One thing I know for certain: security does not preclude humanity. If we lose our security, we are finished. If we lose our humanity, we are finished in a far deeper sense.
Let us find out what happened in Ceuta, and let us, using political tools, put a stop to those who do not hesitate to use a defenceless child as a Kalashnikov.
There should never be a place for such governments in our European family.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sir.
And the next speaker, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES. Please.
France, UEL, Spokesperson for the group
11:23:27
Thank you, Madam President.
On behalf of my group, I would first like to pay a heartfelt tribute to all those who, this summer, lost their lives off the coast of Ceuta, having died whilst trying to reach Europe.
Colleagues,
Ceuta is in Africa, not in Europe in the continental sense. This Spanish enclave in Morocco is already excluded from the Schengen Agreement on the free movement of people. Ceuta is a territory that shares one of Europe’s only land borders with Africa. And this border is an area that is already heavily militarised. The entire border is lined with walls and barbed wire. The Guardia Civil and police forces patrol the area 24 hours a day. The coastguard constantly monitors the sea. The territory has a massive detention centre. And Ceuta itself is a garrison town, where several thousand Spanish military personnel are stationed.
The army, the Guardia Civil, the police, the coastguard… Thousands of security personnel guard this territory, which covers just a few dozen square kilometres. And yet, this summer, tens of thousands of people – more than 70 000 – risked their lives by crossing this border, most of them by throwing themselves into the sea, in an attempt to reach a territory where they could hope for a better life.
A widespread rumour – the cause of which no one can today definitively identify, and which warrants investigation – led them to believe that there was a chance for them to realise this dream.
This humanitarian disaster was quickly exploited by the entire European far right. The images from Ceuta were used to fuel alarmist rhetoric on immigration, with some politicians going so far as to speak of an ‘invasion’, the ‘great replacement’ or ‘overwhelming’ numbers. Instead of responding to a tragic humanitarian situation, this rhetoric has helped to portray migrants as a threat and to divide us, rather than uniting us in solidarity.
The gravity of this situation compels us to act, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Lord Michael GERMAN for his initiative in drafting a report on this humanitarian crisis, which we shall examine together here during a forthcoming session in January. It is, indeed, imperative that we identify the exact circumstances that have led to this situation and reaffirm that solidarity and respect for human rights must prevail over hatred and dehumanisation.
So, colleagues, the only question that matters is: what should we do in the face of such situations? Should we continue to push towards a ‘Fortress Europe’, with more walls and more barbed wire, and more military personnel? Or should we engage in discussions with the Kingdom of Morocco regarding this border with Ceuta?
Respect for the fundamental values of our institution requires us to encourage solidarity with Spain, within the European Union, to ensure people’s safety, by facilitating the return of some or a controlled continuation of the journey for others.
Yes, in some respects, what has happened in Ceuta is a test for Europe. It is a test of our solidarity, of our commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is up to us, to our Assembly and to our member states, to ensure that this test is passed.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Emmanuel FERNANDES.
And last but not least, I call on behalf of the political groups Ms Sandra ZAMPA, on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, please.
Thank you, Madame President.
Dear Colleagues,
Those who cry out about an "invasion" do not want to resolve the Ceuta issue; they want Ceuta to remain a problem. Because this unresolved problem wins votes.
Colleagues,
Calling unarmed people, desperate enough to die at sea, “invaders” is deeply dehumanising. There are indications that the mass crossing to Ceuta could have been orchestrated. I will wait for Lord Michael GERMAN’s report to draw any conclusions.
But it's true and clear enough that the instrumentalisation of migration is aimed to destabilising states not because of the sheer number of arrivals but because of the political sensitivity and unjustified fears surrounding migration.
If we react to these acts calmly and with solidarity, if people arriving at a border are processed through legal and functioning procedures – and with support from fellow European states – the destabilising effect of orchestrated mass arrivals will be greatly reduced.
The events in Ceuta confirm that, all too often, the issue of migration flows is used as a tool in political battles to win domestic support. Evidence and the most basic logic are ignored. Spain has been absurdly accused of creating a pull factor with its regularisation scheme. This ignores the undeniable fact that only those migrants who arrived before 1 January 2026 were eligible, and the statistical evidence proving that previous regularisation schemes do not provoke an increase in irregular migration.
Several member states suspended Schengen freedom of movement, but Ceuta is not part of the Schengen area. There is no freedom of movement between Ceuta and mainland Spain. Such an unjustified move can only be qualified as a fear-mongering political performance.
What happened in Ceuta happened before: in Lampedusa, Lesbos, Samos and other places. And it could happen again in other countries. Are we to imagine that, instead of a principle of solidarity, Europe will adopt a principle of hostility in future?
I am totally against and I am convinced that you are totally against.
Thank you, Ms Sandra ZAMPA.
And I continue with the list of speakers in the debate. I call next Mr Pablo HISPÁN. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start by congratulating the first speaker, Lord Michael GERMAN, for his balanced approach and we expect a lot from your report.
The city of Ceuta has once again been subjected to an attack. An attack against Europe’s external borders, similar to those experienced by Greece in 2020 and Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, in 2021.
This was a hybrid attack with a single weapon: human beings. People were sent into the sea with one sole objective: to cause destabilisation. This is not the first time that the autonomous city of Ceuta has faced a hybrid attack from Morocco. In 2021, the Moroccan authorities also used this method, on that occasion involving 15 000 people, in an attempt to force Spain to change its position on the issue of Western Sahara. And they succeeded.
On 30 and 31 July, 100 000 people were sent towards a defenceless city with no other apparent objective than to disrupt the daily lives of its inhabitants. Such conduct is unacceptable on the part of a country that has a relationship with the Council of Europe through its status as a Partner for Democracy. Our condemnation must therefore be clear and unequivocal.
During the attack, 150 people died at sea, while around 2 000 remain in the streets of the city. The situation faced by the people of Ceuta is dramatic. The city’s security has been severely affected; there have been more than 30 reported cases of sexual assault, and the High Court of Justice has put the increase in crime in the city since August at 60%.
Although the causes remain unknown, it is nevertheless the case that these events took place after the Spanish Government launched a large-scale regularisation program, which has been applied for more than one million irregular migrants. This sent a message that, if you enter in Spain by whatever means, you will obtain legal status and be able to move freely throughout Europe. 22 prime ministers, beginning with Prime Ministers Giorgia MELONI and Mette FREDERIKSEN, expressed their criticism of the Spanish Government over this decision.
It was irresponsible, but it was not the last nor the least. After acknowledging that what had happened constituted an attack on Spain’s territorial integrity, the Spanish Prime Minister went on to spend an entire month on holiday in the Canary Islands. It would seem like a joke if the circumstances were not so incomprehensible. A tragedy turning into a farce.
Europe needs secure external borders and leaders who understand that this is one of the foremost challenges facing our societies today, and one of the most powerful drivers of populism.
Ceuta needs solidarity and legal mechanisms to accelerate the return of all irregular migrants, both minors and adults, who have entered the city unlawfully. Migration cannot be used as a weapon to destabilise our societies. And Morocco has not been alone in this. Russia has used this aggression to deepen the divisions that already affect us.
The message from this institution to Morocco must be clear and unequivocal: if it wishes to be treated as a democracy, it must conduct itself as a democracy, rather than as a competitive autocracy.
The message to the Spanish Government must also be clear: it must act responsibly and must not engage in populism on an issue as serious as migration.
And the message to Ceuta must be equally unequivocal: solidarity with a Spanish and European city that has been unjustly attacked.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
And the next speaker is Ms Agnes Sirkka PRAMMER. Please have the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What we saw in Ceuta was a test for Europe, and I am very pleased with the approach Lord Michael GERMAN intends to take in his report and that he actually wishes to investigate the root causes before drawing any conclusions.
Ceuta was a test, but not for our external borders. Ceuta was a test of our internal cohesion. And many states, foremost among them my own country, Austria, failed that test. For even before the clothes of these poor people had dried, they were pointing the finger at Spain and saying that Spanish migration policy could be the only reason for what happened in Ceuta. And it is precisely this reaction that shows how vulnerable we are and reveals where our weak point lies.
Our weak point does not lie at our external borders. Our weak point lies in our lack of imagination at home – in our failure to imagine that there are states, that there are actors, who want precisely this and exploit it precisely to destabilise us. And that is the problem. Here, people are being exploited and reduced to mere tools. Here, human lives are being gambled with in order to pit us against one another. And that is precisely the problem, but it is also precisely where the solution lies. For this test has shown us one thing. It has shown that we must work on our internal mechanisms. We must keep a cool head. We must stop reflexively seizing upon the first thing that comes along and pouncing on it, blaming one another for whatever it may be without even knowing what has happened.
And the course of action being taken here now is that this report will be produced. And once again, Lord Michael GERMAN has already outlined the steps he intends to take to get to the bottom of things. And that is necessary. It takes time. And we must take that time. Because to be strong on the outside, we must also be strong on the inside. We must stand by our convictions. We must stand by our convictions. And we must never forget that.
We need facts, not knee-jerk reactions. We need clarification, not blame. And we need solidarity, not division. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms Agnes Sirkka PRAMMER. And as the next speaker, I call Ms Mira NIEMINEN. Please.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dear colleagues,
The events in Ceuta are not merely a Spanish issue. They are a European issue.
This summer, tens of thousands of people crossed Europe’s external border in Ceuta within a short period of time. The situation once again demonstrated how quickly uncontrolled migration can develop into a serious security challenge. And although the largest waves of border crossings may now be behind us, the consequences of the crisis have not disappeared. Europe has both the right and the responsibility to protect its external borders. We must help those who genuinely need international protection, but illegal entry cannot become an alternative route into Europe.
In Finland, we are familiar with this threat on our own border. We have faced a situation in which Russia has used migration as a tool of pressure against Finland, seeking to undermine the unity of the European Union. That is why we must understand that the security of Europe’s external borders is a shared responsibility. The border of Ceuta in the south and Finland’s eastern border in the north are both external borders of the same Europe.
No European country should be left alone to face exceptional pressure on its borders. Europe must be capable of preventing illegal entry, combating human smuggling, and ensuring effective returns when a person has no legal right to remain. Above all, we must stand united. Ceuta is a test of whether Europe can demonstrate solidarity not only in words, but also when it comes to the security of our borders and the safety of our citizens. Europe’s borders are shared. The responsibility for protecting them must be shared as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam.
And the next speaker. I call Mr Petri HONKONEN. Please have the floor.
Madam Speaker,
Dear colleagues,
European democracy is built on values. We believe, in Europe, in human rights, equality, human dignity and the rule of law. These principles unite us all across Europe. But when we speak about the rule of law, we should also ask a simple question: what makes the rule of law possible in the first place?
Laws must be adopted, implemented and enforced according to our shared European standards. Yet none of this is possible without a sovereign and capable state that can uphold those standards in practice. The prerequisite for the rule of law is the existence of a state.
The Charter of the United Nations (UN) recognises the sovereignty of states and their responsibility to govern matters within their own jurisdiction. At the same time, the Council of Europe has an important role in safeguarding our shared commitments and ensuring that we live up to them.
When migration is deliberately used by one state as a tool to put pressure on another state, this cannot be regarded as something our legal order is obliged to facilitate. The rule of law cannot function if it is required to protect the abuse of rights. If we fail to recognise this, we risk creating vulnerabilities that can be exploited by those who seek to weaken our democratic institutions and our common European values. The rule of law is designed to protect rights, not the abuse of rights. This principle applies regardless of whether that abuse originates by own government or outside, by another state.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And the next speaker. I call Mr Antonio GUTIÉRREZ LIMONES, please.
Dear colleagues,
When I listened to some of the contributions here, in this institution which defends human rights and the rule of law, I was reminded of the poet, Mr Pablo NERUDA, who said he was saddened to see that the world does not change.
Because we want to bolster and uphold human rights and respect for human dignity within this institution. I'd like to first express my solidarity with Ceuta and its people. It is a Spanish and European city which has been through exceedingly difficult moments, and it needs to recover calm and normality as soon as possible.
And I also express sadness at the awful loss of life, the 147 people who died, most of them young people. All of them represent a life, a family.
And my thanks to Lord Michael GERMAN for his commitment. His commitment to go there, to talk to everyone, to discover what the reality is, the background to this. I agree that we need to act with a sense of calm and responsibility to establish exactly what happened, the facts, so that we can ensure that everything occurs within the law.
Spain has the right and obligation to defend its borders, its territorial integrity and the safety of its citizens. But Spain is a full democracy under the rule of law. It is a country dedicated to human rights. Defending our principles and protecting our borders are not incompatible. The government has strengthened its borders. It has mobilised extraordinary resources and speeded up identification.
Now, we need to complete this process. The adults who entered illegally must be returned in line with the law and with all due safeguards for them. But it is different when it comes to legal minors. The 2 383 unaccompanied minors who have arrived in Ceuta need protection and we need to have a response in line with their overriding needs.
We must pay particular attention to girls, who are particularly vulnerable due to violence and human trafficking and promote family reunification where possible.
Europe must play our own part. The European Union must look at the issue of defending its external borders and do so successfully, always in line with the law. And the Council of Europe must ensure that the rule of law is always respected. Speed and safeguards are not incompatible: they should go hand in hand. And we must bear political responsibility. It is not the time to take the suffering of Ceuta for political gain and to try and boost our electoral chances. The people there need a sense of institutional responsibility and calm. Because it is when the circumstances are difficult that these principles are put to the test.
We need law and order. We need greater humanity and co-operation. Let's defend our borders without ceasing to defend the individuals. That is Europe. Thank you.
Thank you, sir, and sorry for the earlier interruption.
And for the next speaker, I call Mr Gonzalo ROBLES. Please have the floor.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
In July of this year, 72 000 people entered illegally – basically the same figure as the population of Ceuta. And that happened in an organised fashion, because otherwise it's impossible for 72 000 people to enter that particular enclave in 24 hours. You can name this however you wish, but to not offend people, but this was organised – organised by the Moroccan authorities, which not only opened the doors at the verja – the border – but they guided these particular flows of people, if you like, into the enclave.
So, the initial intention, which was not a migration intention, it was something much, much more than that. It was something that led to a total escalation. 37 000 were immediately repatriated, and there are still thousands of people on the streets in Ceuta with tuberculosis and other diseases, using the social services, using the health services, abusing them, as well. And these are the consequences of this, if you like, of this "migration".
So, the government of Ceuta, it's a democratic government; it is sensitive, ideologically, on all fronts, politically, as well, to deal with all of these different people, of different confessions. They've had to deal with this particular situation.
Now, imagine if, in your countries, what would happen if a small enclave – a relatively small city – received this number of people. It would be as if hundreds of thousands were entering Berlin; it would be as if, into the area of Piccadilly, over 50 000 people would suddenly be forced... This is simply to put it into some sort of perspective, or if hundreds of thousands entered Lisbon or Rome. Imagine, imagine this. For example, if 20 000 people all of a sudden appeared in the historical centre of Lisbon, simply to give you an idea of what this all means.
The most important thing is that 140 people died – young men and women between 20 and 40 years of age. They were deceived; they were deceived because they were told to enter this particular enclave and that they would find something there to their desire, but they died – they drowned at sea, trying to enter.
This is all part of a hybrid attack, if you like. Where is the solidarity for human rights? You have to do as you can, not use people. These are the measures that have to be delivered; you cannot use people for this particular purpose, whatever that was. People died in the course of these terrible events.
And then, I think, in this particular form of democracy, of human rights, this is totally unacceptable. We have to condemn whatever took place there, and we have to state very, very clearly that we cannot manipulate, we cannot instrumentalise people, human beings, and put their lives at risk.
Thank you very much, Sir.
And the next speaker, I call Mr Bob De BRABANDERE.
Madam President,
Dear colleagues,
When I take the floor here in this Assembly, I do it on behalf of my people, the Flemish people. But secondly, I do it on behalf of all European citizens. So I also do it on behalf of the residents of Ceuta. Citizens whose neighbourhood, beach and streets were overrun by tens of thousands of people who forced their way across the border illegally. The people of Ceuta are the first victims. They are our mandate, not the illegal intruders.
What happened in Ceuta was not a coincidence. It was not some kind of spontaneous movement of people. It was the direct and predictable consequence of years of failing European migration policy. And, of course, also of the deliberate choice by the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro SANCHEZ to regularise no fewer than 500 000 illegal migrants. He sends a signal to the world, "Come on in, we will legalise your stay". And indeed, more than 1 million people submitted an application. What else did anyone expect?
This is a crime towards the Spanish people. But it goes further. It is also a crime against the rest of Europe, because it is, of course, an illusion to think that everybody who receives an ID card from Mr Pedro SANCHEZ will stay in Spain. The Spanish government is making a Spanish ID card cheap, but in doing so, is putting the safety of the rest of Europe at stake. They are obviously not all going to stay in Spain. In Brussels, my city, shots are fired with AK47s every week and entire neighbourhoods are being taken over by the drug mafia. Their soldiers all too often illegal migrants.
But back to Ceuta. The worst part is actually that Spanish intelligence apparently warned the government one day before the storming. Reports were there, they were ready and waiting. And a choice, a deliberate choice, was made not to act. Today, some 10 000 people are still living on the beaches and streets of that small Spanish enclave. A living indictment.
And I want to end by saying – and I want all the open border parties here to hear it – every illegal migrant who drowns on the way to Europe bears your signature. Those who encourage illegal migration, those who promise regularisations, those who criminalise pushbacks, those people are complicit in those deaths. Those who defend borders, they save lives. Those who keep those borders open, they are claiming those lives.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Bob De BRABANDERE.
And the next speaker I call Ms Luz MARTINEZ SEIJO. Please have the floor.
Thank you very much.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The situation that we saw in Ceuta requires a firm, effective and responsible response, but it also requires respect for legality, human rights and democratic values, which define our Europe and of course our Spain as well.
We can't allow for concerns, pain and social tensions to be used as tools for political confrontation. We cannot allow demagoguery and we cannot let thousands of people die at sea. Also, the necessary measures have to be adopted for these individuals to be able to return, all of those who have entered Ceuta.
The particular formula that was presented, that these people all be returned, including young people, lacks any understanding of respect for human rights and respect for international law as well. Young people are not numbers. These are young people, young girls and boys whose rights are protected by law. This requires determining age, determining their situation and an individualised approach to all of this.
Obviously, automatic return goes totally contrary to respect for human rights and for human life as well. Also, we cannot lie. We have to manage situations that are difficult, according to law. And we cannot go against the fundamental principles of rule of law and protection of human lives and respect for human rights.
Also measures that cannot be executed, and which can simply lead to further conflict, that is not the way that we have to go. We have to understand that this would simply perpetuate the problem, not resolve the problem. We need resources, we need co-ordination at the institutional level and we need a bit of humanity as well.
Respect those particular rules that we all support. In other words, we cannot annul democracy and we have to, once again, respect human rights. We cannot ignore the necessity to protect young people and individuals that are particularly vulnerable. In the face of this dehumanisation, we want dignity, we want responsibility to uphold fundamental human rights with clarity, because this in a democracy is absolutely key and these are inseparable as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And the next speaker, I call Mr Pedro Miguel HACES BARBA, please.
Sir, would you put your badge in there?
We don't hear you, unfortunately. Can we get some technical help?
Distinguished parliamentarians,
Yes, good afternoon.
I'd like to set out, with the greatest respect and fraternity and solidarity for the people of Ceuta, a city that represents the port to Europe from Africa. Ceuta has its own identity and culture, but it's a community, above all, of men and women who have always lived with dignity and in calm. We know that the migratory situation that this city has faced poses an extraordinary challenge. A challenge that tests the capacity of its institutions to respond to the strength of society and of all of Spain. So I'd like to say that Ceuta should not be left on its own. It deserves all of our support.
Immigration is one of the immediate challenges of our time. And behind each individual there is a story, a family, hopes and often a background of violence and poverty.
But also we need to acknowledge that recipient communities have their own needs and legitimate rights. The citizens of Ceuta need security. Their institutions must be respected, and peaceful co-existence must be guaranteed, so today, when we urge a responsible, co-ordinated, and profoundly humane response, we must think about the human rights of the migrants but also guarantee the order, that is, law and order, and security of Ceuta.
We must help the Spanish authorities, and we need international co-operation and all sides to bear their respective responsibilities because no border community alone can bear the consequences of a phenomenon which has global dimensions.
We must remember that in its history the city has managed to overcome obstacles. It is a city that has established peaceful co-existence between different communities.
Now, from Mexico, a country that knows profoundly the migratory pressures, we would like to express our support and respect for all citizens of Ceuta, and for all migrants. We know the value of solidarity, but we also know that major challenges require international responses and lasting solutions. Nobody should muddle humanity with the need for control.
So let me finish by expressing our respect for all its workers, the forces of law and order, and all those individuals who, in difficult circumstances, continue to work for the well-being of that country and, in the same way, express our solidarity to all those who reached Ceuta. Ceuta deserves respect; it deserves calm, and it deserves prosperity.
Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you.
And the next speaker, I call Ms Carmen LEYTE, please have the floor.
Thank you, President.
Dear colleagues,
First of all, I would like to congratulate Lord Michael GERMAN for this wonderful report. I am sure that it will be very key in determining the policies that we adopt.
Now I would like to tell you what happened in Ceuta. It is a Spanish city. Between 30 July and 31 July, in an extraordinarily short period of time, 100 000 people entered from Morocco, without any measures taken by Morocco. And although the Spanish government knew what was going to happen, as we suspected, nothing was done on the Spanish side either.
140 people lost their lives in the course of these crossings. 140 lives were lost. In a matter of hours, Ceuta went from a state of normalcy to a humanitarian and social emergency. Two months later, citizens of Ceuta are experiencing a real nightmare. Parents have changed their routines out of fear for their children. Businesses are suffering enormous financial losses. There have been assaults, fights and robberies. So we have a number of fundamental questions that we have to ask.
First of all, the security and rule of law issue. No state can accept massive breaches of its borders. Migration must be managed through effective legal procedures that respect international law. Human trafficking networks must be prosecuted and those who do not have the right to remain on European territory must be returned according to the law.
The second issue: the responsibility of our partners. Co-operation with Morocco ought to be based on reciprocity, and the fulfilment of commitments. The exploitation and instrumentalisation of migration flows as a means of exerting pressure on the European Union is incompatible with any relations that ought to exist between good neighbours.
Third, we need police co-operation, we need to work with border authorities and we need to protect minors and vulnerable individuals.
So, from this Assembly, we must uphold one unequivocal principle. No European city should be left to face a border crisis alone. And no state's territorial integrity should be called into question. So, this is the responsibility of all. I send from here, to all the citizens of Ceuta, my and our solidarity. You are not alone. Thank you.
Thank you.
And now, unfortunately, due to limitations in our timetable, I take the last speaker.
And that would be Ms María FERNÁNDEZ, please.
Thank you, Madam President.
My thanks also to Lord Michael GERMAN for his work.
Firstly, I'd like to convey my solidarity to the people of Ceuta, and my profound regret over the awful loss of life that occurred. What happened is Ceuta is without doubt something very complex. We are facing an unparalleled situation in which various stakeholders and interested parties come together, as well as different issues.
Now, it's an exceptional circumstance which is due to a humanitarian crisis. Because, while some people try to describe it in a different way, it is a humanitarian crisis that affects law and order and other issues for the people who live there.
We need to think about loyal co-operation with regard to human rights. And of course, respect, respect for human rights and the rule of law. It is an extraordinary situation. Faced with this, the Spanish state lead by the Spanish Prime Minister responded from the outset by deploying considerable resources and trying to respect humanity to try and regain calm in the city. And humanity, above everything, by strengthening the borders and ensuring dignified treatment for all those involved in the humanitarian crisis.
Ceuta needs solutions which do not simply listen to the sour voices of the populists. No. Support is needed more than ever. This policy is working. It is not improvisation, it is a policy that has been working for years and that has made Spain the southern border which has received the most regular migration in Europe.
Now, magnitude of this crisis tell us it is not just a problem for my country, but for Europe as a whole. Hence, I demand full institutional support and solidarity. We need to provide that for all of those involved in Ceuta and support equal to the need. And tension and violence does not help to solve this humanitarian crisis.
So, standing with Ceuta means observing the law, promoting peaceful co-existence and working together to return to normality and, at the same time, supporting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Thank you.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Dear colleagues,
Ceuta is an autonomous city of Spain. Its border is Europe’s border. Solidarity with Ceuta is our duty.
Let me be clear. We shouldn't forget the suffering of people who leave their homes. Every migrant’s story is a human story.
But we must also look at who organises their journeys.
Europol estimates that more than 90% of irregular migrants use smugglers. This is big business for criminal gangs.
We know that hostile states use criminal networks. Why assume they do not use smugglers too?
They can work through gangs in third countries. They do not need to share a border with us.
On our border with Russia and Belarus we recognise this as a security threat. Why take the same danger less seriously in the south?
Ceuta is a wake-up call. I support the Group of the European People's Party's (EPP) call for stronger powers against this threat.
Europe has no shortage of warnings. It has a shortage of leaders who act.
Viktor ORBÁN talked about defending Europe. Yet his government freed over two thousand convicted people smugglers.
Mr Pedro SÁNCHEZ doesnt even talk about defending Europe and he has failed Ceuta. And failing Ceuta means failing Europe.
Different slogans. The same failure to protect.
In Hungary, we voted Viktor ORBÁN out and replaced his government with one committed to rooting out smuggling networks. I wish Partido Popular every success in replacing Pedro SÁNCHEZ at the next election to protect Spain and Europe.
Because Europe needs leaders who defend it in deeds.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Thank you, Madam President, and dear colleagues.
What happened in Ceuta was an unprecedented and extraordinary situation. Never before seen.
The arrival of more than 70,000 people in just two days has placed enormous pressure on a Spanish city that is, at the same time, Europe’s external border.
And I want my first words to be for the citizens of Ceuta.
We understand their concerns and stand in solidarity with a community that has had to face an unprecedented situation.
The Government of Spain took action from the very beginning, strengthening security and mobilizing extraordinary resources to restore normalcy.
And in light of the urgent need to find housing for thousands of people, many of them minors, Spain has, in just a few weeks, significantly expanded its reception capacity and set up new facilities to ensure an orderly and dignified response.
Because Spain has the right and the obligation to protect its borders.
But we must do so in a manner befitting who we are: a European democracy committed to the rule of law and human rights.
Security and humanity are not incompatible.
And that is precisely why we must reject those who seek to exploit this situation to turn immigration into fear, fear into hatred, and hatred into political gain. And to spread fake news with the sole aim of bringing down President Pedro SÁNCHEZ.
The far right is using situations like the one in Ceuta to stigmatize migrants and fuel racist and xenophobic rhetoric.
We must take a firm stand against irregular immigration and against the mafias that traffic in human beings.
But we must also take a firm stand against racism and xenophobia.
We need European solidarity, secure borders, international cooperation, and respect for human rights.
Because Europe must protect its borders.
But it must do so without ever compromising its values.
Thank you very much.
Speech not pronounced (Rules of Procedure, Art. 31.2), only available in German
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
The situation is well known:
70,000 people entered; 90% returned voluntarily. More than a month later, 7,000 remain, including more than 2,000 minors.
At the gateway to Europe, this means that:
- More than 140 people death.
- A society whose population doubled in a single day, a society that is in shock, angry, insecure, and feeling abandoned, and that must return to normalcy.
- A significant number of migrants in precarious and vulnerable situations. And it seems that some people forget that they are human beings with dignity and rights.
Faced with this, we see, on the one hand, a government that reacted too late and failed to grasp the gravity of the situation and its consequences, and on the other, an opposition that seeks conflict, tension, and political gain rather than a solution. Meanwhile, the rhetoric of fear and hatred is on the rise.
And a partner (Morocco) that, whether by action or inaction, does not seem very reliable. We need only recall that something similar happened in 2021 and how certain positions regarding the Sahara shifted.
We also see, from the outside, a clear and dangerous attempt to destabilize Europe. And in the meantime, what is Europe doing? These are its borders, the protection of which it outsources far too much. And its only response seems to be tightening immigration policy. Even more? Is this the solution?
This has not been a mere immigration crisis. It has causes and consequences rooted in the geopolitical situation. We must assess the full scope of what has happened.
This social, political, and security crisis is also a humanitarian one and requires a response now. A responsible response, based on the principles of legality, reality, and humanity.
Interinstitutional collaboration and shared responsibility at the European level are essential.
In this regard, the approach and framework of the report to be presented by Lord German seem very sound, and we thank him for his willingness to do so.
(Undelivered speech, Rules of Procedure Art. 31.2)
Madam President, dear colleagues,
Ceuta was attacked.
Tens of thousands, mostly young men, forced their way into the city and many thousands continue to occupy public spaces. The videos we have seen from Ceuta since are horrifying. Sprawling tents at once pristine beaches, public spaces littered in trash and even human waste.
It is important that we face uncomfortable realities. TikTok snippets of young Moroccan influencers rambling about conquest and framing their actions in a rhetoric of Islamist expansionism and anti-European resentment. Residents, and in particular woman, tell of their fear to leave their homes at night.
A community is under siege and in fear. And yet some here today react tone-deaf. Some even appear to want to reward this attack, by sending all the wrong signals. Redistributing migrants to the continent, regularizing their status with full access to welfare systems and freedom of movement.
On a state-level, the same voices seek to appease those who violated Spain’s sovereignty, who at the very least tolerated this attack. Increasing bilateral payouts, instead of imposing the types of sanctions that Belarus rightfully faced for their hybrid attacks against Poland and Lithuania, will incentivize further aggression.
Dear colleagues, there is nothing humane or morally righteous in giving up the right to control entry and exit over our communities. That is an indispensable element of sovereignty. I want us to take a moment to reflect on the pain and the sense of helplessness that Ceutans feel today.
Leaving our external borders undefended has failed Europe. This is threatening the very basis for a open Schengen borders.
Therefore, let me make it very clear that the expectation of the vast majority of Europeans: those who cross the border illegally need to be returned.
The weaponization of European asylum law against Member States needs to stop. Does anyone seriously believe that the framers of the convention believed that it ought to enable limitless universal migration into Europe?
Hence, we have to take all lawful measures that reinforce our ability to protect our borders, including a credible policy on returns.
Those who first and foremost deserve our solidarity are the Europeans of Ceuta. You are not forgotten. It is time for Europe and for the Spanish government to rise to our responsibilities.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I must now interrupt the list of speakers and the speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in their official report. Speeches must not exceed 400 words. I remind colleagues that the typewritten text can be submitted, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.
And now I call Lord Michael GERMAN to reply. You have 3 minutes. Please have the floor.
Thank you very much.
And can I say, right from the outset, that it's been absolutely clear from every quarter of this, or at least part of this Chamber that solidarity with Ceuta is a sine qua non, everyone has expressed their sympathy to and support for the people of Ceuta.
Secondly, I think the second conclusion I draw from all this is that you have left me with a large number of other questions which will obviously be coming up in my investigations in the coming months. It's quite clear also from the tone from most parts of this debate that people have been respectful of each other. People have been respectful of the views that other people have held, but more than anything else, also respectful of the fact that we need to show solidarity together in order to promote our dignity and belief in human rights, which is so fundamental.
It is true, I heard it from this Chamber now, that what has happened here at the end of July is testing. It is testing for us. It will be difficult to find the right way of dealing with these issues. It will be difficult to make the decisions which flow from it, bearing in mind, of course, our purpose in existence. But what we mustn't do, and I can't remember who said it, but we mustn't let Ceuta be a problem which is insoluble. We must seek to find ways forward so that the lessons for the future can be well learnt. And I think that's the crucial matter that we come from this. What can we learn for the future, apart from, of course, dealing with the issues of today which now face that city.
I think also the other thing, the balance between control and compassion, is something which came out in many speeches here, and that security does not preclude humanity, which I think is then a principle upon which we can sit very comfortably. On blame, which many people have raised and some people have assumed, all I can say to you on the orchestration is that the issue of social media is now very, very much part of this investigation that I'm going to undertake. There is no doubt that that influence had a very, very important factor in what happened on those days, because it happened so rapidly. But it is possible to track and see what happened with the social media as well.
So we now come together as a body in order to look very closely at these matters. And it's clear that what the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe here has asked me to do is to act responsibly and within the framework of rights which we are assigned to protect. That is what I intend to do. And I hope that when I come back with the report in January, we will be able to have a discussion, which I hope will be helped by the evidence which I shall provide.
Thank you very much, Lord Michael GERMAN.
The debate is closed now.
I remind you that at the end of a current affairs debate, the Assembly is not asked to decide upon the text, but the matter may be referred by the Bureau to the responsible committee for a report.
As a reminder of an election of a judge, I must remind you that the vote is in progress to elect one judge to the European Court of Human Rights. The poll will be closed at 1 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President's Chair please.
Dear colleagues,
Now, it is time for an exchange with our Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Alain BERSET.
Dear Secretary General, we always welcome the opportunity to have an open and constructive discussion with you. And I would like to sincerely thank you for always being available to reply to the questions of the Parliamentary Assembly.
As I said yesterday in my opening speech, "Separately, we are opinions; together we are a standard". So let's continue to work together for the benefit of our fellow citizens and for setting exemplary standards for Europe.
You have the floor.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:12:58
Thank you very much, Madam President,
Madam Secretary General,
Members of the Parliamentary Assembly,
I am really pleased to start this intervention this morning, well underlining that I am joined by Ms Tanja GONGGRIJP. That is her first Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) session that we are enjoying together in her new function as Deputy Secretary General.
But it is not our only first, I would say. Last week, as you know, we opened the Council of Europe’s first permanent Observer Office to the United Nations (UN) in New York. Ukraine’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Andrii SYBIHA was there with us. And it gives us a stronger voice where decisions affecting Europe’s future are discussed. You can imagine that Ukraine was at the heart of all my meetings in New York and Washington, including with members of the US Congress.
And every conversation came back to accountability. So did this Assembly, when it called for a Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression that many thought impossible. And I think this is of particular importance as the war is escalating, as we saw yesterday with the attacks targeting the Academy of Sciences in Kyiv, among others civilian institutions. The new office we have in New York will put accountability for Ukraine on the global agenda and keep it there. It will also bring the Council of Europe and the other regional organisations closer together, as part of our wider strategy to respond to the fragmentation of international law.
Every organisation I met in New York and in Washington asked also the same thing: how does the Council of Europe hold 46 countries to the same rules? I told them the truth. We don’t do it alone. You do. Every time the Council of Europe’s common legal space grows, it grows because a parliament turned a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights into its own national law. This is convergence. It gives Europe stability, and there is no security without it.
Seven hundred million people live inside this common legal space. We built it for the order that is now in rupture. And the reform of our organisation is about carrying it into the order that is emerging.
The Committee of Ministers asked me for more Council of Europe’s effectiveness in a changed Europe, and it sets the political direction in May 2027. Force is spreading at the expense of law. It does not stay between states. It weakens our own democracies too.
And in this Europe, we need warning before a crisis arrives, somewhere to meet while it lasts, and legal support once it is over. It's exactly what we are doing, by the way, for supporting Ukraine. And how far we go is always a question about the decisions that are taken in this House.
But what the Council of Europe is for does not change. As one of the Council of Europe’s two statutory organs, the Assembly has a central role, complementary to that of governments. You have your own perspective to bring, and we need it early.
Your debate, this morning, I was really pleased to be a part of all the debate during this morning. Your debate this morning asked how core values meet the challenges ahead. And I think that is the question that we need to answer. As we know, the rupture will not slow down for us. Europe will not stay a continent of democracy, human rights and the rule of law by standing still. Neither will this organisation.
So, I thank you for this occasion to exchange today and I'm looking forward to your questions and to our exchange this morning.
Thank you very much. I will now proceed with the questions.
The first questions come from Mr Frank SCHWABE on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Groups. And 30 seconds for everybody.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Secretary General, thank you very much for following following the debate in the morning with a quite clear message. We want to be important in this organisation and we are ready to work on it. And maybe you can describe a little bit more, if you want to be a little bit more political, what kind of role you see for the Parliamentary Assembly. And maybe you can describe a little bit the timetable and the possibilities how we can participate in these update progress debates.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Secretary General.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:18:07
So thank you for the question.
As I just mentioned before, it was really interesting for me to also be part of and to follow the debate this morning. I hear the concerns expressed by this Assembly, and I want to put that right.
In November 2025, the Committee of Ministers asked me to present a roadmap and proposals to improve the organisation's effectiveness. I used that mandate to consider how – in this context – to make the Council of Europe as fit as possible for purpose in a changing world. And it was also really part of your discussion this morning. I think we fully agree on the assessment we can make of the situation. And the aim with this is to strengthen our ability to defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law in a world where it is under strong pressure. For this, we have the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention system; we have the Court; we have the execution of the judgments, and the work of this Assembly is also a central element of that effort.
Now, about the question you asked about the schedule, if I understood correctly. I firstly presented a note, a concept note, a general note, last April and an initial proposal in July that I also shared with the Presidential Committee a few days later. And then you had this conversation also developing since the beginning of September. And the Assembly must really help shape this reform as one of our statutory organs. As I said before, I will work with the President and political groups to agree on how it can contribute as an institution. And we need to find the right way to communicate and to make as sure as possible, as stable as possible, that we can develop this together.
We will have different elements contributing to this general thinking. We also gave a mandate to a UK-based think tank to have some elements to inform the discussion. But then, the political choices will remain open in this House and to the bodies that have the power to do so.
For the maybe last element about the schedule and time. What you can do here, what you will contribute here, will be taken into account. And I would say we have some time, because, as I mentioned before, the decisions are expected for May 2027. That means you also have several sessions and opportunities to make a strong contribution within the Committee of Ministers to see how we can shape best, think best together, and what we can do to make the organisation effective and to make us as strong as possible in this challenging world for human rights, for democracy and the rule of law.
Thank you very much.
And we will now hear the question on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party from Mr Johannes VOLKMANN.
Germany, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group
12:21:18
Thank you, Madam President, I shall speak in German.
Mr Secretary General, you spoke about trust and, indeed, trust is particularly important when it comes to the use of European taxpayers’ money. Through the European Youth Foundation, the Council of Europe uses taxpayers’ money to support youth work across Europe. Among the recipients is the Forum of Muslim European Youth and Student Organisations, or FEMYSO for short. According to reports by Germany’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the organisation is regarded as a front organisation for the Muslim Brotherhood. The domestic intelligence services in France and Spain have also issued warnings about the organisation in the context of Islamism.
My question to you, Mr Secretary General: do you consider this to be a responsible use of funds, and what are you doing to ensure that no European taxpayers’ money flows into Islamism?
Thank you very much.
Mr Secretary General.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:22:13
Thank you very much for that question. I must tell you, this isn’t the first time I’ve heard of this. But the first and last time was right at the very beginning of my time at the Council of Europe, and it hasn’t happened since.
Perhaps first a few words on the principle: public funds must be used in accordance with the values of the Council of Europe. I believe that is clear to all of us. No one will take issue with that. And I must say that I take your intervention on this matter today seriously. I see it as a clear indication. However, I cannot present the allegations as proven without an investigation. That means I believe the best thing I can do is to once again instruct the Secretariat to examine the information and also the funding that has already been approved, if I may put it that way. We will then need to be able to take stock of the situation once again. And should it turn out – though this is also clear – that a breach of the funding conditions or our values is confirmed, we will act decisively in accordance with the applicable rules, including with regard to future funding.
However, I must also tell you that, as far as I am aware, these grants or these funds, these funding contributions, are not simply awarded without a review being carried out. And, as far as I am aware, there is also the possibility for our member states to monitor this. But I still need to verify that. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will take this seriously and instruct the relevant departments to look into it again.
Before there is a very loud headset somewhere there, maybe you can turn down the volume. I don't know where it is exactly.
The next speaker is Sir Christopher CHOPE on behalf of European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates (ECPA).
United Kingdom, ECPA, Spokesperson for the group
12:24:21
I hope the Secretary General is going to answer the questions I raised in this morning's debate.
But the separate question I want to also raise is whether he would welcome this Assembly now investigating the dealings between the disgraced Secretary General, the convicted paedophile Mr Jeffrey EPSTEIN and the Russian leader Mr Vladimir PUTIN. Because it seems as though those dealings have not yet properly been investigated and that the internal inquiry is essentially a private whitewash.
The question hour is about the questions raised in this sitting.
So please, Mister Secretary General.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:24:58
Thank you very much.
It is not clear for me now which question I should answer. And I think the question you asked this morning – I was present in the room following the whole debate – and the question about the clarity and the links between the work we are doing on the New Democratic Pact for Europe on one side and a project for the effectiveness and reform of the Council of Europe on the other side, I think I would have a clear answer to this, but it would also take some time. And it is all a question about how we want to collaborate following the debate this morning with all the committees, with all the political groups throughout next month to have this exact discussion.
To make it brief, if I can answer the question we didn't ask now, but this morning, to be brief, I think that the New Democratic Pact for Europe is the implementation of one of the three major outcomes of the Reykjavík Summit in 2022. The first element was then accountability for Ukraine, starting with the Register of Damage for Ukraine, and we are continuing with the Register of Damage for Ukraine, the International Claims Commission for Ukraine, the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine and so on and so forth, making them as strong as possible.
The second was on democracy with the so-called ten Reykjavík Principles for Democracy. It is not enough, as you know, as we all know, to see what it means in the implementation. And the New Democratic Pact for Europe should be along with this element, the next implementation in tools, in elements that can be really useful for the member states and for all of us.
And the third element is environment. And as we know it was an outcome from Reykjavík. And as we know, this pillar needs to be improved. The reform is in parallel and an element to make as sure as possible that we are as effective as possible in making this happen.
That means what? It means to have outreach and strong support for accountability for Ukraine. Not only for Ukraine, it is for the rules-based order that we want to see also in the future and as well as for democracy.
But I will be happy to maybe consider this in another context, to address this very important question in more depth. I come now (I'm sorry It's taken a while) to your real question for this afternoon on the so-called relations between Mr Thorbjørn JAGLAND and Mr Jeffrey EPSTEIN and I fully understand the Assembly's concern.
I received the Directorate of Internal Oversight (DIO) report in September, the beginning of this month, and I can inform the Assembly of its findings always within the limits of confidentiality because I am not allowed to communicate this.
The DIO is an independent body and I can tell you some elements, but maybe not everything, to respect the element of confidentiality. The investigation included digital forensics and 21 witness interviews. It established a longstanding close relationship between Mr Thorbjørn JAGLAND and Mr Jeffrey EPSTEIN, including meetings, stays at Mr Jeffrey EPSTEIN's premises, financial discussions and the facilitation of contact with Russian authorities.
Mr Thorbjørn JAGLAND was not the subject of this internal investigation. The internal investigation examined possible wrongdoing by Council of Europe member staff, whether staff knew of wrongdoing and failed to report it, and possible misuse of the organisation's resources. And on the evidence available, the investigation did not establish wrongdoing by current or former Council of Europe staff or sufficient evidence that staff knew of wrongdoing and failed to report it. It does not resolve the questions concerning Mr Thorbjørn JAGLAND personally, as we all know, those are subject to an ongoing criminal investigation, I think we can say in English, with alleged civil corruption. I can't remember exactly how it was phrased. And this is ongoing in Norway. This is ongoing in Norway. So the report also identified weaknesses in our procedures and made some recommendations that we are examining at the moment.
Thank you.
The next question is from Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).
Ukraine, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group
12:29:27
Dear Secretary General,
I will pick up on the accountability and in these days and hours when Kyiv and other cities are on fire from Russian drones and missiles, I think the practical steps on establishing the Special Tribunal and actually going from the technical stage to the practical stage is extremely important.
Can you say what is the concrete timeline until the end of this year and maybe update us on your meetings in New York and budget?
Thank you.
Mister Secretary General.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:30:03
Thank you very much for this question.
And, as we all know, making the Special Tribunal operational is a priority, a strong priority for all of us. It is part of the whole accountability mechanism that we are building. And I want to remind in this context that it's not that nothing is happening so far. I mean, we have, with the European Court of Human Rights, based on the European Convention on Human Rights, rulings coming regularly and concerning the brutal aggression of Ukraine by Russia. We have the Register of Damage, we have the Claims Commission. I will come to this later, and the Special Tribunal.
On my side, I press for accountability in every international exchange I have, in every meeting I have. Last week alone, I did so throughout my missions to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in New York with all the contacts, and also to Washington. I will also today raise this issue with Germany's Foreign Minister visiting Strasbourg. It will also be the case with Portugal's President later today or tomorrow.
We have now the legal framework and we have also a growing international support. 38 states and the European Union have notified us of their intention to join the Tribunal's Management Committee, including Costa Rica and Australia. And I think the opening of the office in New York will be an important element to reach out further with the Tribunal.
What we need now is political will from states to turn those intentions into formal participation and funding. What I've heard in recent weeks was that several states are waiting for a detailed budget before committing funds. For this, we need a budget from the Netherlands, and the Netherlands expects to provide the hosting figures by the end of the year, giving us a clearer timetable. I had also the occasion in an exchange with the Netherlands in New York to really press and say it is urgent now, we really need to have the figures, to have the budget. Because without this we are a bit blocked for having the next step of commitment of states for joining. And I also intend to visit The Hague to press for political and financial commitments.
I will keep pressing for that political commitment at every opportunity. And I take also this occasion to pass you a message. I count on this Assembly to do also the same in national parliaments, to urge governments to complete their procedures and to provide the funding needed to make the Special Tribunal operational.
And I take also this occasion, I come back to the Claims Commission, to say that for the Claims Commission we have now a quite large amount of signatures from states, but we need ratifications to have it in force. And the ratification procedures are dependent on local and national procedures. But where the parliament has something to say, please use all the possibilities you have to take influence, to go as fast as possible. We are ready. We are ready for the Tribunal, we are ready for the Claims Commission. We just need strong support now and a clear message and clear signal from the states that are willing to join.
Thank you. I can just echo that.
Next and last for the round, on behalf of the political groups, is Mr George LOUCAIDES for the Group of the Unified European Left (UEL).
Cyprus, UEL, Spokesperson for the group
12:33:54
Dear Secretary General,
During the previous part-session, I proposed, on behalf of the Unified European Left Group, the establishment of an independent Council of Europe Commissioner for Social Rights.
Have you examined our proposal and would you consider supporting such an initiative to strengthen the protection of social rights across Europe? Can this new institution be an element of this reform process as we have included social rights in the Reykjavík Declaration, but also the Moldova declaration?
Thank you. Mister Secretary General.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:34:35
Well, thank you very much.
I can very well remember that you raised the idea of a commissioner for social rights with me in June. Thank you for reminding us of this. And I said, at that time, that I would take it seriously. And I do. And I can maybe bring you two pieces of information now.
The first is that, without thinking about the institution. I really want to speak also on the substance. And we are developing a lot of activities for promoting social rights. The last time was last week in New York, where I joined a discussion on how to turn our commitments on social rights into real improvements in people's lives. And I think this matters for democracy. People must be able to see that their rights make a difference. And I'm mentioning this because we also had a very important meeting earlier this year in Chișinău, where it was not surprising, but it was really encouraging to see that where we thought we would maybe have some bad developments, in Chișinău it was the opposite. We had states making steps forward.
And I can remember one example, just among others, which was the case of France announcing in February or March in Chișinău that it would have access to the Social Charter overseas. And that means a huge change for a lot of people, just to give an example. And a lot of other countries took back reservations or also developed their commitment. That is on the substance.
Now, what we did since the last discussion on the institutional level, because it is your question – a commissioner for social rights. Two elements.
The first, I was thinking and showing how. The commissioner that we have now for human rights: the position was created, and this position was not created by the Secretariat. It was created by the member states at a summit of the member states, a summit of heads of state and heads of government. And I think we should also have this in mind at the moment, where we need to think about what we need to have a stronger voice for social rights. I think we should continue this discussion to see which is the best way to make some progress for social rights, whether it is through a new institution or not, and if it is, which is able to create the new institution with the strength it needs to make the difference.
And the second element about the reform, I think it is absolutely possible and not only possible, but needed to take the discussion in the context of the reform. It is also, I mean, in the context of the New Democratic Pact, by the way, because, as we know, the New Democratic Pact must put social rights at the heart of democratic renewal. It seems like a very important element, and I say this because it is not possible to have strong and positive development for human rights without thinking about social rights. And it's not possible to have strong development for human rights and social rights without also reflecting on how societies are working and are developing. That means we have a very large mandate in this.
But to make it short now, on the substance, we are progressing, I would say, quite well, and we will continue on this, and on the institutional level, we will continue to think along the lines of the elements I gave you before.
Thank you very much.
Before I start with the questions from the members, I would like to remind you that you have a little more than 20 minutes left to vote for the judge in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, if you haven't done so already.
I will now group the questions into groups of three members. And the first one is Mr Márton HAJDU from Hungary.
Secretary General,
I welcome the opening of the New York office, fulfilling a long standing call from this Assembly. I genuinely believe that our parliamentary voice should be part of the Council of Europe's voice in the world.
In this context, I'd like to ask you if you would commit to ensuring that this Assembly is part of shaping our external relations, ensuring that we are part of its representation and also that its contribution is recognised in official communications. And if so, then what practical steps will you take?
Thank you.
Thank you. And we also take Mr Piero FASSINO.
Thank you, I speak Italian.
Thank you, Secretary General. You attended the Bled Strategic Forum a few weeks ago and are closely monitoring the situation in the Balkans. On the one hand, the Balkans are undergoing a process of European integration, which has, however, been dragging on for many years without reaching a conclusion; on the other hand, we are witnessing new conflicts and renewed ethnic tensions in the region.
Now, how do you think we can prevent new conflicts from breaking out and, at the same time, help to speed up the process of European integration?
Thank you.
And the third one in this round is Ms Vesela MOMCHEVA-TOWNE from Bulgaria.
Thank you, Madam President.
Mister Secretary General,
The European Social Charter guarantees the right to health protection. The current case of Ms Iva MIHAYLOVA in North Macedonia, who also holds Bulgarian citizenship, is the latest such case.
Due to ongoing judicial proceedings, she is not permitted to travel abroad for medical treatment, although this restriction may have serious consequences for her health. My question to you is how can the Council of Europe oblige member states to ensure the judicial restrictions do not disproportionately prevent access to urgent and necessary healthcare abroad?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mister Secretary General, please.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:40:47
"Thank you very much, Madam President" [Spoken in French]
Thank you very much, dear Mr Márton HAJDU, for the question about the external relations of the Council of Europe. And I think that's interesting that we have this extra conversation because it's important to find a way to develop together with the 46 member states and with this huge diversity that we have. It is a challenge, always. But we have also the needs to have contacts and to have a clear policy outside of our own borders. And I think that's an important element.
This Assembly plays an important role. I mean, you have here participating in your work, different delegations that are not participating in all the bodies. That's an interesting reach out. I mean, also for everybody to have an access to this and it could be also an element. I mean, I would also ask the question back. I mean, what can you imagine to do with the relation that the Assembly has participating in this? That's the first element.
The second element, the Committee of Ministers made a decision, I think, recently about the external strategy. It was in May in Chișinău. It was really during the ministerial in May in Chișinău, defining an external strategy. I think you know this text probably, and it explains what we can do and how we can reach out. And we have also some tools for doing this. We have not only the bilateral relations that we can develop, we have also, for example, the North-South Centre, a very important institution of the Council of Europe. And it has been really developed along the Mediterranean Sea, not only, but mostly also with offices that we have in Rabat and in Tunis. And I think now we see that this tool, if I can name the Centre a tool for the Council of Europe, can be also maybe used to enlarge the outreach that we have and the contacts that we have.
Why is this so important? And I noted this again in New York last week. It is so important because a lot of different countries, regions, people, members of civil society, are expecting from the European countries and European institutions to be more present, because we have a clear view on what it needs to have a positive and strong development for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
This is particularly important at a time where those values, they seemed maybe more evident to everybody 20 years ago, now they are under strong pressure, and this strong pressure made more necessary than before for us to reach out. And, as I told you, I think, I mean between the Committee of Ministers, member states and the Assembly, different roles, but a common goal, I would say, to promote the values not only among ourselves here in Europe, but also beyond.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:43:41
The next question was, I believe, in Italian, from Mr Piero FASSINO.
I shall therefore reply – excuse me, Mr Piero FASSINO – in French rather than Italian, even though I fully understood the question, which concerned the Balkans, participation in the Bled Forum and, if I have understood correctly, the issue of European enlargement, and thus membership of the European Union.
So, first of all, what I can tell you is that I agree with your observations; I see the same thing: a certain frustration that may be felt in some countries in the region regarding accession to the European Union. And we also see the risk of a resurgence of nationalist sentiment. We are seeing certain setbacks for democracy. These issues are very real.
I have had the opportunity, I must tell you, to discuss this not only during visits I have made to most countries in the region since the start of this year and also last year, but it was also a very interesting topic of discussion in the US Congress with members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
As we know, the Council of Europe cannot dictate the pace at which negotiations with the European Union take place. That is not our role. What we can do is help ensure that the candidate countries can, in essence, meet the requirements necessary for accession. This can be achieved through the Court’s judgements, participation in all the bodies of the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission – which plays a very important role in all this – the monitoring activities we carry out, and co-operation programmes.
We therefore have a wide range of tools to guarantee the independence of the courts, electoral integrity, the rights of minorities, a free press – in short, everything that is necessary. This requires not only implementation, but also a commitment. And one might think of the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we have always expected – and continue to expect – significant progress in the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgements, with which you are familiar.
It is, of course, also necessary in this context to be able to resolve problems through dialogue. We can continue along these lines, and I believe the Council of Europe has a role to play in the region by being, so to speak, at home, if I may put it that way, in all the countries of the region, given the situation in Kosovo as we know it.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:46:19
I will take now the next question.
Thank you for raising the issue. It's not the first time I hear this. I can confirm you that the President of Bulgaria, Ms Iliana IOTOVA, also raised this issue when we had a meeting earlier this month.
I fully recognise the importance that you underlined of access to appropriate medical care. That is evident. At the same time, I cannot and I'm not willing to intervene in or seek to influence an individual case pending before national authorities or courts. And that includes the decisions concerning restrictions on travel.
But I want to underline one more time that the Council of Europe's standards, including those under the European Social Charter, must of course be respected, because it is evident that it is so important. And any alleged violation of these standards should be addressed. And to address this, we also have the appropriate national and Council of Europe mechanisms.
Thank you very much.
The second round is started by Lord Don TOUHIG from the United Kingdom
On 16 September in Zurich, on the 80th anniversary of Mr Winston CHURCHILL's great speech about the future of Europe, you said that, by that time, Mr Winston CHURCHILL had lost power in Britain, Mr Charles DE GAULLE had resigned, and Mr Konrad ADENAUER had been dismissed as mayor of Cologne.
You noted the three held no power at all, but they knew what they wanted. You then added, "Today we have the power, and we have stopped saying what we want". So how should we use that power to create a new vision for Europe?
Thank you.
And now, Mr Per Vidar KJØLMOEN from Norway.
Mr Secretary General,
The purpose of the Council of Europe is more important than ever. We must examine how we can be more relevant in a changing world, where our values are under immense pressure. The New Democratic Pact is an important result of the Reykjavík Process. All member states stand behind it.
How can Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers and you as Secretary General best co-operate on this New Democratic Pact for Europe, so that this initiative can mobilise all Europeans and result in concrete measures to strengthen our democracies?
Thank you.
Thank you. And finally, Ms Hripsime GRIGORYAN.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mister Secretary General,
So, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe observers concluded that Armenia's June elections offered voters a genuine choice. At the same time, they documented foreign direct interference, including economic, aimed at influencing voters.
If democratic security is to be preventive rather than reactive, what should the Council of Europe be able to do if a member state faces such a challenge? In order to prevent that these threats translate into damage to democratic institutions and public trust.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mister Secretary General.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:49:25
I think that all three questions are also going in a comparable direction. And I will start.
Thank you for mentioning this really great speech from Mr Winston CHURCHILL in September of 1946 in Zurich. It was, for me, really an honour and a privilege to represent the Council of Europe on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of this very important speech.
I can remind you here that it was, I think, the first time publicly, at least, that this idea of what was created three years later, the Council of Europe, was mentioned by Mr Sir Winston CHURCHILL. And it is really interesting to have in mind that he made this very strong proposal, no longer having any power at all. He lost the election just before, and he was shaping the future of Europe in this situation. That was really a great achievement.
And I also want to answer your question. I think this Council of Europe, the Council of Europe was not made, as I said sometimes, for good weather conditions, for easy times. It was made precisely after the Second World War to say, "Hey, what was wrong? How is something like this possible? We need to do it better". And it's always so impressive for me to see that in 1949, you see the countries that were at war four years earlier signing the London Treaty, creating the Council of Europe. You see, one year later, on 4 November 1950, the same countries signing the European Convention on Human Rights. What an achievement in four or five years. I think we will never learn enough from this.
Now, what does it mean today? We probably have in front of us; we are facing some quite difficult times. And I think I will give you three elements in my answer. I think we are trying to do this.
The first is probably linked to the effectiveness of the organisation. And it is the discussion that you also started this morning with the open debate about the reform.
The second element is the New Democratic Pact. I think it is exactly this recommitment to the values under new conditions, not comparable to the time after the Second World War, but a recommitment to the new conditions and also with concrete elements. That's why what we are doing for Ukraine matters, not only for Ukraine, but for all of us. It is the exact way to demonstrate what we understand when we speak about rules-based order, dialogue, peaceful relations and accountability. And it is the opposite of what we see today developing with brutality, war, violence, and impunity.
And the last point I want to mention, because it is present in the speech of Mr Winston CHURCHILL in Zurich. He was saying in 1946 that it's very good to have the United Nations, but to be very effective, the United Nations will need to have strong multilateral regional organisations. This is exactly what the Council of Europe is doing, and it's also the reason why I am trying to develop a network of regional multilateral organisations. I had a very interesting meeting last week at the Organization of American States. I was speaking there also about Ukraine and what we are doing, and I also had an interesting and good meeting with the President of the Permanent African Union Commission to start to make as effective as possible what Mr Winston CHURCHILL was also announcing in this speech of 1946.
Concerning the second question. Thank you for asking about the New Democratic Pact and the link with Reykjavík and the co-operation. I think we really need to, I would say, find the best possible way to have strong collaboration and to progress together. And in that sense, I really strongly welcome the work of the Special Committee on the New Democratic Pact that you are accompanying in this very important work. I will be happy, as soon as possible and as regularly as possible, also to have an exchange in this context. We need to have a clear institutional framework to have these conversations.
I will now take the question about Armenia, and again, if I can, I think Armenia's elections showed why democratic security must begin well before polling day. You mentioned information manipulation, another form of external pressure. We see this in all contexts, and it is progressing. And I think the New Democratic Pact for Europe is one of the answers we can bring.
With the education part. I mean, clearly, we must learn how to debate in a moment where we have such a strong impact of social media bubbles. The way we are debating is different today compared to how it was 20 years ago, and it is changing the way we need to act to have a productive democracy.
The second element is about protecting. I just want to recall and remind you, in this context, the decision of the Committee on the Ministerial Conference we had in Chișinău last May, where the idea was to develop an instrument, a kind of toolbox on what is possible to use to protect democracy when it is under pressure or attack.
And the third element is to innovate. And to innovate, we have different ways to do this. Artificial intelligence (AI) is not only a negative tool in these elements. AI can also be used to debunk this information. So, to debunk deepfakes, to help source information and to make the difference between information and disinformation. And I think we can use this also, learning from the experience we had in Armenia and before in Moldova, and in other countries, to be as strong as possible for what we stand for.
Thank you. That brings us to a very quick last round of three, starting with Ms Lesia ZABURANNA from Ukraine.
Thank you.
Dear Secretary General,
In my report towards coherent policy on veterans in Europe, I call for a more co-ordinated European approach to supporting veterans.
What is your view on establishing a dedicated platform within the Parliamentary Assembly to bring together parliamentarians, governments, experts and veterans' organisations to advance this work? And how could the Council of Europe support the implementation of the report's recommendations across member states?
Thank you.
Thank you. And Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN.
You need to insert your badge, Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN.
You haven't been here for a while. We see you are out of training.
I'm so sorry. Apologies once again.
Mr Secretary General, in your reform process, you are using the key concept "democratic security". Too frequently, we are contrasting hard security, soft security or state security, and human security. And you have really claimed this organisation for democratic security, soft security and human security.
There are two states that are not members of this organisation in Europe – Russia and Belarus. Nevertheless, we met yesterday with Ms Maria KALESNIKAVA, one of the democratic leaders of the Belarusian opposition, as well as the Russian opposition, and had a dialogue here.
How do you assess the process of having dialogue with humans coming from those states that don't respect our values?
Thank you. And finally, Ms Catia POLIDORI from Italy.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Secretary General,
In the face of the new threats currently facing our democracies, the safety of women in public life is also a matter of freedom and democracy, as you so rightly said.
Mr Secretary General, how can the Council of Europe take concrete steps to strengthen their safety and ensure their participation?
Thank you.
Secretary General, please.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
12:58:02
So, thank you.
I will try to be very short in my answers and I'm ready to continue the conversations, also bilaterally.
On the veterans, thank you very much for raising this issue. It is a real and strong issue for Ukraine and for stability in the long term. More than 2 million Ukrainians now have veteran status and this figure might double quite rapidly. And protecting their rights and supporting their families is a challenge for Ukraine and for Europe over the long term. Health care and rehabilitation will be key. Mental health, employment, housing and full participation in society.
I just say this to say that we have this on the radar. We are working on this in the action plan and it will be reinforced and strengthened in the next action plan under preparation right now. And I think that the work that the Assembly is doing is also a good thing. The Assembly's work on a coherent rights-based approach to veterans and a parliamentary network could also help to turn this work into action. I don't want to be more specific now, but we are really ready to continue the discussion with you.
Dear Mr Kimmo KILJUNEN, welcome back to this Assembly. It is a pleasure to see you again. Thank you for the question.
I am fully with you when you said hard and soft security are not the same thing, but there is one democratic security. And the risk I see right now, and just to mention this again, is that our member states and other countries are investing a lot of money in defence, armies, armaments. And this is where we are witnessing what we call a backsliding of democracy. What kind of security are we buying in the medium and long term if we are superpowered armies and weakened democracies?
On Belarus and Russia now. For Belarus, you know, we recently opened an information point in Vilnius for collaboration and exchange with Belarusian democratic forces. For Russia, you can imagine that we have — I mean this Assembly is also doing a part of the work. We need to continue along those lines.
Secretary General of the Council of Europe
13:00:03
As for the last question, I’ll try to wrap up very quickly.
Thank you for raising this point.
I believe that the safety of people – and of women in particular – in all aspects of public life is a matter of democratic security. Everything to do with violence, threats, harassment and silencing are factors that undermine the very workings of democracy itself. And we have not only the experience and awareness, but also the tools to take action in this area through the prevention of violence and the protection of victims.
Standards certainly need to be adapted. There must also be more effective and robust accountability. And I think, to conclude – this is my final point – that this issue you are perhaps raising now must also be at the heart of the discussions we are holding within the framework of the New Democratic Pact for Europe.
We now must conclude the questions to Mr Alain BERSET. On behalf of the Assembly, I would like to thank you, most warmly, for your statements and for answering all our questions, thanks a lot.
It is now 1.01 p.m., does any member still wish to vote in the election of judges for the European Court of Human Rights?
This is not the case, then the ballot is now closed. The counting of votes will take place under the supervision of the tellers, Ms Bisera KOSTADINOVSKA-STOJCHEVSKA, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Baroness Thérèse COFFEY, Ms Sona GHAZARYAN and Ms Katrin FEY. I invite them to go now to meet behind the President's Chair. The results of the election will be announced at the start of this afternoon's sitting.
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.
