COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl (84) 373 and 374

CONCLUSIONS

OF THE

373rd MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES

HELD IN STRASBOURG FROM 28 TO 30 MAY 1984

AND OF THE

374th MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES

HELD IN STRASBOURG FROM 14 TO 22 JUNE 1984

STRASBOURG

Confidential CM/Del/Concl(84)373

CONCLUSIONS OF THE 373rd MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (held in Strasbourg from 28 to 30 May 1984)

CONFIDENTIAL - 1 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373

SUMMARY Page 1. Adoption of the agenda 5 2. The working methods in the Council of Europe - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party 7 3. Role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party 23 4. Human Rights Questions - 2nd Interim Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party 41 5. Cultural Co-operation - Oral progress report by the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies' working party 45 6. Other business a. Meeting of the Assembly's Standing Committee (Oslo, 28 June 1984) 49

APPENDIX I 373rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A level) (Strasbourg, 28-30 May 1984) - Agenda a1 APPENDIX II Directive from the Committee of Ministers (item 2) to the steering committees and all other committees with programming functions concerning the choice and priority of proposed activities a3

CONFIDENTIAL - 1 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373

The 373rd meeting of the Deputies was opened on Monday, 28 May 1984 at 3 pm, under the Chairmanship of Mr. R. Doise, Deputy for the Minister for External Relations of France.

PRESENT AUSTRIA Mr. H.G. Knitel Mr. N. Scherk BELGIUM Mr. A. Vranken Mr. P. Jottard Mr. J. Aelvoet CYPRUS Mr. A. Pouyouros Mr. N. Yiannakis DENMARK Mrs. J. Rechnagel FRANCE Mr. R. Doise, Chairman Mr. B. Widemann Mr. D. Labrosse FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. K.A. Hampe, Vice Chairman Mr. K. Timmermann Mr. P. Platte GREECE Mr. N. Diamantopoulos Mr. D. Constantinou Mrs. D. Mavroskelidi ICELAND Mrs B Asgeirsdottir IRELAND Mr. M. Flynn ITALY Mr. P.M. Antici Mr. A. Graffini LIECHTENSTEIN HSH Prince Nicholas of Liechtenstein LUXEMBOURG Mr. J. Hostert MALTA Mr. J. Sciberras Mr. G.C. Pulis CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 2 -

NETHERLANDS Mr. C. Schneider NORWAY Mr. E. Winsnes Mr. L.A. Ulland PORTUGAL Mr. J. Pereira Bastos Mr. J. da Rocha Paris SPAIN Mr. F. Baeza Mr. N. Ferrer Colom Mr. J. Garcia Casas SWEDEN Mr. B. Arvidson SWITZERLAND Mr. T. Raeber Mrs. I. Apelbaum TURKEY Mr. S. Korkud Mr. K. Gür UNITED KINGDOM Mr. C.D. Lush Miss A. Stoddart CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373

At the opening of the meeting, the Chairman welcomed the Deputy Permanent Representative of Malta, Mr Godwin Pulis, who was attending a meeting of the Committee for the first time. The Chairman recalled that at their previous meeting the Deputies had "agreed to fix 21 June 1984 as the provisional date of their next exchange of views, with the participation of experts, on the United Nations, subject to confirmation at the opening of their 373rd meeting" (Concl(84)372/3, decision 5). After giving delegations time to reflect on this matter, he noted that it appeared to be impossible to find a date during the 374th meeting (June 1984) that would suit all delegations. However, the largest number of delegations had reported that they favoured the exchange of views taking place on Tuesday 19 June 1984, and he therefore proposed that it be held on that date. This was agreed. At the close of the meeting, the Chairman recalled the declaration on the Sakharov affair that the Deputies had adopted at their extraordinary meeting on 24 May 1984 (Concl(84) Ext 24/5), and informed them that the Assembly's Political Affairs Committee, meeting in Paris on 30 May 1984, had adopted a communique in which it had warmly supported the declaration of the Committee of Ministers on this matter.

CONFIDENTIAL - 5 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

Decision The Deputies adopted the agenda for their 373rd meeting (28-30 May 1984 - A level) as it appears at Appendix I to these Conclusions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 7 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2 2. THE WORKING METHODS IN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party (Concl(84)369/2, CM(84)55 and Addendum III)

The Secretary General made the following statement: "At the 369th meeting of the Deputies (March 1984, item 2), I told you of my first reactions to the very constructive proposals contained in the various reports of your working parties and particularly in the report on the Council of Europe's working methods (CM(84)55). I noted the working party's proposal in CM(84)111 that a message to steering committees be adopted straightaway concerning voting on activities and on the indication of priorities. I can see only advantages in the adoption of such a message, which would also be helpful to the Secretariat. You will also remember that I said the Secretariat would look more closely into the question of introducing a points evaluation system for activities. The Secretariat has begun a detailed study of this system which is intended to guide the planning of the Council of Europe's intergovernmental activities in the years ahead. However, in view of the importance of this innovation, I believe that it warrants further thought as regards both the system as such and the arrangements for putting it into practice. In any event, such a system could not be implemented unless the draft work programme were geared to it and until the steering committees have all complied with the guidance to be given them in the message which you are being asked to adopt at this meeting. Whatever the system adopted, it cannot in any case be applied until the 1986 draft Programme, since the 1985 Programme is already at an advanced stage of preparation on the basis of proposals already adopted in the case of virtually all the steering committees. That should give us time to give further thought, in view of the probable impact of the proposals, to all its technical and political aspects." The Representative of Portgual made the following statement: CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 8 - Item 2

"This delegation wishes to say, first of all, that it is prepared to co-operate not only in the new phase of work of the "methods" group, in which it has already been involved, but also with all the other working parties. Bearing in mind the spirit of CM(84)111, this delegation - which has already put its point of view to the Chairman of the working party on the working methods - wishes to make a number of comments on the further phases of work, particularly as regards the definition of priority criteria for the presentation of draft decisions on these matters. 1. The idea of the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Willibald Pahr, as set out in CM(82)202 and approved by the Committee of Ministers at its 71st Session, entailed presenting proposals without any indication of priorities, and the various working parties were given very clear terms of reference to that effect. In the present phase of work which, by reason of its innovatory nature, demands long thought and careful reformulation of specific proposals for changing our Organisation's existing procedures, choosing priorities after a single, brief discussion seems to this delegation to be somewhat risky. 2. Where working methods are concerned, the capitals had not had sufficient time by 26 March of this year to make up their minds about CM(84)55, dated the 9th of the same month. As we saw at the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers moreover, the Ministers did not take any decision on that document, but simply 'instructed their Deputies to submit their proposals on the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification and on strengthening and enlarging co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Communities, for their 75th Session in November 1984 and to make suggestions for the possible implementation of those proposals.' 3. That specific decision seems to demonstrate a political priority, which seems to us relevant, but which covers only one of the problems considered by the working party on the working methods: that of the preparation of Conferences of Specialised Ministers; that is a problem of undeniable political importance, already referred to by the Director of Legal Affairs, at the 368th meeting of our Committee (Concl(84)368/24d), in connection with the application of the report on the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification (CM(84)63). 4. This delegation accepts the cautious recommendations in para. 2 of CM(84)111 ("the Deputies could resume their examination of this matter in the light of any comments which the Secretary General might wish to make") and in para. 4 of the same document ("the Deputies should then proceed to examine systematically and take a stand on each of the various conclusions"), but it sees more disadvantages than advantages in confining those conclusions to pages (i)-(vi). CONFIDENTIAL - 9 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

5. This delegation was the only one at the 369th meeting of the Deputies (March 1984, item 2) to refer to CM(82)100, in which the Secretary General gave his views on those sub-paragraphs, and paid due tribute to him for his valuable contribution (the Portuguese authorities "were pleased to note that the working party had benefited from the ideas put forward by the Secretary General in his report CM(82)100"). Similarly, it believes that the Secretary General ought again to be asked for his advice on such important points. It would be difficult, however, for the present Secretary General, bearing in mind the proposals in CM(84)55, to make up his mind by September on such a complex matter, or for the new Secretary General to do so, in order that, in accordance with para. 2 of CM(84)111, the Programme proposals may "have an impact as far as possible as regards the preparation of the 1985 Programme and a full impact as regards the 1986 Programme". Bearing in mind the calendar for preparation of the 1985 Programme, this delegation thinks it unlikely that the particulars requested from steering committees in the Appendix to CM(84)111 can be submitted in time to be considered by governments. It should also be remembered that the steering committees meet only at long intervals and that for this reason it will not be possible for some of those committees' replies regarding priorities to have an impact on the 1985 Programme." The Representative of Sweden, in his capacity as Chairman of the working party, said that there had been divergent views within the working party as to the course of action to be followed after the first reading of the report (CM(84)55) at the 369th meeting. There were those who wanted to submit proposals to the Deputies for the implementation of some of the conclusions of the working party and those who, for one reason or another, had wanted more time for reflection before coming up with proposals. The working party had finally agreed to follow the decision reached at the 369th meeting of the Deputies that certain matters could be picked up for immediate consideration and the rest of the proposals could be examined more closely at a later stage. With this in mind, the working party presented a memorandum (ie CM(84)111) which stated that priority consideration should be given at the present meeting to proposals concerning the annual Programme of Intergovernmental Activities in order to enable them to have an impact as far as possible with regard to the preparation of the 1985 Programme and a full impact with regard to the 1986 Programme. The working party had in mind in particular its proposals for the reinforcement of the role of steering committees in the definition of priorities. He had noted with satisfaction that as far as the draft 1985 Programme was concerned, four out of five steering committees that had met so far had already expressed their priorities and voted on them. Finally he said that the Deputies should now consider and adopt the draft message (Appendix to CM(84)111) to the steering committees and all other committees with programming functions concerning the choice and priority rating of proposed activities. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 10 - Item 2

The Representative of the Netherlands said that his authorities greatly appreciated the work of the working party; they could in principle agree to most of the suggestions and proposals made, taking into consideration that some proposals, being more important than others, could be applied in the near future on an experimental basis. The Representative of Austria said that his authorities thought that one could benefit from the present exercise (ie examination of the working methods of the Council of Europe) to give a new political impetus to the Council of Europe's work. His authorities endorsed all the proposals submitted by the working party. Furthermore, his delegation was in favour of all measures to be introduced which would further develop relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. Consideration of the draft "message" (directive) to steering committees (Appendix to CM(84)111) The Representative of France, supported by the Representative of the United Kingdom, proposed to replace the word "message" by "directive". The Representative of Switzerland thought that it would be psychologically better if it were called a "message". The Representatives of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany said that they had no preference between the two words; their delegations welcomed the text set out at the Appendix to CM(84)111. The Representative of Norway said that whatever it was called the text presented at the Appendix to CM(84)111 would reach the steering committees who would no doubt get the message. The Secretary to the Committee said that since the early 1970s the term "message" had been used when the Committee of Ministers wanted to give instructions of a general nature to intergovernmental committees of experts. However, if it were the wish of the Committee, the term "directive" could be used. The Representative of the United Kingdom proposed that the word "request" in the second line of paragraph 2 be replaced by "direct", so that that sentence would read as follows: "The Committee of Ministers has endorsed ... and accordingly directs...". The Representative of Norway, supported by the Representative of Switzerland, said that the steering committees should be asked to express their priorities on their activities rather than voting on them. Recently the Steering Committee on Intra-European Migration (CDMG) had expressed its priorities on its activities rather than taking a vote. Votes on activities were, more often than not, inconclusive and did not truly reflect the preferences of steering committees nor did they provide any indications to the Committee of Ministers. CONFIDENTIAL - 11 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

The Secretary to the Committee said that the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 of the Directive constituted a first step towards the inclusion of an activity in the draft Programme. The meeting reports which should mention the results of the vote on the activitiy proposed for inclusion would, needless to say, enable the Committee of Ministers to judge the degree of support for each activity. Establishing an order of priority among the activities proposed for inclusion in the draft Programme would be a second step for the steering committees, as requested under the second sub-paragraph. Following the adoption of the Directive, the Secretariat would design a uniform system whereby all expert committees would vote on the inclusion of activities and establish their priorities among those activities in the same way. He said that it would not be advisable to impose strict rules on steering committees at that stage. The Representative of Liechtenstein endorsed the views expressed by the Secretary to the Committee. The Representative of Switzerland thought that the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 was sufficient and that there was no need for the first sub-paragraph. The Representative of the United Kingdom, supported by the Representative of Belgium and referring to paragraph 50 of CM(84)55, expressed his agreement with the conclusion reached by the working party and reiterated the view that meeting reports should mention the votes on the proposed activities which would enable the Committee of Ministers to judge the degree of support for each activity. As had been reported by the Secretariat at the 369th meeting, some of the steering committees had already voted on their proposed activities and had given clear indications to the Committee of Ministers. Voting on activities was not the same thing as listing of priorities. He was therefore in favour of retaining the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 2. The Representative of Switzerland wondered what would happen if a steering committee were to take a decision to include a series of activities in the work programme and to establish priorities among them and if the Committee of Ministers subsequently decided to delete some of them. What would be the reaction of steering committees in such circumstances? The Representative of Belgium said that every steering committee thought that its programme was the most important one; the system proposed in the Directive would enable the Committee of Ministers to preserve its freedom not to follow the priorities set by steering committees. It was the Committee of Ministers which should have the final say on the Programme of Intergovernmental Activities of the Organisation. The Representative of Austria drew the Deputies' attention to possible cases where certain activities which were not of top priority might obtain the majority of the votes cast in steering committees. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 12 - Item 2

The Representative of Liechtenstein said that the working party had given some thought to such cases which had been brought to their attention by the chairmen of the steering committees. It was for this reason that the working party wanted steering committees to take a stand on each activity and to vote, and subsequently to establish priorities among the proposed activities which would facilitate the comparison of all activities proposed by the steering committees. The Representative of Italy thought that paragraph 4 of the draft Directive was rather vague. He failed to understand how the Committee of Ministers could, on the basis of the application of the measures laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3, set clear priorities if, say, only a limited number of delegations insisted on the inclusion of certain activities in the Programme. In such circumstances would there be a "gentleman's agreement"? The Head of Plan and Programme Division recalled that in conformity with the relevant provisions of Resolution (76)3, the steering committees were required to indicate to the Secretary General the inclusion of their activities in the draft Programme of Intergovernmental Activities. The Chairman noted that the draft Directive as amended was adopted by the Deputies. Points evaluation system for the priority assessment (Paragraphs 46-48 of CM(84)55) Before the opening of discussions on the "points evaluation system" (see paragraphs 46-48 of CM(84)55), the Chairman recalled the statement made by the Secretary General on this matter (see above). The Representative of Norway recalled that priority rating had been used when the draft Second Medium Term Plan was under consideration in 1980 and that the Deputies had voted on the various objectives contained therein. The Representative of Liechtenstein said that the inspiration to propose a points evaluation system had come mainly from the first experience referred to by the Representative of Norway which had its disadvantages; it had been noted that delegations had a tendency to attribute high priority to most of the Objectives without making a real choice. The Representative of Switzerland said that the proposal set out in paragraph 46 should be introduced on an experimental basis and given further consideration with a view to its further improvement after a certain period of time. CONFIDENTIAL - 13 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

The Representative of Austria also expressed his agreement with the proposal of the working party. With regard to the procedure to be followed, he said that the working party, together with the Secretariat, should elaborate the main guidelines of the system in order to allow for its implementation as soon as possible. In reply to the Representative of Belgium, the Head of Plan and Programme Division said that it would be difficult to introduce a points evaluation system in 1984 in view of the fact that the work on the draft Programme of Intergovernmental Activities and the draft Budget for 1985 were already under way; most of the steering committees had already held their meetings, at which they had proposed their activities for 1985. Many committees had voted on activities or indicated priorities in different ways. It would be advisable first to ask the steering committees to make their choices, thus making a technical evaluation, and to record their votes and their priorities in the same way before introducing a points evaluation system in order to get a clear picture before the discussion of the draft Programme by the Committee of Ministers. The Chairman noted that there would be no decision of principle on this matter at the present meeting in particular in the light of the statement made by the Secretary General. The Representatives of the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Federal Republic of Germany and Liechtenstein said that they would have liked this system to be operational this year. The Representative of Sweden thought that it would be advisable to take into account the views expressed by the Secretary General on the proposed points evaluation system. There were in fact certain practical arrangements to be made before implementing the proposed system. The Representative of Austria failed to understand the reason why priority assessment by steering committees should be linked with the points evaluation system. The Chairman said that it would be prudent to resume consideration of this proposal at one of the forthcoming meetings of the Deputies. The working party, in close collaboration with the Secretariat, could give further consideration to this matter in order to propose the necessary arrangements for its implementation. The Representative of Austria said that the Deputies should resume consideration of this proposal if possible at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels). Other aspects of the Annual Programme of Intergovernmental Activities As regards paragraph 52 of CM(84)55, the Head of Plan and Programme Division said that the Secretary General already expressed his views on priorities among the proposed activities in the yearly documents on preliminary budget prospects in the introduction to CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 14 - Item 2 the draft Programme of Intergovernmental Activities and in the introduction to each area of activities in this draft programme; in fact he had done so the previous year and the draft Programme for 1985 would also contain his views on priorities. In respect of paragraph 53 of CM(84)55, in reply to the Representative of Belgium, the Representative of Liechtenstein said that the Committee of Ministers had in the past discussed the possibility of introducing a budgetary package system with a view to delegating some decisions to steering committees. However this proposal had not been retained. Referring to Paragraph 54 (CM(84)55), the Representative of Switzerland said that holding a separate discussion devoted especially to the draft Programme of Intergovernmental Activities could be accomplished with the introduction of a system of rapporteur groups composed of Permanent Representatives. Such a system would no doubt ease the task of the Deputies when they held discussions on the draft Programme as distinct from the subsequent discussion of the budget. He recalled that during the discussion of the 1984 Budget his delegation had proposed reducing the amount of budgetary appropriations for one activity in order to increase that for another. However, this had not been possible as each activity was considered in isolation. If a group of rapporteurs had examined this proposal, it would have had more chance. In respect of Paragraph 55 (CM(84)55), the Representative of Belgium said that the proposed activities should be as concrete as possible. The Head of Plan and Programme Division said that the Secretariat would ensure that the changes proposed to the presentation of the Programme would be introduced progressively. Referring to Paragraph 56 (CM(84)55), the Representative of Sweden, supported by the Representatives of Belgium and Liechtenstein, said that it would be most useful, in so far as Vote II was concerned, if an estimate could be given in the draft Programme of the Vote I expenditure implications of each activity. What was needed was not the "cost of each Field" but further Information concerning the cost of each activity. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed doubts about the necessity of introducing such a system. For six years, he had himself been involved in his own administration in similar work, which had proved to be difficult and led to arbitrary judgments. The Representative of the United Kingdom, supported by the Representative of Switzerland, recalled that the proposal made by the working party had originally come from the Budget Committee; estimates of the Vote I expenditure implications of each activity would be extremely useful for the Committee of Ministers to decide whether or not to continue an activity. At present, the Committee of Ministers had no indication whatsoever of the Vote I expenditure implications of activities. CONFIDENTIAL - 15 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

The Head of Finance Division explained that every year in the draft budget certain estimates under Vote I, and specifically expenditure on permanent staff and, in part, on temporary staff, were broken down by the eight fields of activity of the intergovernmental programme. More exact and detailed information about the effects of the implementation of the Programme of Activities on other Vote I expenditure could be provided. It would however amount to only indicative evaluations and not precise costings as it was virtually impossible to say to exactly what extent certain expenditure was attributable to implementation of the work programme, at least not without introducing a system for breaking down such expenditure by activitiy, which would be very complicated and involve a great deal of work. To give an example, how could one break down by activity the share of the staff costs of the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers and the cost of the meetings of the Committee attributable to consideration of the work programme? At all events, it hardly seemed reasonable to break down certain common expenditure such as, for example, the cost of maintaining and running the buildings. Finally, he explained that it would be a mistake to think that not including an activity in the work programme would lead to Vote I being automatically reduced by the sums quoted for the activity concerned as being its implication on the Vote I estimates. Vote I included, at least to a certain extent, fixed expenditure which did not vary in strict proportion to variations in the number of work programme activities. The Head of Plan and Programme Division said that his Division was composed of 6 staff members in all and it would be difficult for them to provide estimates of Vote I expenditure implications of each activity appearing in the draft Programme. The Representative of Austria understood the views expressed by the Head of Finance Division. However, he thought that a "cost-efficiency" analysis might be useful if the Secretariat provided an estimate of Vote I expenditure implications of activities. The Representative of France, supported by the Representative of the United Kingdom, said that the proposal made by the working party was not revolutionary; it was normal practice in national administrations. The Secretariat could consider the possibilities of introducing the system progressively. Transmission of "Assessment of certain Council of Europe Treaties" (CM(84)129) to the Assembly The Representatives of Belgium and Austria said that their delegations raised no objection to the transmission of this document to the Assembly. Written Questions submitted to the Committee of Ministers by members of the Assembly The Secretary to the Committee said that since the first reading of the report of the working party at the 369th meeting there had been two developments with regard to Written Questions tabled by individual members of the Assembly. First, at their 370th meeting (April 1984, item 23), when the Deputies had examined, at B level, CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 16 - Item 2

Written Questions No. 267, 269, 270, 271 and 274 by Mr. Ramirez on the "cultural and social problems of populations of nomadic origin", they had agreed to examine at their 374th meeting (June 1984 - A and B levels), on the basis of a Secretariat paper, the problem of a general character raised by Written Questions to the Committee of Ministers tabled by individual members of the Assembly and concerning directly one individual member State. The Secretariat study on this question would be prepared and submitted to the Deputies at one of their meetings in the autumn of this year for consideration at A level. Secondly, during the presentation of the Statutory Report of the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly by Mr Ellemann-Jensen, the then Chairman of the Committee of Ministers had been asked by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg "whether the Committee of Ministers would ensure that Written Questions submitted to the Committee by members of the Assembly are answered expeditiously and at least before the questioners cease to be members of the Assembly by reason of not standing for re-election to their national parliaments". Finally, referring to the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 94 of CM(84)55, the Secretary to the Committee said that the Deputies would have to give further consideration to the proposal made by the working party to align the procedure for answering Written Questions on that used for oral questions, ie Written Questions would be addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers who would reply on his own responsibility either in writing or orally at an Assembly part-session. The Representative of the United Kingdom said that the question put by Sir Geoffrey was one of a substantial nature and had been inspired by the fact that the Written Question tabled by Mr. Grieve, a former member of the Assembly, on the Water Pollution Convention had not been given an interim reply for more than 2 years owing to the lack of full information on the matters raised. He thought the time had come to devise a system whereby the Deputies could give an interim reply to Written Questions tabled by members of the Assembly. The Representative of Austria expressed his agreement with the Representative of the United Kingdom. The Chairman said that a decision could be taken at the present meeting in order to make sure that Written Questions submitted to the Committee of Ministers by members of the Assembly should not be left without a reply for a period of more than 6 months after they had been communicated to the Committee, and to instruct the Secretariat to call the attention of the Deputies to Written Questions to which, for any reason, a reply of substance could not be given within that period by submitting a draft holding reply in good time for its adoption before the expiry of the 6-month period. The Representative of Turkey had no objection to the Chairman's summing up on this matter. However he pointed out that the rules governing the adoption of replies to Written Questions should also be applicable to the adoption of draft holding replies. CONFIDENTIAL - 17 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

The Chairman agreed with the Representative of Turkey. Relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly (CM(84)55, paragraphs 81-106) The Representative of Belgium, referring to the proposal made by the working party under paragraph 5(c) of CM(84)111 concerning the transmission of the working party's report to the Assembly, said that his delegation was opposed to forwarding the report of the working party to the Assembly in view of the fact that its consideration had not been completed by the Deputies. The Chairman said that the question of the transmission of the reports of the Deputies' working parties on the role of the Council of Europe and on the working methods would be discussed under item 6(a) ("meeting of the Assembly's Standing Committee") of the present meeting. The Representative of Sweden, in his capacity as Chairman of the working party, recalled that so far only a few delegations had spoken and made formal reservations on the various proposals made by the working party in its report; certain delegations had made reservations with regard to the working party's proposal concerning the representation of the Assembly in intergovernmental committees of experts, and some others had made reservations on the relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. He expressed the hope that those delegations which had made reservations would explain what they were. Furthermore, if there were no other comments from those who had not yet expressed their views, he would assume that they approved the proposals made by the working party. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany recalled the statement he had made at the 369th meeting and said that his authorities were, on the whole, satisfied with the report of the working party on the working methods. The Representative of Belgium had doubts about increasing the frequency of meetings between the President of the Assembly and the Deputies (paragraph 86(a)). His delegation was not in favour of the proposals made in paragraphs 86(b) and (c) (more frequent invitations to committee chairmen or rapporteurs; more frequent participation of the Deputies at committee meetings). The Chairman noted that in para. 86(b) the working party had referred to the possibility of inviting Assembly rapporteurs or the chairmen of Assembly committees to an exchange of views and that the implementation of the proposed system for rapporteur groups composed of Permanent Representatives would probably stimulate greater use of this, form of co-operation. The Representative of Belgium said that the establishment of a system of rapporteur groups had not yet been fully considered by the Deputies. His delegation also had doubts about that system. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 18 - Item 2

The Representative of Switzerland thought that several meetings between the President of the Assembly and the Deputies would not add much to the single annual meeting which took place regularly and was most useful. On the other hand, contacts between the Bureaux of the Ministers' Deputies and the Assembly could prove very fruitful, provided that such meetings were prepared carefully. He was not opposed to the participation of Assembly rapporteurs and/or committee chairmen in meetings of the Deputies. The Representative of Austria, in reply to the Representative of France, said that, in conformity with Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, any Minister may be represented by a Deputy at meetings of an Assembly committee, subject to agreement with that committee. He thought that a distinction had to be made between the presence of Permanent Representatives at the meetings of the Assembly committees and their right to speak. He agreed that the Permanent Representatives should seek the agreement of the Assembly committee concerned before they took the floor. However, as far as their presence was concerned, Permanent Representatives should be allowed to follow the proceedings of an Assembly committee. The Representative of Italy expressed his agreement with the Representative of Austria. However, he thought it would be advisable to approach the matter in a more realistic manner; in member States, civil servants could attend the sessions of parliamentary commissions only when they were asked to do so. How could one expect, in the Council of Europe, Permanent Representatives to attend the meetings of any one of the Assembly committees without prior agreement of the latter? To his mind the crucial point was not only the question of the Permanent Representatives' access to, and/or their presence in Assembly committees, but also one of information. The Deputies were not always fully informed of the work of Assembly committees. The Office of the Clerk of the Assembly should make a resume of various Assembly committee meetings containing only the essential points and/or decisions taken by the committee concerned. Furthermore, a communique should be issued following important meetings of Assembly committees which would then be forwarded to Permanent Representatives. The Representatives of Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany expressed their agreement with the Representative of Italy. The Representative of Turkey, supported by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Belgium, said that the Assembly of the Council of Europe had a specific character of its own; it was an international, consultative body and thus different from national parliaments. His delegation was in favour of further developing relations between the two Organs of the Organisation, it being understood that the consultative nature of the Assembly was borne in mind. CONFIDENTIAL - 19 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

The Representative of the United Kingdom agreed with the Representative of Austria that a distinction should be made between "presence" and "the right to speak" of Permanent Representatives at the meetings of Assembly committees. He said that this matter could be raised at the forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee in Oslo during the mini-session (25-29 June 1984). Furthermore, he said that it would be a good practice if all Permanent Representatives could attend the mini-session of the Assembly. The Chairman asked those delegations which so wished to transmit their written comments on this matter before the beginning of the mini-session in Oslo. With reference to Paragraph 87, the Representatives of Belgium, Turkey and Switzerland welcomed the working party's proposal to develop informal contacts between members of the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. As regards Paragraphs 88-91, the Representative of Belgium, supported by the Representative of Turkey, said that his delegation was not in favour of holding more frequent and regular meetings of the Joint Committee. He had doubts about the Joint Committee considering political issues. The Chairman noted that, with the exception of the Belgian and Turkish delegations, the rest of the Committee was favourable to the proposals made by the working party in paragraphs 88-91 of CM(84)55. In respect of Paragraphs 92-95, the Representative of Austria, supported by the Representative of Switzerland, said that it was better to give a reply to an Assembly Recommendation or to a Written Question, in which the views expresed by the majority and by the minority delegations were reflected, rather than giving no reply at all. With regard to paragraph 93, the Representative of Belgium was in favour of maintaining the unanimity system which was based on the Statute (Article 21(b)) as was indeed stated in paragraph 93. The Representative of Turkey had serious doubts about the proposal made by the working party. The adoption of replies to Assembly texts was an important question of principle. The founding fathers of the Council of Europe had been wise in this respect by introducing the unanimity rule for adopting replies to Assembly texts. Past experience had shown that sometimes even the majority could be wrong. The Chairman referred to the opinion given by the Directorate of Legal Affairs on this matter (see CM(84)55 Addendum) which was based on an interpretation of Article 21 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. The Representatives of the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany were also in favour of maintaining the present system. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 20 - Item 2

The Representative of Sweden, referring to the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 94, said that the proposal made by the working party that Written Questions should, in future, be addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, who would reply on his own responsibility either in writing or orally at an Assembly part-session, would be a practical solution to the problems encountered at present. The Representative of Turkey expressed doubts on the advisability and practicability of the working party's proposal. The Chairman of the Committee of Ministers gave his replies on his own responsibility but he also had a responsibility towards the Committee of Ministers. The Representative of Switzerland pointed out that it was difficult for the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to reply on behalf of the whole of the Committee. Furthermore, did the Assembly expect replies to be given by the Minister on his own responsibility or in his capacity as the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers? Referring to paragraph 97 of CM(84)55, the Representative of Switzerland, said that his authorities were not in favour of a general decision which would enable the Assembly to participate in all steering committees. They were favourable to the idea of considering Assembly requests for participation in intergovernmental committees on a case by case basis. The Representative of Belgium expressed his agreement with the conclusion reached by the working party in paragraph 98. However, he alerted the Committee to the risks of a cumulative process which could eventually lead to the Assembly participation in most of the steering committees, which would inevitably alter the intergovernmental nature of the Council of Europe's activities. The Representative of Cyprus said that he was in favour of the participation of the Assembly in intergovernmental committees of experts. Assembly opinions on legal texts (Paragraphs 101-104 of (CM(84)55) The Representative of the United Kingdom, said that the Conventions of the Council of Europe were intergovernmental agreements and sometimes it was difficult to reach an agreement on such texts. Very often the Assembly, when it examined legal texts that had been referred to it by the Committee of Ministers, examined and adopted, with a small majority, opinions and proposals on such texts which might be different from the spirit of the original text. He was not opposed to the practice of asking the Assembly for an opinion on a given draft legal text, however a prudent approach was necessary. The Representative of Austria said that the Deputies often complained that some of the Conventions of the Council of Europe had not obtained the necessary number of ratifications. Involving the Assembly in the preparation of legal texts would no doubt encourage Assembly members to promote their ratification at national level. One further reason for involving the Assembly in the preparation of draft legal texts was that the Assembly was represented on some of the CONFIDENTIAL - 21 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 2

steering committees such as the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) where the parliamentarians did not only participate in the meetings but could and did express their views on draft legal texts considered by the CDCJ. The Representative of Switzerland said that in principle the Committee of Ministers should always involve the Assembly in the preparation of draft legal texts. However, he drew the Deputies' attention to the fact that consulting the Assembly on such texts was a time-consuming operation. The Representative of Belgium felt that while greater attention should be given to the possibility of seeking the opinion of the Assembly on draft legal texts, he was nevertheless not in favour of involving the Assembly at an intermediate stage of a text's preparation. He was therefore opposed to the proposals put forward in paragraphs 103 and 104. The Representative of Switzerland, referring to the last sentence of paragraph 105 of CM(84)55, wondered on what basis the Assembly would express a more informed view on the appropriations to be included in the budget for the following year. The Representative of Sweden said that the informal, contacts he had had with the Assembly representatives had shown that the Assembly had no information on the budgetary prospects of the Organisation for the following year; this matter had in fact been raised at the last meeting of the Joint Committee (22 March 1984) and the Deputies had, on that occasion, promised to provide information to the Assembly on budgetary matters. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - participation of the Assembly ( paragraph12 5o fCM(84)55 ) The Representative of Belgium recalled that his country was in favour of integrating the Conferences of Specialised Ministers into the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Supported by the Representative of Switzerland, he said that he was opposed to the systematic invitation of the Assembly to participate in Conferences of Specialised Ministers. Follow-up to Conferences of Specialised Ministers (paragraphs 131-133 of CM(84)55) Referring to paragraph 132, the Representative of Belgium expressed reservations on involving the Assembly more in the actual follow-up process to Conferences of Specialised Ministers. The Representatives of Switzerland and Portugal expressed their agreement with the conclusion of the working party contained in paragraph 132. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 26 - Item 3

III.4 The Representative of Liechtenstein noted that in this paragraph and elsewhere the values and ideals of the Council of Europe were referred to but were not defined. Perhaps thought could be given to the possibility of drafting a definition which would be useful when addressing the public at large. The Representative of Italy said that in paragraph VI.1 of the report it was said that the concept of parliamentary democracy was not static and that it needed to be constantly rethought and renewed. He proposed that this matter be discussed under Chapter VI. Chapter IV - Greater cohesion among members of the Council of Europe Political dialogue The Chairman recalled that in paragraph IV.1 the working party had described "political dialogue" as exchanges of views at sessions of the Committee of Ministers, at informal meetings of Ministers, at meetings of the Deputies with the participation of experts, and at meetings of Political Directors. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that it was customary to liken the Council of Europe to a laboratory of ideas. However, he doubted whether that was so for the political field proper. Much remained to be done as far as European policy was concerned. The working party had attempted to give impetus to that aspect of the problem. The political dialogue in the Council of Europe was not as attractive as it should be. He referred in this context to the number of Foreign Ministers present at the previous Session of the Committee of Ministers and to the number of Political Directors at their own meeting. He had participated for the first time at the exchange of views at the latter meeting and the reason for its lack of appeal was that a mere exchange of information could at the present time be carried out in numerous fora and on many occasions, for example meetings between Ministers had markedly increased: bilateral meetings and multilateral meetings in the framework of the United Nations, European Political Co-operation and NATO. In his opinion the exchanges of views in the Council of Europe were something of an imposition. In general, information exchanged was already well known to participants. To stimulate interest much more needed to be done: to work for a common attitude among participants and not to avoid controversial themes. Alas, that was not always the view of the Committee of Ministers. As said in the report, the immediate "practical usefulness of the political dialogue" must be enhanced. The aims 3, 4, 5 and 6 in paragraph IV.3 were evidence of what he meant. Putting into practice those aims would increase the numbers of Ministers and Political Directors who would have the feeling of missing something if they did not come to Strasbourg. CONFIDENTIAL - 27 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Austria agreed that the immediate practical usefulness of the political dialogue in the Council of Europe should be enhanced but disagreed with the argument advanced by his German colleague. His authorities found the present exchanges of views most useful. That did not mean to say of course that further efforts should not be made to improve them. IV.3 Commenting on a remark by his Belgian colleague, the Representative of Italy said that the six aims of political dialogue set out in this paragraph were a mixture of political aims in the narrow and wide sense of the term as described in paragraphs III.4 and III.5 of the report. It could be said that aims 1 and 2 were concerned more particularly with achieving a greater degree of coherence in the various activities of the Council rather than with foreign policy considerations. The Representative of Switzerland said that the first aim had a negative dimension: avoiding western democracies growing apart, stressing the need for maintaining solidarity on the political plane and pointing to the dangers of the creation of a gap. The other five aims could be regarded as being of a positive nature, ie means of strengthening European solidarity or, as stated in the report, promoting greater cohesion among members of the Council of Europe. Aim 1 The Representative of Malta welcomed the idea behind this aim. However, progress on the Association Agreement between Malta and the Ten since 1980 had come to a standstill. He appealed to the representatives of the member States of the Ten to use their best endeavours for the Agreement to become a reality. The Representative of Belgium thought this aim difficult to implement within the 21 member States. There were already difficulties in achieving cohesion within the Ten and he would favour a less ambitious wording, perhaps stressing that "contacts between the 21 should be promoted". The Representative of Sweden, supporting the remarks made by his Belgian colleague, wondered if the word "cohesion" could not be more clearly defined. Aim 2 The Representative of Belgium expressed doubts as to whether this aim should appear in the list of aims of political dialogue. Political dialogue was not the appropriate setting to consider from a political standpoint aspects of European co-operation in particular in fields liable to increase complementarity between the Council of Europe and the Community. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 28 - Item 3

The Representative of Switzerland stressed that what was proposed was not a technical debate but discussion on a given theme from a political standpoint. His authorities considered that the Committee of Ministers provided a useful platform for discussion with the ten members of the Communities as such. The Representative of Italy drew attention to the proposal in paragraph 21 of the working party's report on working methods and the proposals contained in it which would enable the Deputies to concentrate on the political content of European co-operation as advocated by Mr. Pahr in his report on his exploratory mission (paragraph 5.5 of CM(82)202). Aim 3 The Representative of Sweden wondered what was meant exactly by the phrase "to provide pointers for the development of member States' foreign policy". He stressed the fact that his authorities could not subscribe to a proposal which would mean the elaboration of a common foreign policy within the Council of Europe. The Representative of Switzerland replied that it was for individual governments to draw their own conclusions - which may be similar to those drawn by the other governments - from exchanges of views taking place in the framework of political dialogue and it was those conclusions which would constitute pointers for the development of national foreign policy. Aim 4 The Representative of Switzerland wondered if the wording of this aim was too ambitious. She would have preferred a wording along the following lines: "permit the Committee of Ministers to discuss events in which the principles and ideals on which the Organisation is based are flagrantly violated and, if possible, to adopt a common attitude to those events". The Representative of Belgium said that common stands should be adopted wherever possible and more frequently. The Representative of Austria recalled comments made at the Deputies' 369th meeting (item 3) according to which common stands should be adopted on events where the principles and ideals on which the Organisation is based were being actively promoted. Aim 5 No comments were made. Aim 6 The Representative of Belgium said that extreme prudence should be exercised in pursuing this aim. CONFIDENTIAL - 29 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

IV.5 and IV.6 The Representative of Switzerland agreed with the conclusions of the working party that ministerial meetings should not consist merely of a series of monologues. Sensitive areas should be better identified for discussion and the Chairman of the Committee, and especially the Secretary General, who ensured continuity, had special responsibility in this respect. But member States should also make suggestions for both the formal and informal meetings of Ministers. The final agenda of ministerial meetings should be adopted at least one month before the meeting to ensure careful preparation in capitals. In his opinion the representative of the country holding the Chair or the Secretary General should supply background information which could enable the debate to concentrate on particular points. For example, the routine item "Progress of European co-operation" could be limited to two or three concrete aspects: questions dealing with European co-operation in the fields likely to increase complementarity between the Council of Europe and the European Community (culture, environment, approximation of laws) could be dealt with. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany stressed that themes for the political dialogue and especially for meetings of the political directors should also be suggested by representatives of non-Community countries. The Representative of Belgium said that political dialogue did not lead to the drawing of actual conclusions. The Representative of Italy said that political dialogue at all levels should be prepared and conducted in such a way as to increase its immediate practical usefulness. In his opinion there was much more convergence between the Ten and non-Community members than one thought. It was for the Chair to identify elements of convergence in the conclusions which he drew from the various exchanges of views. IV. 7 The Representative of Belgium, supported by the Representative of Greece, disagreed with the idea of making available background material on a non-attributable basis. Governments participating in the political dialogue should have no reason to act in a secretive way. The Chairman said that on occasion the distribution of non-papers was useful when the authors did not wish to be directly associated with the way in which the information was presented. The Representative of Switzerland agreed with this analysis. What was important was to ensure that exchanges of views were organised in the most efficient way possible. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 30 - Item 3

IV.8 The Representative of Switzerland agreed with the working party that, if possible, simultaneous discussions between Ministers and between Political Directors should be avoided. The Political Directors' themes for discussion should be concentrated on European problems and less on questions relating to the other continents, except if European democratic States had an interest in taking a common position on a particular problem, for example, on Afghanistan, Iran or the Middle East. In those cases one could perhaps try to define this common attitude. IV.9 and IV.10 The Representative of Switzerland supported the working party's proposals in these paragraphs. IV.11 The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his authorities were in favour on the principle of organising meetings of policy planners but the themes for discussion should be carefully defined beforehand. The Representative of Switzerland warmly supported this proposal. Such meetings would enable a fruitful exchange of views on questions relating in general to the future shape of European co-operation and perhaps problems facing the Council of Europe in particular. The Representative of Austria also wished to support the proposal. The Representative of Belgium felt that that sort of meeting was not without interest for the long term, but the subjects for discussion should be clearly defined beforehand. To his mind a single meeting each year should suffice. The Representative of Luxembourg attached less importance to this proposal than others. He thought that the exercise might be of a more academic nature and give rise to fewer practical results. It seemed unlikely that his authorities would be in a position to send a representative to any meetings organised. Meetings of desk officers The Representative of Switzerland said that meetings of policy planners could be supplemented by meetings of Council of Europe desk officers. In his opinion there were two possibilities: a meeting of desk officers amongst themselves or a meeting of desk officers and Permanent Representatives. These meetings would greatly facilitate links between capitals with a view to a certain harmonisation of various questions. CONFIDENTIAL - 31 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Austria thought there might be a risk of duplication between the roles of Permanent Representatives and desk officers. The Representative of Belgium disapproved of this proposal. It was for Permanent Representatives to represent their governments' interests in the Committee of Ministers. The Representative of Sweden said that one possibility for desk officers to meet each other would be on the occasion of ministerial sessions when a number of them accompanied their Ministers to Strasbourg. Intergovernmental co-operation IV.12 and IV.13 The Representative of Belgium said that his authorities were of the opinion that the Committee of Ministers should exercise real authority over the drafting of the annual programmes of activities. The role of governments should indeed be reinforced. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his authorities attached much importance to the technical programme of activities but greater concentration of the programme was necessary. Previous efforts to reduce the number of activities had not been successful but these efforts should continue. One of the reasons for this was that Ministries for Foreign Affairs found it difficult to control the specific requests emanating from specialised ministries. The flood of projects to which delegations were submitted each year should be contained. Conferences of Specialised Ministers IV.14 to IV.17 The Chairman said that these paragraphs should be read in conjunction with paragraphs 128 and 131 of the report of the working party on working methods (CM(84)55). The Representative of Belgium recalled the proposal which had been put forward by his authorities at the beginning of the 1970s and which had been raised once more by the Luxembourg delegation at the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers. That was the possibility for Specialised Ministers to meet in the framework of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. His Government still saw merit in that proposal. The working party should consider the advantages and drawbacks of the proposal in greater detail. In particular the working party should look into whether it would be practical for Ministries of Foreign Affairs to ensure co-ordination. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 32 - Item 3

The Representative of Luxembourg stressed that the enhanced role of the Committee of Ministers in this field could lead to greater cohesion and coherence. As far as the Council's various activities were concerned, one possibility for co-ordinating action would be for the Deputies to study in greater depth than at present the files which were to be submitted to Conferences of Specialised Ministers. In this context the possibility of replacing Resolution (71)44 on Conferences of Specialised Ministers by another text to enable the Committee of Ministers to exercise a greater co-ordinating role should be studied. Parliamentary Assembly IV.18 to IV.22 The Representative of Austria congratulated the working party on these proposals and stressed the great political importance of the Assembly. He hoped that these proposals would help to strengthen relations between the two organs. The Representative of Belgium was much more reticent concerning the advisability of implementing the working party's proposals. In the opinion of his authorities it was necessary for the authority of the Committee of Ministers to be stressed and for the respective competences of the two organs not to be confused. According to the Statute, the Committee of Ministers was the decision-making body whereas the Assembly had a consultative role. The normal fora for joint discussions were the Joint Committee and the Colloquy. Of course the frequency of contacts could be speeded up but prudence should be exercised to ensure freedom of manoeuvre for each organ. Accordingly, he could not speak in favour of parliamentary participation in the political dialogue and he had pronounced reservations on hard and fast rules providing for the automatic consultation of the Assembly on draft Conventions. The Representative of the Netherlands could accept all the proposals put forward in these paragraphs with a preference for those contained in paragraphs IV.20 and IV.21. The frequency of colloquies should not however be increased. The Representative of Italy, referring to paragraph IV.22, stressed the importance of members of the Assembly propagating knowledge of the Council of Europe in their own countries. He would return to some practical methods of improving liaison between the two organs in the framework of the discussion on the report of the Deputies' working party on working methods. CONFIDENTIAL - 33 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Switzerland supported the views expressed by his Austrian colleague. Advocating an open attitude to interpreting the Statute as far as relations between the two organs were concerned, he said the situation had changed in the 35 years since the Statute had been adopted. Reciprocal information of the two organs could indeed be improved and contacts developed and intensified. Informal, direct contacts were often more useful than exchanges of correspondence. It should not be forgotten that the parliamentary arm of the Organisation had special significance in European co-operation as carried out in the Council of Europe. The Representative of Luxembourg warned against giving too much importance to the Assembly at the expense of co-operation between governments. Chapter V - Relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities V.1 The Representative of Austria said that in relations between the two institutions the aim should not be to circumscribe their respective competences or to impede the work of the Communities, but to define close and pragmatic co-operation and to fix this co-operation on an institutional plane. Terms such as "synchronisation" and "co-operation", which had been mentioned at the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers, were appropriate but concrete measures should nevertheless be adopted. His authorities were indeed in favour of increased contacts and improved mutual information of each other's activities, not only to avoid duplication but also to ensure that activities of interest to a wider circle of States than the ten members of the Communities were carried out in the wider circle of the 21 insofar as this was possible. His authorities would welcome it if this flexible approach would serve as a guideline for relations with the Communities. The Representative of Italy said that a certain parallelism existed between the work of the Council of Europe and the European Communities. The proposals made by the working party were designed to ensure that each institution was fully aware of activities in the other of mutual interest. This crossflow of information would in his opinion greatly facilitate decision-making in each institution and in member governments. The Representative of Luxembourg recalled the remarks made by his Minister at the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers and said that the Council of Europe should not pay too much attention to fears of encroachment by the European Communities. It should rather exploit to the full those areas where it had special experience. The cultural field was a particularly good example to which his Prime Minister had already drawn attention in the past. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 34 - Item 3

The Representative of Sweden agreed with the need for complementarity between the two institutions and the avoidance of competition. However, he had ascertained in reading this chapter that it leaned somewhat towards the thinking of the European Communities. The differences in the respective decision-making machinery could not entirely explain the "leads and lags" between the two institutions. On a number of occasions the Committee of Ministers had adopted stances stating that the Council of Europe had a special role to play in certain areas; he was thinking in particular of the primary role assigned to the Council in cultural matters. He could find no reference to this in the working party's proposals. Indeed, in paragraph IV.3 the working party seemed to have accepted that certain activities of particular interest to the Council of Europe would be carried out in the Communities. Furthermore, he recalled that the question of reciprocity as far as observers were concerned had not been raised. Finally, little progress, if any, had been made by the Communities in acceding to Council of Europe Conventions. The Representative of Switzerland fully supported the working party's findings under paragraph V.1. V.2 The Representatives of Belgium and Italy said that in their countries the services responsible for the Council of Europe and those responsible for the European Communities were already part of the same administrative unit. The Representative of Italy added that familiarisation tours to the Council of Europe by national officials should be actively pursued. He drew attention in this context to the tours which were made by junior diplomats to the European Communities. V.5 The Representative of Belgium had certain doubts about the usefulness of a further exchange of letters between the competent organs of each institution. He recalled that such exchanges had not given rise to real practical results in the past and it might even be difficult to reach agreement on a further exchange. The Representative of Switzerland on the other hand thought that confirmation of the letters exchanged in 1959 would be an expression of governments' intention to exploit fully the various possibilities for co-operation set out in that exchange. The Representative of the Netherlands strongly supported the proposal for a further exchange of letters. He recalled that Mr. Noël, Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities, had been sounded out on this possibility in 1983 and had given a positive reaction. CONFIDENTIAL - 35 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Austria was also in favour of a further exchange of letters. If, however, too many problems arose in preparing a new exchange, the Committee should instead confirm the 1959 exchange and take full advantage of paragraph 7 which stated "within the framework of the present arrangement the Commission and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe may devise other practical means of co-operation". As for the content, his authorities would like to have the exchange of information between the two organisation institutionalised. The Representative of Italy advocated a pragmatic approach as far as this matter was concerned. The difficulties of agreeing on the content of the letters to be exchanged should not be underestimated. The Representative of France, although favourable to all other proposals listed in this chapter, voiced some reservations concerning the advisibility of a further exchange of letters. V.6 The Representative of Switzerland said that from the point of view of the Council of Europe, co-operation with the Commission of the European Communities should be intensified since it was for the Commission to initiate proposals and prepare draft Directives and Regulations. Accordingly, the Committee should stress its interest in representatives of the Commission taking part in the work of the Committee of Ministers at Ministerial and Deputy level. For instance, from time to time one of the Directors General of the Commission could be invited to an exchange of views on the themes of particular interest to the two institutions (for example, culture, environment, approximation of laws). The same went for ministerial sessions and the item "Progress of European co-operation": a member of the Commission could be invited for a discussion on a specific theme and perhaps even the President of the Commission could take part in an exchange of views with Ministers once a year. As for the idea of inviting the Commission to provide written comments on the draft medium-term plans and annual programmes of activities of the Council of Europe, that would help to intensify co-operation with the Commission. The Committee of Ministers could moreover consider the possibility of forwarding to the Commission comments on the latter's annual general report as provided for in Article 156 of the Rome Treaty (see points 1 and 2 of the 1959 exchange of letters). These steps would indeed permit co-ordination to be improved and contribute to the synchronisation of both institutions' work. The Representative of Switzerland added that co-operation between the Commission and the Council of Europe would be greatly facilitated if a liaison office for the Community were to be established in Strasbourg, as a counterpart of the Council of Europe's liaison office in Brussels. His authorities wished to encourage the Community to take steps in that direction. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 36 - Item 3

The Representative of Austria supported the establishment of a permanent representation of the Commission in Strasbourg and expressed the wish that the Commission would take a positive decision in this respect. He noted that the Minister for European Affairs of France, Mr. Roland Dumas, had agreed with that idea when he addressed the Deputies on 16 May 1984. The Representative of the Netherlands spoke in a similar vein. The Representative of Belgium said that this decision was to be taken by the European Communities. He expressed some doubts as to whether the Commission was ready to establish such an office. The Representative of Italy, sharing the doubts expressed by his Belgian colleague, was of the opinion that a positive decision in this respect was not indispensable. V.7 No comments were made. V.8 Stressing the importance of the widest possible application of legal instruments of the Council of Europe and of the European Communities, the Representative of Switzerland was in favour of accession by the Community to Council of Europe Conventions wherever possible and to extending certain Community achievements to all member States of the Council of Europe. The Representative of Belgium shared this view. The Representative of Italy also spoke in favour of this paragraph and invited colleagues to reflect further on how progress could be made. He referred in particular to the documents received from the Directorate of Legal Affairs on this matter which had so far not been discussed by the Committee in any detail. V.9 The Representative of Belgium had strong reservations about following up the proposals concerning discussion in COREPER of potential problems concerning activities in one institution in which the other was interested. COREPER was a closed committee and he did not see how joint discussions could be organised. The Representative of Switzerland said that it was not a question of holding joint discussions but for each committee to discuss potential problems separately and draw their own conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL - 37 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Italy expressed a similar view stressing that each Committee could reflect on problems from a political point of view. Referring to comments made at the previous meeting about the possibility of creating a liaison committee between the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and COREPER, he was of the opinion that this idea could be examined in greater detail. The Representatives of Luxembourg and Sweden supported the idea of such a liaison committee. V.10 The Representatives of Belgium, Switzerland and Italy supported the idea of joint ventures between the two institutions. Experience with European Music Year had proved that such ventures could be carried out without too much difficulty. V.11 The Representatives of Belgium and Italy were in favour of the present frequency of meetings of Political Directors, especially since those meetings had only recently started. The Representative of Italy added that he remained open to the possibility of increasing the number of meetings in the light of experience. V.12 The Representatives of Belgium and Italy were mindful of the fact that it was for the Assembly and the European Parliament to decide on their own arrangements for co-operation but nevertheless hoped that there would be a full exchange of information between the two Assemblies.

The Chairman reminded Deputies that there would be an exchange of views with Mr. Noël, Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities, in the course of their June meeting. That exchange would provide an opportunity for testing out some of the ideas contained in the working party's report, particularly that concerning a liaison committee between Strasbourg and Brussels. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 38 - Item 3 Chapter VI - Other relations in a world context The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his authorities were in favour of all the proposals made in this chapter. However, the Committee of Ministers should refrain from undertaking all the proposals at the same time. Selection was necessary, perhaps on a regional or country-by-country basis. The Representative of Switzerland spoke in favour of the efforts to strengthen links between the Council of Europe and the wider democratic community. In reply to a comment by his United Kingdom colleague, he said that all OECD countries were of course included in the democratic community and the working party had not thought it necessary, apart from what it said about that community, to deal individually with countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It went without saying that they should all be associated with the various initiatives proposed. VI.1 Referring to comments made under paragraph III.4, the Representative of Italy said that the concept of parliamentary democracy was not static; it needed to be constantly rethought and renewed in the light of changes to society. The Council of Europe provided an ideal forum for reflection on this theme and it had a special role to play in making known to the public at large the results of its reflections. VI.3 The Representative of Belgium supported the proposals concerning the Strasbourg Conference on parliamentary democracy. His authorities were however more prudent about opening up to a greater extent the Council of Europe's intergovernmental activities although progress was feasible in certain fields. As for the possibility of organising from time to time contacts between the Committee of Ministers and representatives of those countries which had made a particular contribution to the development of pluralistic democracy, they welcomed this idea, but its details needed to be worked out. The Representative of Switzerland said that the governments of democratic non-member States should be associated with the reflection on the follow-up to the Strasbourg Conference. Furthermore, Council of Europe intergovernmental activities should be thrown open in a more pragmatic way to experts of those democratic non-member countries whose governments had expressed an interest in the work of certain committees. These governments should also be encouraged in a more systematic way than hitherto to accede to Council of Europe Conventions wherever possible. The Secretary General had an important role to play in this respect. VI.4 The Representative of France said that the Committee should tread carefully in developing links with countries outside the democratic community. CONFIDENTIAL - 39 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Belgium shared that view; any possibilities for co-operation lay essentially in the technical field. He felt that the question could be considered by the experts in the framework of political dialogue. VI.6 The Representative of Switzerland said that the Secretary General should continue his contacts in non-member States and with international organisations and keep the Committee of Ministers informed of his contacts. As for information policy, it should be improved with regard to third countries and other international institutions with a view to making the Organisation's achievements more widely known. VI.8 The Representative of France said that his authorities were in favour of opening up the Council of Europe to a greater extent to the outside world; the proposals concerning the Third World were particularly timely. The Representative of Belgium was also in favour of the proposal in this paragraph concerning the Third World; the initiative taken by the Assembly in organising the Lisbon Conference on "North/South: Europe's role" was a step in the right direction. VI.9 and VI.10 The Representative of Belgium expressed his full support for the proposals contained in these paragraphs. VI.11 The Representative of Belgium considered that links with Islamic countries could be conceived of as relations between civilisations. On the other hand, at the technical level he had his doubts.

The Chairman, summing up, said that the Secretariat should analyse the views expressed at the Deputies' 369th meeting (March 1984, item 3), at the present meeting and during the exchange of views with Mr. Emile Noël, Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities, during their 374th meeting in June 1984, and draw up, in close contact with the members of the working party, a working document designed to facilitate further discussion of the working party's report. It could also try to identify those points which could lend themselves to inclusion in a draft Resolution to be adopted by the Ministers at their 75th Session in November 1984. The points which did not warrant submission to Ministers could perhaps be CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 40 - Item 3

left to the Deputies to take appropriate decisions on. He asked the Secretariat to make an effort to distribute the working document in the course of July to ensure that delegations could give their considered opinion on it at their 375th meeting in September 1984. Sufficient time would then be available for the drafting of a draft Resolution to be adopted by Ministers. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels). CONFIDENTIAL - 41 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 4

4. HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTIONS 2nd Interim report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party (Concl(84)369/4, CM(84)75)

This item was discussed under the chairmanship of the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany in his capacity as Vice-Chairman. The Representative of France in his capacity as Chairman of the working party on human rights questions, commented on the working party's 2nd interim report CM(84)75 and more particularly on the conclusions in paragraphs 6 - 9. He drew special attention to the budgetary funds allocated to the human rights sector, emphasising that acknowledgement of the need to give political impetus should be accompanied by corresponding resources. Two of the working party's proposals merited singling out: the proposal to make the Council of Europe a centre for co-ordination and exchange of information between the European Ombudsmen, and the proposals concerning the importance to be attached to human rights publications, in particular the Digest of Case-Law relating to the European Convention on Human Rights. Regarding the proposal that the working party act as rapporteur group for human rights questions, this was a matter that could be considered further during discussion of the methods working party's report. In conclusion, he proposed that the working party be authorised to continue its work along the lines indicated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the report. This primarily entailed finding ways, in addition to the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights, the idea of which had already been agreed to, of giving a fresh political impetus to the Council of Europe's human rights activities. The Representative of Italy thanked the Chairman of the working party for his report and for his comments. He went on to refer to two ideas put forward by Mr Roland Dumas, French Minister for European Affairs, when he had come to expound France's ideas concerning its chairmanship: the first concerned the impetus to be given to the European Convention on Torture and the other the setting-up of a corps of "international guardians of human rights". He asked whether these could be followed up either by the working party or by the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 42 - Item 4

The Representative of France thought it preferable at that stage to work through the CDDH, but had no objection to the working party also dealing with these matters. He pointed out that the idea of a Corps of international guardians of human rights had originally come from Chancellor Kreisky. The Representative of Austria also thanked the Chairman and the Secretary of the working party. His authorities attached the utmost importance to this activity. Some progress had been made on publications, as the first volume of the Digest of Case-Law had come out and the Committee of Ministers had just given approval for the publication on human righs and the police. Regarding the role which the Council of Europe might play as a centre for co-ordination between Ombudsmen, he hoped that concrete measures would be taken. Allowance should be made in the next Medium Term Plan for follow-up to the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights which had been agreed to at the 74th Session. He had no objection to the working party considering the problems raised by Article 32, 54 and 57 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only after careful legal analysis by the experts, as suggested by the Secretary General at the 369th meeting (March 1984, item 4). The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany referred to the statement made by his Minister, Mr Möllemann, at the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers asserting that his authorities attached great importance to human rights. They hoped that the Ministerial Conference would be a success and wished the working party to be involved in preparations for it. Acceptance of Article 25 of the Convention by the courtries which had not yet done so would be a step forward. The German authorities were pleased that the first volume of the Digest of Case-Law had now appeared and hoped that the following volumes would be published shortly. Regarding the working party's proposals, the German authorities were in favour of the Committee of Ministers speaking out on human rights questions, as they had done recently in the Sakharov case. From this point of view, the rapporteurs could be useful. Similarly, they agreed to a meeting of Ombudsmen at the Council of Europe to exchange information. The Representative of spain said that his authorities were particularly interested in the Ombudsmen proposal, pointing out that some countries had regional or even local ombudsmen. They also wished the Secretariat to be given the necessary funds and manpower for publishing the digest of case-law compendium. Lastly, he asked whether a date had been fixed for the meeting of Senior Officials entrusted with the preparation of the Ministerial Conference. CONFIDENTIAL - 43 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 4

In reply to this question, the Director of Human Rights said that after soundings among delegations the date of 28-29 June had been chosen. The Representative of Ireland expressed his authorities' appreciation of the working party's report, whose conclusions they were able to accept. He wished to draw attention to the problem of shortage of space in the Human Rights building, which caused great difficulties for members of the Commission, judges of the Court and government representatives. Funds were urgently needed for enlarging the building. The time seemed propitious moreover since repayments of the loans for the construction of the main building would be diminishing from 1985 onwards, as could be seen from the draft budget. He suggested that the working party be asked to give this matter some thought. The Representative of the United Kingdom thought that the problem of shortage of space in the Human Rights Building could be solved by moving the Directorate of Human Rights to the main building. The Secretary General said that he was aware of the difficulties that had been mentioned. There was also a shortage of some 30 offices in the main building, so there could be no question of moving the Directorate of Human Rights. Above all, however, it was essential to preserve the unity of the Secretariat working in the human rights field. Nor must it be forgotten that the Human Rights Directorate did not only deal with intergovernmental work but also worked for the Committee of Ministers in connection with its functions as one of the Convention's supervisory bodies. The possibility of enlarging the Human Rights Building was currently being investigated. He proposed to supply further information on this point during a forthcoming Dialogue. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the 2nd interim report of the working party on human rights questions (CM(84)75); 2. agreed to bear the interim report in mind a. during the preparation of future Intergovernmental Programmes of Activities and Budgets, b. during their further consideration of the report of the working party on the working methods in the Council of Europe; 3. asked the working party on human rights questions to continue its work along the lines indicated in its 2nd interim report and in the light of the discussion at the present meeting.

CONFIDENTIAL - 45 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 5

5. CULTURAL CO-OPERATION Oral progress report by the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies' working party (Concl(84)369/5)

The Representative of Switzerland, Chairman of the working party on cultural co-operation, said that since his previous oral report to the Deputies, the working party had met four times. After an initial phase of examination of material, discussion and analysis, the working party had agreed on the main thrust of its report and had now begun drafting. The next meetings would be devoted to discussion of texts, but it was not impossible that, in view of the complexity and scope of the subject, the working party might have to re-open the discussion on some points of substance. He took this opportunity of reporting also on his attendance as Committee of Ministers representative at the IVth Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs in Berlin on 22-25 May. In the course of the Conference, he had informed the Ministers of culture about the work of the Deputies' working party. Basically he had explained that the working party had been prompted by criticisms of cultural co-operation as practised in the Council of Europe. In addition, the development of cultural activities in the Communities and a series of developments in the field of communications technology had led the Council of Europe to review its own role in the cultural sector. The working party's assignment was a difficult one; its report had to meet a whole range of requirements, of which the Chairman of the working party had mentioned the following in Berlin: - cultural co-operation in the Council of Europe must be more efficient and produce tangible results with a real impact; - it should be appreciated by a wider public and not be couched in esoteric language understood only by a restricted circle of intellectuals and the initiated; - it should take the form of simple programmes that were easy to understand, manage, evaluate and control; - cultural activities should be angled towards quality considerations, furthering the development of personal creative faculties and seeking to pave the way towards the solution of major problems of the day; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 46 - Item 5

- programmes should be politically feasible and in line with governments' intentions. In this connection, he had pointed out to the Ministers in Berlin that it was sometimes difficult to know through which channels governments' intentions were expressed. Was it through the resolutions of the Conferences of Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs, through the programme of the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) or through discussions in the Committee of Ministers? The three did not always coincide; - lastly, the Council of Europe's cultural co-operation policy should be pursued in constant touch with what was going on in the Communities. The working party was picking its way through these requirements. One could already identify two trends that had emerged, among others, during the working party's discussions: First, in the view of some, culture in the narrow sense should account for a greater proportion of programmes, either by limiting education within the present appropriations or by substantially increasing the resources made available for "cultural" activities. Secondly, it was felt that the Committee of Ministers should have more influence over the CDCC programme. The Secretary General made the following statement: "As I myself was present, as Secretary to the Conference, at the 4th Conference of European Ministers of Culture, I should like to add a few remarks to Ambassador Raeber's report. At this stage, I shall confine my comments to 3 points: I think I can say without exaggeration that the Conference was a great success. From the point of view of organisation, attendance and the quality of debate, the Conference went extremely well. I would mention in particular the actual presence of 19 Ministers or State Secretaries. An exceptional number of journalists covered the Conference from beginning to end and subsequent press coverage had been remarkable. I should like here, through Ambassador Hampe, to thank the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany and the City of Berlin, who ensured that the Conference was a practical success. I shall not speak today of the results of the Conference which, as you know, dealt with highly topical subjects. You will be asked shortly to examine the resolutions adopted. What I should like to emphasise today is the political importance which delegations gave this conference by once again confirming the Council of Europe's role in cultural co-operation. CONFIDENTIAL - 47 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 5

I myself, when I addressed the conference at the ceremonial sitting, stated my point of view, with which you are familiar, as regards cultural co-operation. I stressed that the Conference of European Ministers of Culture from the 23 states which have signed the Cultural Convention represents the widest and hence the most useful framework for decision-making in this field. This conference can rely continuously on the CDCC and the Cultural Fund as instruments with which to implement the policies it decides on. Repeating that activities that concern all the 23 ought not be confined in application to the Ten, I spoke out in favour of co-ordination between the Council of Europe and the Communities: choosing in each case the best place for particular activities. The Ministers in Berlin confirmed this, the Council of Europe's role. They wished co-operative links between the Council and the Communities to be strengthened in future by means of joint projects like European Music Year, which was repeatedly held up as a model. They called upon the Council of Europe to continue - and I quote Mr Jack Lang - the initiatives it has been taking in recent years in favour of increasingly inventive and creative action. In Berlin, I felt a certain breath of hope. The Ministers' speeches expressed great expectations as regards the possibilities of increasing and developing cultural co-operation; in the media field in particular, they propose expanding the Council of Europe's activities. I firmly hope that when these recommendations have been put into practice and turned into items in the Council's action programme, you will examine these suggestions in a positive and constructive spirit." The Chairman thanked the Secretary General and the Chairman of the working party for their reports. He was sure that the presence of the Representative of Switzerland at the Berlin Conference had benefited the Organisation and thanked him for the commitment and efficiency with which he was presiding over the efforts of the working party on cultural co-operation.

CONFIDENTIAL - 49 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 6a

6. OTHER BUSINESS a. Meeting of the Assembly's Standing Committee (Oslo, 28 juin 1984)

The Chairman said that the President of the Assembly had written to him on 18 May 1984 inviting him to take part in the meeting of the Standing Committee in Oslo on 28 June 1984 during the Assembly's mini-session. In his letter the President of the Assembly had suggested that the exchange of views at the meeting of the Standing Committee be devoted mainly to the discussion on relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly and that the Standing Committee be informed of the proposals made by the Ministers' Deputies' working parties on this subject. He had also suggested that the Chairmen of the working parties and perhaps other members could accompany the Chairmen, it being understood that other members of the Committee would of course be most welcome. Furthermore, the President of the Assembly, in a subsequent discussion with him, had expressed the wish that the Deputies forward to him the reports of their working parties on working methods and on the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification. The Chairman noted that there was agreement on decision 1 below. As regards the advisability of forwarding the working parties' reports to the President of the Assembly, the Chairman noted that some delegations had argued in favour of this suggestion. They had said that it was an excellent means of furthering the dialogue between both organs and continued the process which had started with the adoption of the van Eekelen report on European co-operation in the 1980s. Furthermore, parliamentarians were aware of the existence of the working parties' reports and could misinterpret a decision not to forward them to the President of the Assembly. Other members of the Committee had stressed the fact that the working parties' reports were internal documents designed to help the Deputies in drawing up recommendations for the attention of their Ministers. It would be premature to divulge the content of the reports at that stage, especially as some of the proposals contained in them would not necessarily be adopted. Indeed, it could be embarrassing if questions were subsequently put to the Committee about the rejection of some of the ideas contained in the reports. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 50 - Item 6a

Following a discussion on these points in which various other possibilities were suggested (transmission of extracts from the reports, transmission of a summary of the reports and oral presentation of the content of the reports), the Chairman noted that there was agreement on decision 2 below (14 votes in favour and 5 abstentions). The Chairman specified that in the reply to the President of the Assembly forwarding the reports in question he would state that the Deputies had not concluded their examination of them and that they could not therefore be regarded as reflecting the position of the Committee of Ministers, nor could the participation of members of the Committee in a dialogue with members of the Assembly on the reports commit the Committee of Ministers or individual member governments. Furthermore, the reports should not be made available to the public, and members of the Assembly should be asked to consider them as being confidential. Finally, it was understood that the exchange of views in the Standing Committee would not be a public event. Decisions The Deputies 1. asked their Chairman and the Chairman of their working party on working methods and the Permanent Representative of Switzerland, member of their working party on the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification, to attend the Assembly's Mini-Session in Oslo, particularly with a view to participating in the exchange of views organised by the Assembly's Standing Committee on 28 June 1984 on relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly; 2. asked their Chairman to forward the reports of those working parties to the President of the Assembly with a view to preparing that exchange of views, it being understood that they would not be made available to the public. CONFIDENTIAL - a1 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373

APPENDIX I

373RD MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (A level)

Strasbourg, 28 (3 pm) - 30 May 1984

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the agenda (Notes No. 4966 of 24.5.84) 2. The working methods in the Council of Europe - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party - (Concl(84)369/2, CM(84)55 and Addendum and 111 of 18.5.84) (Notes No. 4967 of 24.5.84) 3. Role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party - (Concl(84)369/3, CM(84)63, CM(84)PV 1 prov.) (Notes No. 4968 of 24.5.84) 4. Human Rights Questions - 2nd Interim Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party - (Concl(84)369/4, CM(84)75) (Notes No. 4969 of 24.5.84) 5. Cultural Co-operation - Oral progress report by the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies' working party - (Concl(84)369/5) (Notes No. 4970 of 24.5.84) 6. Other business a. Meeting of the Assembly's Standing Committee (Oslo, 28 June 1984) (Notes No. 5022 of 24.5.84)

CONFIDENTIAL - a3 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 APPENDIX II (item 2) DIRECTIVE FROM THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO THE STEERING COMMITTEES AND ALL OTHER COMMITTEES WITH PROGRAMMING FUNCTIONS CONCERNING THE CHOICE AND PRIORITY RATING OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

1. The Committee of Ministers is presently examining the report of one of its working parties, which, as a follow-up to discussions held at the 71st Ministerial Session, had been given terms of reference to examine and make recommendations concerning the working methods in the Council of Europe. As regards the Annual Intergovernmental Programme of Activities, the working party identified the need for a more rigorous definition of priorities with a view to concentrating the Intergovernmental work of the Council of Europe on the most important questions. In this connection the working party proposed, inter alia, that the role of steering committees (and of other committees with programming functions) in the definition of priorities should be reinforced. 2. The Committee of Ministers has endorsed the working party's proposals on this matter and accordingly directs steering committees and other committees to which this Directive is addressed henceforth to respect the following procedures when proposing activities for Inclusion in the Annual Programme of Activities: - Committee members should take a clear stand on each activity and a vote should be taken. Meeting reports should mention the votes on the activities proposed for inclusion, which will enable the Committee of Ministers to judge the degree of support for each activity; - an order of priority should be given for the activities proposed for inclusion. Several factors might be involved in the choice of priorities - intrinsic importance, urgency, relative cost, etc. - and committees should give any explanations they consider appropriate in order to clarify their choice. 3. The Committee of Ministers would also take this opportunity to remind committees of the general criteria governing the choice of activities set out in the Appendix to its Resolution (74)33 on the planning and programming of the intergovernmental activities of the Council of Europe; they retain their full value and should always be kept in mind when possible activities are examined. The requirement that "the work undertaken must be directed towards results of practical value for member states and their residents" (point 3 of the Appendix) deserves particular mention, as does the requirement that "an adequate relationship should exist between the means and methods employed on the one hand and the purpose of each activity on the other" (point 4 of the Appendix). 4. Application of the above measures will greatly facilitate the task of the Committee of Ministers when it is called upon to examine and adopt the Annual Intergovernmental Programme of Activities and in particular will help the Committee to set clear priorities.

Confidential CM/Del/Concl(84)374

CONCLUSIONS OF THE 374th MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (held in Strasbourg from 14 to 22 June 1984)

CONFIDENTIAL - i - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

SUMMARY Page 1. Adoption of the Agenda 7 Political and General Policy Questions 2. Committee of Ministers - Follow-up to the 74th Session 11 3. Exchange of views with the Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities 13 4. United Nations - Exchange of views 15 5. Balanced development in Europe 17 6. Situation in Cyprus 19 7. Conferences of Specialised Ministers 21 Human Rights 8. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Cosans - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 23 9. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Foti and others - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 25 10. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Silver and others - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 27 11. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luberti - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 29 12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Goddi - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 31 CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - ii -

13. Dores and Silveira against Portugal - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 33 14. Cyprus against Turkey - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 35 15. Bramelid and Malmström against Sweden - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 47 16. Colloquy on "Human rights of aliens in Europe" (Funchal, 17-19 October 1983) 49 17. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-23 March 1984) 51 18. Draft Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Extension of the List of Civil and Political Rights set forth in the Convention 55 Legal Questions 19. Proposal to hold a Ministerial Conference on equality between women and men 67 *20 European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - Report of the 8th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-6 April 1984) 69 *21 Ad hoc committee of experts on legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 26-30 March 1984) 81 *22. Procedures for verifying applications for asylum - Written Question No. 275 by Mr Büchner 83 *23. Committee of experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-23 March 1984) 85

* B level CONFIDENTIAL - iii - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

Economic and Social Questions 24. European Social Charter - Appointment of five members of the Committee of Experts set up in pursuance of Article 25 of the Charter 87 25. Council of Europe relations with management and labour - Report of the 1st meeting of the Liaison Committee (Strasbourg, 12-13 March 1984) 89 *26. Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 9-13 April 1984) 91 *27. Steering Committee for Social Security (CDSS) - Report of the 21st meeting (Strasbourg, 26-30 March 1984) 93 *28 Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-SP) - Report of the 20th Session (Strasbourg, 10-12 April 1984) 95 *29. Future of health structures - Assembly Recommendation 979 97 Education, Culture and Sport 30. Ministerial Conference on Research (Paris, September 1984) 101 31. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Earthquake Research (CAHRT) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-20 December 1983) 107 *32. Draft Recommendation No. R(84)... on the situation of foreign students 109 Youth 33. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Youth Questions (CAHJE) - Report of the 3rd meeting (2-4 May 1984) 111

* B level CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - iv -

Environment and Local Authorities 34. 4th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment (Athens, 25-27 April 1984) 115 35. Air pollution and acid rain - Assembly Recommendation 977 117 36. Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) *a. Date of the 20th Session (1985) 121 *b. Co-operation and technical assistance in the matter of training for local and regional government staff - Study concerning the advisability, details and financial implications of the CLRAE's proposals (Resolution 131) 123 *c. Financial statement concerning aid for the distressed population in Eastern Spain 125 d. Texts adopted at the 18th Session (Strasbourg, 18-20 October 1983) and Assembly Opinion No 118 (1984) 127 *37 European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) - Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 1984) 135 *38 Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-4 April 1984) 139 *39. Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) - Report of the 14th meeting (Strasbourg, 21-22 March 1984) 141 *40. Rules for technical assistance relating to the integrated conservation of the cultural heritage of monuments and sites 143

* B level CONFIDENTIAL - v - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

Administrative Questions 41. Council of Europe budgets a. 1984 budgetary situation 145 b. General outline of prospects for the 1985 budget 147 42. Financial Regulations - Closing date of the period complementary to the financial year 153 43. Personnel matters referred to the Budget Committee 155 44. Cost-of-living adjustment to remuneration and pensions with effect from 1 January 1984 - 201st Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts 157 *45. Ad hoc measures to maintain temporarily basic salaries where the results of the application of the procedure at 1 July 1983 would lead to reductions - 199th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts 159 *46. 1984 Annual Review of the daily subsistence allowance rates for staff of the Co-Ordinated Organisations travelling on duty in Turkey - Addendum to the 197th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts 161 *47. Rules for allowances for staff of the Co-ordinated Organisations travelling on duty - 200th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts 163 48. Preparation of forthcoming meetings 165 49. Other Business a. Dialogue with the Secretary General 167 b. Ad hoc Committee of Experts to exchange views on the draft Convention on the Rights of the Child (CAHDE) 179

* B level CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - vi -

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A and B levels) (Strasbourg, 14-22 June 1984) AGENDA a1 APPENDIX II 375th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A and B levels) (Strasbourg, 17-25 September 1984) DRAFT AGENDA a9 APPENDIX III RESOLUTION DH(84)3 (item 9) concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 December 1982 and 21 November 1983 in the case of "Foti and others" a17 APPENDIX IV DECISION NO. CM/329/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 16) reference (CDDH) a19 APPENDIX V DECISION NO. CM/340/220684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 19) reference (CAHFM-BU) a21 APPENDIX VI RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the criminal record and rehabilitation of convicted persons a23 APPENDIX VII DECISION NO. CM/330/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item *20) reference (CDCC) a27 APPENDIX VIII DECISION NO. CM/331/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item *20) reference (CAHFM) a29 APPENDIX IX DECISION NO. CM/332/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item *20) reference (CDSO) a31 APPENDIX X RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)11 of the Committee of (item *20) Ministers to member States concerning information about the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons a33 APPENDIX XI RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)12 of the Committee of (item *20) Ministers to member States concerning foreign prisoners a37 APPENDIX XII RESOLUTION AP(84)2 on the inclusion of packaging (item *28) leaflets in pharmaceutical specialities and the nature of the information shown on such leaflets a43 CONFIDENTIAL - vii - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XIII DECISION NO. CM/333/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item *29) reference (CDSP) a47 APPENDIX XIV RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)13 of the Committee of (item *32) Ministers to member States concerning the situation of foreign students a49 APPENDIX XV DECISION NO. CM/334/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 34) reference (CDSN) a55

APPENDIX XVI DECISION NO. CM/335/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 36d) reference (CDAT) a57 APPENDIX XVII DECISION NO. CM/336/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 36d) reference (CDRM) a59 APPENDIX XVIII DECISION NO. CM/337/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 36d) reference (CDRM) a61 APPENDIX XIX DECISION NO. CM/338/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item 36d) reference (CDRM) a63 APPENDIX XX RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)14 of the Committee of (item *37) Ministers to member States concerning the introduction of non-native species a65 APPENDIX XXI RESOLUTION (84)6 on the renewal of the European (item *37) Diploma awarded to the Minsmere Nature Reserve (United Kingdom) a67 APPENDIX XXII RESOLUTION (84)7 on the award of the European (item *37) Diploma to the Purbeck Heritage Coast (United Kingdom) a69 APPENDIX XXIII DECISION NO. CM/339/210684 - Ad hoc terms of (item *40) reference (CDUP) a71 APPENDIX XXIV RESOLUTION (84)5 amending Article 6 of the (item 42) Financial Regulations a73 APPENDIX XXV DECISION NO. CM/341/220684 - Specific terms of (item 49b) reference (CAHDE) a75

CONFIDENTIAL - 1 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

The 374th meeting of the Deputies was opened on Thursday, 14 June 1984 at 10 am, under the Chairmanship of Mr. R. Doise, Deputy for the Minister for External Relations of France.

PRESENT AUSTRIA Mr. H.G. Knitel Mr. N. Scherk Mr. H. Wiesner (item 4) BELGIUM Mr. A. Vranken Mr. P. Jottard Mr. J. Aelvoet CYPRUS Mr. A. Pouyouros Mr. N. Yiannakis Mr. L. Loucaides (items 1 and 14) Prof. C. Palley (items 1 and 14) DENMARK Mr. K. Willumsen Mrs. J. Rechnagel Mr. S. Haslund (item 4) FRANCE Mr. R. Doise, Chairman Mr. B. Widemann Mr. D. Labrosse Mr. J.F. Bouffandeau(item 4) FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. K.A. Hampe, Vice Chairman Mr. K. Timmermann Mr. P. Platte Dr. C. Vollers (item 4) GREECE Mr. N. Diamantopoulos Mr. D. Constantinou Mrs. D. Mavroskelidi Mr. A. Dendoulis ICELAND Mr. T. Thorlacius IRELAND Mr. M. Flynn ITALY Mr. P.M. Antici Mr. A. Graffini Mr. G. Deodato Mr. L. Pivano CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 2 -

LIECHTENSTEIN HSH Prince Nicholas of Liechtenstein LUXEMBOURG Mr. J. Hostert MALTA - NETHERLANDS Mr. C. Schneider Mr. P.H. Le Clercq Mr. J.A. Walkate (item 4) NORWAY Mr. E. Winsnes Mr. L.A. Ulland PORTUGAL Mr. J. Pereira Bastos Mr. J. da Rocha Paris Mr. J. Teixeira da Mota (item 4) SPAIN Mr. F. Baeza Mr. N. Ferrer Colom Mr. J. Garcia Casas SWEDEN Mr. B. Arvidson Miss L. Karlsson Mr. R. Nilson (item 4) SWITZERLAND Mr. T. Raeber Mrs. I. Apelbaum Mr. L. Hürzeler (item 4) TURKEY Mr. S. Korkud Mr. S. Özsoy Mr. K. Gür Mrs. R. Aygen UNITED KINGDOM Mr. C.D. Lush Miss A. Stoddart Mr. S.E. Tomlinson CONFIDENTIAL - 3- CM/Del/Concl(84)374

At the opening of the meeting, the Chairman welcomed Mr Stephen Tomlinson, new Deputy to the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, and Mr Athanassios Dendoulis, new Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Greece, both of whom were attending a meeting of the Deputies for the first time. Mr Tomlinson had replaced Miss Jane Dutton who had left Strasbourg since the previous meeting. As there had been no earlier opportunity to bid Miss Dutton farewell, he asked the United Kingdom delegation to convey to her the Committee's best wishes for her future career. During the meeting the Chairman referred to the outrage which had cost the life of a Turkish diplomat in Vienna, and expressed to the Representative of Turkey the Committee's sympathy. He asked him to pass on the message to the family of the victim and to his authorities. The Representative of Turkey thanked the Chairman for his message of sympathy which he would certainly pass on. He mentioned that 3 Austrian nationals had been injured during the outrage. The Representative of Austria associated himself with the Chairman's remarks and expressed the sympathy of his authorities to the Representative of Turkey. At a later stage in the meeting the Secretary to the Committee read the following message received from the Clerk of the Assembly on behalf of its President, Mr Ahrens: "Permanent Representative and/or their Deputies who will be going to Oslo for the mini-session of the Assembly would be most welcome to attend the meetings of the Assembly's plenary committees. This does not of course apply to the meetings of the Bureau of the Assembly, or to sub-committees. Thursday morning is a public meeting. The afternoon meeting will begin with the confidential dialogue between the Chairman of the Deputies (and his colleagues) and the Assembly representatives. After its conclusion, the committee will turn to purely internal matters concerning the organisation of the autumn session and the discussions should therefore be considered as private." At the end of the meeting the Chairman bade farewell to Mr Winsnes who was attending a meeting of the Committee for the last time. He had represented his country, Norway, with dignity and had earned the Committee's gratitude. He paid homage to his intelligence, clarity, wisdom and brevity which had enabled him to perform the various functions he had exercised during the past 3 years both in the Committee of Ministers and as Chairman of the Council of Europe/OECD Liaison Committee in the best possible manner. He wished him and his wife every possible success in his new functions in Morocco. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 4 -

The Deputy Secretary General joined the Chairman in thanking this quiet Scandinavian who had had very close ties with the Council of Europe. He thanked him for his contribution to the Council's work and for his friendship and wished him every happiness. Mr Winsnes thanked the speakers for their kind words. He said he agreed with the saying "Silence is Golden" but nevertheless regretted that he had not said what he thought more often. Probably he could have done more in spite of his forced absence for a year. Nevertheless he felt himself to be a good European and this feeling became even stronger when he was outside Europe. But it was not sufficient to believe in Europe; solid stepping stones were still needed if they were to arrive at the goal of a United Europe. It was up to the Council of Europe to provide a lot of those stepping stones. He thanked all his colleagues and the Secretariat for their comprehension and sympathy. Mr Timmermann, in taking leave of Mrs Apelbaum, expressed regret that he could not address her in French, a language which she herself used so admirably. Her brilliant style coupled with her clarity and determination made her interventions unfailingly persuasive. She had risen from number three in her delegation to number two and in addition had filled the gap between two Ambassadors which was a genuine achievement at the same time as she had carried out family responsibilities. Her transfer to Israel would probably aggravate certain of her problems but she would overcome them with her usual efficiency. With his regret at seeing her leave he addresssed to her his best wishes for success in her private and professional life and said not farewell but "Auf Wiedersehen". The Deputy Secretary General expressed the Secretariat's regret at the departure from the Committee of so charming a representative. She had not only been an excellent member of the Committee of Ministers, who had been in charge in the interval between two Ambassadors, but had also been a friend of the Secretariat, whose best wishes for happiness and success went with her in her future functions in Israel. The Chairman, too, paid homage to the charm and brilliant intelligence of Mrs. Apelbaum which was a good example of the formidable capacity of the so-called weaker sex. He, too, gave her his best wishes. Mrs. Apelbaum thanked the speakers for their all too flattering words. She was moved and accepted them as a mark of friendship. She had originally come to Strasbourg for a year and had stayed in fact for nearly 4 and had had the good luck to act in various different capacities. She appreciated the Council of Europe for what it had CONFIDENTIAL - 5 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 done and also for its potential and for a factor which characterised everything it did, the human factor. It had been a pleasure to work with the Committee and she had always been supported by the Secretariat to whose excellent work she paid tribute. She thanked all her colleagues and friends and asked the Deputy Secretary General to pass on to the Secretary General her best wishes for his recovery. Finally, it fell to Mr. Constantinou to take leave of Mr. Timmermann, the senior member at B level. During the four and a half years which he had spent with the Deputies he had made an active contribution to activities not only at B level but also at A level and above all in the working party on cultural co-operation in which he had been a driving force thanks to his thorough knowledge of the subject. The Committee would miss his pertinent interventions which were always economical and full of wit. Having been now called upon to fulfil high functions in Zambia there was no doubt that his knowledge of the region and its leaders would be a valuable asset and that he would also turn to good account the experience he had acquired in the Council of Europe and thereby promote contact between two continents. He addressed to him and to his wife all good wishes in their future functions. The Deputy Secretary General said he had been astonished to hear of the departure of the senior deputy, a feeling which was mixed with regret because he had been a solid pillar of the Committee both at B level and at A level and was besides a shrewd man with a sense of humour. All these qualities meant that he had many friends. He thanked him for his co-operation and expressed his best wishes on behalf of the Secretariat. Mr. Raeber, as Chairman of the Working Party on Cultural Co-operation, wished to express his thanks to two of its members: Mrs. Apelbaum and Mr. Timmermann. Mr. Timmermann in particular for the special and competent interest which he had taken in certain essential aspects, and Mrs. Apelbaum for her balanced and moderate contributions. It went without saying that both of them would be missed by the working party. Finally, the Chairman bade farewell to Mr. Timmermann and paid tribute to his profound knowledge of the science of diplomacy and legal problems and expressed his best wishes for his career and private life. Mr. Timmermann thanked everyone who had addressed him for their kind words. After arriving at the Council of Europe without any experience in multilateral diplomacy he had had to make a great effort to adapt. He had been helped by the Secretariat in general and by the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers in particular as well as by his colleagues and particularly the Heads of Delegation from whom he had learned a great deal. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 6 -

His individual involvement in the working party on cultural co-operation had been bound up with his personal conviction that development of the European identity through culture was an important part of the Council of Europe's activities. This experience in multilateral diplomacy had been deeply enriching even if he had sometimes had the impression of being drowned in the vast number of subjects dealt with. European unification was a necessity and the Council of Europe had an important role to play in providing a tribune. The European role of the city of Strasbourg had also impressed him. For all these reasons he had enjoyed his stay in that city and would take away with him, as would his family, some excellent memories. He was already aware that he would regret life in Strasbourg but he knew as well that the task awaiting him in Africa would be an interesting one. State of votes and ad referendum 372/19 - Satellite and cable television - Written Question No. 272 by Mr Ramirez The German, Italian and United Kingdom delegations which had approved the reply to Written Question No. 272 by Mr Ramirez ad referendum had since informed the Secretariat that they could lift their reservations. In the case of the German and Italian delegations, the confirmation of the approval given ad referendum had been received within the deadline for the deposit of amendments to the draft Conclusions of the 372nd meeting, and consequently in accordance with agreed procedures the reservations of those two delegations are not recorded in the final version of the Conclusions of the 372nd meeting. The Secretary to the Committee said that in the letter announcing the lifting of the United Kingdom reservation, the Representative of the United Kingdom had drawn attention to a possible ambiguity in the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the reply, but had stated that the point was not important enough to justify re-opening the discussion. The Secretariat entirely shared the views of the United Kingdom delegation on this matter, and he suggested that, if the Committee were in agreement, the problem could be solved quite simply by replacing the word "studied" by "given attention" in the sentence concerned when the reply to the Written Question was formally communicated to the Assembly. The Chairman noted that there was agreement with the procedure proposed by the Secretary to the Committee. CONFIDENTIAL - 7 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Representative of Cyprus made the following statement: "While we are on the item 'Adoption of. the Agenda', I would like to make a statement on the basis of Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure for the Meetings of the Ministers' Deputies. As we all know, this Article gives the right to any Deputy to ask that no decision should be taken in any matter if in his view such decision should, by reason of the political importance of the matter, be dealt with by the Committee o Ministers meeting at ministerial level. Considering the political importance of this case, especially in view of its dimensions and its effect as regards the Convention itself, my delegation asks that any decision on the item Cyprus v Turkey under Article 32 of the Convention should be reserved to the Ministers, who are meeting next November. We are aware of the very short time Ministers can devote to matters before them. This is an important case. Although the decisions envisaged by Article 32 in this case should, in accordance with our request, be taken by the Ministers, we suggest that procedures be adopted by the Deputies so that preliminary discussion of the case be conducted by them, on the understanding that the Deputies shall not take any decision or adopt any text. The purpose of this procedure is to facilitate final consideration and decision by the Ministers themselves. Accordingly, relying on Article 2, paragraph 3 of our Rules of procedure, we accept the adoption of the agenda, subject to reservation for the Ministers of any decision under Article 32 in this case. We are making this request now, even before the adoption of the agenda, to make absolutely clear that we are exercising our right under the above mentioned Rules for Ministerial decision in this case well before the commencement of any consideration of the case. This is because such a right was questioned when an attempt was made to exercise it at the end of the proceedings at a time when a decision was about to be taken. We believe that every Deputy has an absolute right to refer any decision of political importance to the Ministers, and we are sure that when such a right is exercised early in the day, as it is being exercised in this case, such a right is unchallengeable. In the circumstances we feel that a legal opinion on this issue must be available as soon as possible, so as to enable guidance during the consideration of this case this afternoon. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 8 - Item 1

As you will recall, Mr Chairman, my delegation, relying on Rule 8 of Rules of Procedure for the Application of Article 32, suggested to you that procedures applied in the past in one instance necessitated the prompt taking of legal advice, and requested you to have such legal advice available. I do not think it is necessary to say anything more at this stage. This matter will be considered this afternoon, when a full discussion on the procedures to be adopted will take place. May I simply remind my distinguished colleagues that in relation to the limited number of interstate cases, there have been decisions at ministerial level in three; the first two cases by Greece against the United Kingdom, and the first case against Greece. The Deputies dealt with the case of Austria v Italy, but this was relatively uncontroversial, as the Commission had found no violation and measures of clemency were taken. Again, while the second Greek case was dealt with by the Deputies, it was apparent that there was no basis for further action and that the case had to be concluded. Only the first Cyprus case was really dealt with by Deputies, and that was because Cyprus did not ask for the case to go to ministerial level until the very end of the proceedings. The result is that in all interstate cases, either where the issues were important or where the parties requested this at the beginning, the case has gone to the Ministers. Mr Chairman, I take this opportunity to state that, as I have already informed you, I am accompanied by two legal advisers and experts on the basis of Article 4, paragraph 2 of our Rules of Procedure. They are Mr Lucis Loucaides, Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic of Cyprus and Agent of the Cyprus Government before the Commission of Human Rights in respect of the case under consideration, and Professor Claire Palley. They will speak on behalf of my delegation, whenever we feel that it is necessary and with your permission." The Representative of Turkey said that the request to refer the case to ministerial level seemed very premature. If the delegation concerned felt that it had a right to refer the matter to the Ministers, why did it feel it necessary to declare it at the present stage? This seemed to be starting the procedure from the wrong end. As far as his delegation was concerned the Deputies needed to discuss the complex case very seriously - there were precedents for this, and his delegation reserved its position in this respect. The Chairman noted that at least one delegation had doubts about the procedure to be followed. He therefore felt it would be useful to have a legal opinion, as had been requested by the Representative of Cyprus. CONFIDENTIAL - 9 - CM/Del/concl(84)374 Item 1

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the case concerned was both legally and politically important. In the circumstances the preparation of a legal opinion would involve consultation of the relevant travaux préparatoires and also of the precedents. This being so, he would prefer not to give an oral reply, but rather submit a written appreciation of the legal situation and the historical background if delegations felt that this would be useful. In reply to a question put by the Chairman, he said that it should be possible to distribute the legal opinion in writing before the Deputies reverted to the Cyprus against Turkey case the following week (on 21 June 1984). The Representative of Turkey agreed that it would be useful to receive a written legal opinion from the Secretariat, but as this was a very delicate and complex question concerning the competences of the Committee of Ministers he felt it unwise to ask the Secretariat to draw up the text in too much haste.

The Representative of Turkey said that as far as item 6 was concerned (Situation in Cyprus) the position of his delegation remained unchanged with regard to both the substance and the form. Decision The Deputies adopted the agenda for their 374th meeting (14-22 June 1984 - A and B levels) as it appears at Appendix I to these Conclusions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 11 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 2

2. COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Follow-up to the 74th Session (CM(84)PV 1 and 2 prov.)

The Chairman recalled that the President of the Assembly had sent to him on 8 May 1984, a letter from the Chairman of the Assembly's Legal Affairs Committee about the preparation for the meeting of experts relating to aspects of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms to be held in Ottawa in May 1985 in the framework of the CSCE. The Deputies had discussed that letter at their 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 3) and, in the light of the views expressed, the Secretariat had drawn up a draft reply which had been circulated to all delegations. He called for comments on the draft reply. The Representative of Denmark said that his authorities were anxious to avoid creating the mistaken impression that there was a direct link between the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in Vienna and the Ottawa meeting. The Vienna Conference was limited to the 21 member States of the Council of Europe whereas participation in the Ottawa meeting was much wider and covered East-West problems. If the letter from the President of the Assembly and its enclosures were to be transmitted to the Senior Officials preparing the Vienna Conference without any commentary, it might give the Senior Officials to understand that they should take Ottawa into account in their preparations. If there was to be a link between Vienna and Ottawa, it should be an indirect one as the Senior Officials themselves had stated in their report for the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers (CM(84)74). He could only accept the draft reply if it clearly stated that copies of the correspondence were being transmitted to the Senior Officials "for information" and if the Senior Officials were informed that they should not deal directly with the Ottawa meeting in their preparations. The Representatives of Austria and the United Kingdom shared this view. The Chairman noted that there was agreement on the text of the reply as amended by the Danish delegation. He asked the Secretariat to convey to the Senior Officials the views expressed by the Danish delegation which he interpreted as expressing the view of the Committee as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 12 - Item 2

Following discussion on the date and themes for the Deputies' next exchange of views, with the participation of experts, on North/South questions, the Chairman noted that there was agreement to hold this exchange on 24 September 1984 with the following theme and sub-themes: General evaluation of the North/South dialogue on the eve of the 39th Ordinary Session of the United Nations General Assembly, including in particular: - Evaluation of the results of the 29th Session of the Council of UNCTAD (September 1984) and of the 4th UNIDO Conference; - The Lisbon Declaration on North/South relations and the reactions of the Third World to the Declaration (CM(84)99); - Debt problems of Third World countries in the light of the London summit (June 1984); - Africa: problems resulting from drought and environmental damage and the deterioration of agricultural production. Decision The Deputies fixed 24 September 1984 as the date of their next exchange of views, with the participation of experts, on North/South questions. CONFIDENTIAL - 13 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 3

3. EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Concl(83)361/5, CM(84)92)

The Deputies held an exchange of views with Mr. Emile Noël, Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities, on 18 June 1984. The summary of the statement made by Mr. Noël and of the exchange of views which followed is contained in Addendum I to these Conclusions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 15 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 4 4. UNITED NATIONS Exchange of views

On 19 June 1984 the Deputies held an exchange of views, with the participation of experts, on the United Nations. The following themes were discussed: 1. Preview of the 39th Ordinary Session of the United Nations General Assembly (autumn 1984), including in particular the political questions appearing on the preliminary list of items for the agenda; 2. Human rights questions (including an evaluation of the last session of the Human Rights Commission (spring 1984)). A report on this exchange of views will be drawn up under the responsibility of the Chairman.

CONFIDENTIAL - 17 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 5

5. BALANCED DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE (Concl(84)367/5, 371/9, CM(83)198)

The Chairman recalled that this item had been placed on the agenda of the present meeting following discussions under item 9 of the agenda of the Deputies 371st meeting (2 and 3 May 1984). He had had contacts with the former Chairman and had sounded out a number of delegations on the possible composition of an ad hoc group of Permanent Representatives who would have the exploratory task of studying paragraph 10 of CM(83)198 containing the suggestions submitted by the former Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, on balanced development in Europe. He noted that there was agreement on the decision below. Decision The Deputies agreed to set up an ad hoc group composed of the Permanent Representatives of: - Cyprus - Luxembourg - the Netherlands - Norway - Portugal with terms of reference to proceed to: - a study on the basis of past experience, of the possibilities of developing and reorienting existing schemes or proposing new projects for technical co-operation through exchanges, fellowships, training courses, etc geared to the needs of balanced development in Europe, - an examination of the possibility of making better use of the Council of Europe as an initiator and a clearing house for offers and requests emanating from member countries for such exchanges, fellowships, training courses, etc, and to report back to them in late 1984 or early 1985.

CONFIDENTIAL - 19 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 6

6. SITUATION IN CYPRUS (Concl(84)372/6)

No delegation wished to make a statement under this item.

CONFIDENTIAL - 21 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 7 7. CONFERENCES OF SPECIALISED MINISTERS (Concl(84)372/7, CM(78)62, CM(84)30 rev.)

The Deputy Secretary General referred to the third Conference of European Ministers of Labour, to be held in Madrid in the second half of January 1986. The Committee of Senior Officials in charge of preparations for the conference had held its first meeting from 16 to 18 May 1984 in Strasbourg, and decided on the following themes: 1. Employment trends between 1983 and 1985/86 - future prospects 2. Measures to combat youth unemployment 3. Scientific and technical development and its effects on employment and working conditions. The Senior Officials decided to suggest that the Committee of Ministers invite Finland and the Holy See to participate both in the conference and in its peparation and the following to attend as observers: the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Community (Council and Commission) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). They also decided to suggest that the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) be invited to send representatives to the conference. The Senior Officials also discussed participation of the Assembly, representatives of management and labour and youth organisations, deciding to give further consideration to these questions at its second meeting, scheduled for March 1985. The report of the first meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials was contained in CM(84)131, down for consideration at the 375th meeting of the Deputies (September 1984 - A and B levels).

CONFIDENTIAL - 23 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 8

8. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF CAMPBELL AND COSANS Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(83)365/8, Letters HD/C22 of 15.3.82 and HD/C21 of 29.3.83)

The Representative of the United Kingdom said that the Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom had informed the Secretariat by letter dated 1 June 1984, that, pursuant to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights delivered on 22 March 1983 under Article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government of the United Kingdom had paid the sums awarded to the applicants by the Court. He asked the Secretariat to inform the present meeting if they considered the evidence of payment supplied to be insufficient. The Director of Human Rights indicated that in this specific case the letter from the Agent of the Government informing the Secretariat that the sums awarded by the Court in pursuance of Article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been paid over could be accepted as evidence of payment. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 378th meeting (November/December 1984 - A and B levels).

CONFIDENTIAL - 25 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 9

9. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF FOTI AND OTHERS Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)370/11, Letters HD/C92 of 21.12.82 and HD/C91 of 28.11.83)

Decision The Deputies adopted Resolution DH(84)3, as it appears at Appendix III to these Conclusions.

(50,15) CONFIDENTIAL - 27 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 10

10. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF SILVER AND OTHERS Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)370/12, Letters HD/C24 of 8.4.83 and HD/C89 of 16.11.83)

The Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that he had informed the Ministers' Deputies, at their 366th meeting, that the Government of the United Kingdom had paid, on 14 November 1983, the sum ordered by the Court to be paid in respect of costs and expenses. He asked the Secretariat to inform the present meeting if they considered the evidence of payment supplied to be insufficient. The Director of Human Rights indicated that in this specific case the letter from the Agent of the Government informing the Secretariat that the sum ordered by the Court in pursuance of Article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been paid over could be accepted as evidence of payment. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels).

CONFIDENTIAL - 29 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 11

11. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE LUBERTI CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)370/13, Letter HD/C21 of 6.3.84)

The Representative of Italy said that his authorities had already prepared the sum to be paid to the applicant following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and that this payment would be made as soon as the domicile of the applicant had been established. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at one of their forthcoming meetings.

CONFIDENTIAL - 31 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 12

12. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF GODDI Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C35 of 19.4.84)

The Representative of Italy said that his authorities had already prepared the sum to be paid to the applicant following the judgment of the European Court of Human rights and that this payment would be made as soon as the domicile of the applicant had been established. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at one of their forthcoming meetings.

CONFIDENTIAL - 33 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 13

13. DORES AND SILVEIRA AGAINST PORTUGAL Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)370/14, Letter HD/C84 of 9.11.83)

The Representative of Portugal said that he was not in a position to give information on this case at the present meeting. Decision The Deputies agreed to postpone this item until their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels, for consideration at A level).

CONFIDENTIAL - 35 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 14

14. CYPRUS AGAINST TURKEY Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C12 of 1.2.84)

The Representative of Cyprus made the following statement: "Mr. Chairman, As I said when the agenda of this meeting was adopted this morning, (1) because of its political importance, no decision under Article 32 of the Convention should be taken by the Deputies in this case. Such a decision should be reserved for the Ministers, who are meeting next November. We believe that Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers' Deputies gives an absolute and unquestionable right for any Deputy to ask that a decision on any matter be referred to the Ministers, if in his view such a course is justified because of the political importance of the matter. In spite of the absolute nature of this right, we intend to give our reasons for its exercise in this case and to suggest a procedure that will enable adequate preparation of the case for final consideration and decision by the Ministers next November. We are doing this because of our devotion to the principles and ideals of the Convention and its organs and in order to give the opportunity to all distinguished delegates to have a full picture of the significance of this case. In fact, the importance of the case has already been pointed out by the distinguished Representative of Turkey this morning when he expressed his concern regarding the procedure. We are confident that in your deliberations you will no doubt be guided by the aims and objectives of the Convention for the implementation of which we all have an important role to play. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will now ask Mr. Loucaides to elaborate on the matter."

(1) See item 1 above. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 36 - Item 14

Mr. Loucaides made the following statement: "Mr. Chairman, It is regrettable that in this distinguished forum we have to speak directly and without circumlocution about certain facts. But it is our duty when human rights are involved not to gild, varnish or obscure. You have before you a report of the Commission of Human Rights, which was adopted by the vast majority of its members in October 1983. The report covers the period May 1976 - February 1983. Of course we are not now at the stage of examining the merits but only the procedure to be followed in this case. I therefore stress that my reference to this report is made only in order to justify the appropriateness of the procedure suggested. The following facts set out in the report are relevant to the suggested procedure: 1. according to the report of the Commission new, repeated and aggravated violations of human rights, affecting thousands of persons in Cyprus were committed in time of peace by the respondent government. The nature of the violations shows that they were committed in furtherance of political aims; 2. as the Commission pointed out, such violations were committed in spite of a previous report by the Commission to the effect that the respondent government had committed massive violations of human rights of the people of Cyprus. It is apparent that continuing with similar and new violations the respondent government treated the previous findings of the Commission in 1976 with contempt; 3. an interim report was addressed by the Commission in July 1980 to the Committee of Ministers. It expressed the opinion "that by its refusal to participate in the Commission's examination of the merits of the application, Turkey has failed to respect its obligations under Article 28 of the Convention". The Commission requested the Committee of Ministers to urge Turkey to meet its obligations under the Convention. The Committee of Ministers then adopted a decision recalling the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under Article 28 of the Convention. In spite of the Committee's reminder, and the Commission's subsequent invitation to Turkey to co-operate in this serious case in accordance with the Convention, the respondent government continued to refuse to co-operate with the organs of the Convention. Furthermore, as the report of the Commission shows, the respondent government continued violating the human rights of thousands of people in Cyprus up to the time of adoption of the report. CONFIDENTIAL - 37 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 14

4. The Commission, after full consideration of the arguments and material placed before it by the respondent government, found that this case was different from that earlier examined by the Commission and the Committee of Ministers. (They were referring to the Cyprus Government's Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75). The present case, the Commission found, refers to new facts, new victims, and new violations relating to a period of time different from that covered in the previous case. 5. The Commission stressed in its report that the continuation of the situation regarding displacement of persons and separation from their families must be considered as an aggravating factor, while new measures regarding deprivation of possessions and properties amounted to consolidation of earlier seizure and occupation of such property. Mr. Chairman, As already indicated, my purpose in referring to the Commission's report was not in connection with the merits of the case. Merits are for consideration and decision at a later stage. My references were made in order to underline the importance and the serious implications of the case as regards the effectiveness of the Convention and its organs. Furthermore, these facts show the urgency of these proceedings and the necessity for consideration of this case at the highest possible level, ie by the Ministers of member States. There are yet other factors underlining the urgency and significance of this case: 1. In its two previous decisions in respect of Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, Cyprus v Turkey, the Committee of Ministers 'had expressly asked that measures be taken in order to put an end to such violations as might continue'. Yet the respondent government not only failed to take any measures to put an end to the violations in question, but, as the Commission found, continued breaching the Convention by way of additional, aggravated violations on a systematic basis. 2. The additional violations now under consideration cover a period during which the United Nations have repeatedly called for restoration of human rights. As we all know, the member States of the Council of Europe act in conformity with the UN Resolution on Cyprus. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 38 - Item 14

3. Even after the Commission's first report the respondent government continued to act contrary to the Convention. As all member States are aware there have recently been attempts to consolidate permanently the violations in question by encouraging and recognising the unilateral declaration of independence of that part of Cyprus occupied by her armed forces. These attempts have been condemned both by the UN Security Council and by the Council of Europe. We believe that this state of affairs is a matter for international concern, justifying urgent high level consideration and decision in the present proceedings. 4. As all member States will know, a few days ago (and even at this very moment) colonisation of Varosha started taking place. This town has been and is under the control of the respondent government's armed forces. Before the forcible expulsion of its inhabitants Varosha was exclusively inhabited by Greek Cypriots (35,000 in number). We believe that urgent decision in this case may deter further implementation of this inhuman process of colonisation. Any delay in taking action under Article 32 in this case is likely to result in irreparable harm and further faits accomplis. These developments make it even more essential to have expeditious consideration of this case. 5. Another indisputable factor making the case urgent is the continuing human tragedy of the vast number of victims of the violations found by the Commission. The continuing nature of these violations results in new victims for every day that passes. Children who are born in this continuing state of affairs are inevitably born victims of the violations in question eg as displaced persons. Again, many who are already victims of the violations die without any remedy in their lifetime. Mr. Chairman, I have tried to explain the significance and urgency which make the procedure we suggest necessary. We believe that this is a human rights case of huge dimensions: it is a case which affects the credibility of the organs and machinery of the Convention and generally the effectiveness of the Convention itself. In fact, these proceedings involve the first case since the end of the second world war of continuing massive and organised violations of human rights in Europe undertaken in pursuit of political aims. For that reason they provide a test case for the effectiveness of the Convention. We all know that the Convention was adopted with the very object of avoiding such violations of human rights as are the subject of these proceedings. CONFIDENTIAL - 39 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 14

The authority of the Committee of Ministers is also at stake in this case. It is apparent from the Commission's report that the respondent government has not respected this Committee's decisions. The Committee's authority should be re-established as soon as possible. For all these reasons we have asked that the case be decided urgently at the next meeting of the Ministers in November. Obviously the respondent government must have reasonable opportunities to make submissions to the Committee. When the previous case of Cyprus v Turkey came before the Committee of Ministers, Turkey was required under Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for the application of Article 32 of the Convention to submit her observations within three months although she requested 4 months. At that time the Committee was dealing with a much lengthier report of the Commission. Furthermore, in that case Turkey had submitted no material to the Commission on the merits, only doing so (albeit procedurally wrongly) at the stage of the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers. In contrast, in the present case, although the respondent government again did not participate in the formal examination of the merits before the Commission, she in fact submitted her version as to the merits, by way of this very large document attached to the observations on the admissibility of the case, entitled Annex A and prepared by Mr. Denktash with the aid of experts. Already the case has been proceeding for nearly eight years. During that period a delay of nearly three years (between 1978 and 1981) was occasioned by the refusal of the respondent government to co-operate with the Commission. Rule 8 of the Rules for the application of Article 32 invests this body with the duty of fixing proper and reasonable time limits in cases involving violations of human rights. This by itself implies that no time should be wasted and that time limits are a serious matter that should in any case be fixed at the outset of the procedure. The dilatoriness of the Convention procedures has already been criticised by all experts on human rights: it would be unfortunate if out of conventional courtesy to a member State further delay in considering these serious matters were to be occasioned. Above all as we have already said irreparable harm and prejudice is likely to occur in any interval. Taking everything into consideration, we submit that observations on this case can be submitted well within a timescale which will enable preliminary discussion of the case by the Deputies and preparation of the case by them prior to final consideration and decision by the Ministers in November. It should be recalled in this respect that the respondent government has had full knowledge of all issues and allegations in this case for the last eight years and has had available for its study the report of the Commission during the last eight months. It is vital that any procedure adopted should not result in precluding the urgent consideration that the case deserves. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 40 - Item 14

We also believe that this Committee, through the Secretariat, should afford some procedural guidance to both High Contracting Parties so as to allow consideration of this urgent case by the Ministers in November without there being delay caused by submission of material irrelevant to the question before the Committee under Article 32. In particular we suggest guidance to both High Contracting Parties along the following lines: 1. Neither party should submit irrelevant or inadmissible material. The forum of the Committee of Ministers should not be used in such a way as to avoid the examination of a case by the Commission in accordance with the machinery provided by the Convention. If such a procedure were permissible it would undermine the authority of the Commission and in effect neutralise its role under the Convention. Indeed, permitting submission of such a kind would amount to endorsing non- co-operation in Convention procedures by member States and would result in more time being given at a later stage to High Contracting Parties who decline to co-operate, than to those who fulfil their duties of co-operation with Convention organs. 2. Documents on the model of and containing the same 'facts' and allegations as those in the 'Memorial of the Turkish Government' submitted to the Committee earlier should be discouraged because: - It is not the function of any tribunal to examine again the same allegations. This is a general international law principle which the Commission insisted be observed both at admissibility and at the merits stage. This is clear from their report. - The matters covered by the Memorial were in any event examined and disposed of by the decision of the Committee of Ministers of 1979, as this Committee expressly stated in 1979. The Committee will now be dealing only with the events and period covered by the report of the Commission. These events occurred in the period 1976-1983. - Counter-allegations of violations of human rights, such as those contained in the Memorial, should not, as the Commission has stated, be the subject of examination by the Committee of Ministers so long as such complaints have not been reported to and investigated by the Commission under Article 24 of the Convention. To allow uninvestigated allegations to be put forward at the Committee of Ministers' stage is contrary to the Convention, because the Ministers must, under Article 32, deal with the question (l'affaire) before them and not with other questions. CONFIDENTIAL - 41 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 14

3. The case should be examined as a whole. We believe that all parts of the report deserve equal consideration. 4. If critical comments are made on the Commission, its procedure or its findings, it would seem sensible to ask for further information and comments by the Commission by virtue of Article 9 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers regarding the application of Article 32 of the Convention. This procedure should be resorted to by the Secretariat of the Committee as soon as any critical comments on the Commission are made in submissions so as to enable speedy consideration of its additional information together with the High Contracting Parties' submissions. We are sure that all delegations agree that neither High Contracting Party should use the procedure so as to occasion unnecessary delay. We are certain that all delegations wish to see that the role of the Committee of Ministers in this very serious case is exercised in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Convention. In this respect reference is made to the invaluable guidance given in the Secretariat Memorandum by the Directorate of Human Rights, 'The role of the Committee of Ministers under the European Convention on Human Rights', dated 8 August 1983. The following material points are, inter alia, stressed in that work: 1. The functions of the Committee of Ministers under Article 32 are of a judicial or quasi-judicial character and should therefore be based on legal considerations and not on factors of political expediency. 2. The report of the Commission constitutes a point of departure of the procedure which takes place before the Committee. 3. Any action has to be within the limits of Article 32 which invests the Committee with the duty to take decisions as to the existence of a violation. 4. The Committee is under an obligation to state reasons for any decision it takes under Article 32. On these questions, I would like to point out that as High Contracting Parties we share the collective responsibility of enforcing the Convention. In case of continuing violations of human rights we have the additional responsibility of minimising delay as otherwise we risk denying an effective remedy. All High Contracting Parties accept the rule of law, a fundamental aspect of which is that 'justice delayed is justice denied'. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 42 - Item 14 Before concluding on procedure, we should like to ask this Committee, irrespective of the outcome of the legal advice as to at which level substantive decisions will be taken, to lay down a procedural timescale in accordance with the urgency of the case and to provide for proper procedural guidelines as indicated. In terms of Rule 8 of the Rules for the application of Article 32 of the Convention, this meeting is the proper time for the Committee to provide for time limits and at the outset to lay down the procedures to be followed. This was exactly what was done in February 1977 when the first case was brought against the respondent government. It was unfortunately our omission to raise the question of the appropriate level for taking a decision right at the outset, which led to the ruling on which the Secretariat's legal advice is now sought and which rendered it essential for us to raise this matter now so that we are in no way estopped or seen to acquiesce in a procedure waiving our rights of reference to the ministerial level. Mr. Chairman, There is another matter I must mention. If the Ministers are to decide this matter in November and if a lengthy period of time is to be given for the respondent government to make its submissions this will mean that Cyprus will not be able to make full observations if the four-week rule is applied. On the last occasion, in February 1977, it was the opinion of those members who spoke that the four-week rule did not apply and it was also the opinion of the Director of Human Rights. The rule was not applied, the first discussion occurred nine days after Turkey lodged her submissions, ie on 26 May after lodgment on 17 May 1977. Mr. Chairman, Doubtless this distinguished assembly has found this address more legalistic than usual. We regret this necessity, but it has been dictated by the nature of the functions which this Committee is called upon by the Convention to exercise. We are confident that this Committee will adopt a proper procedure to secure protection of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention." The Representative of Turkey made the following statement: "For considerations of a political and legal nature, which are well known to our Committee, we were not able to take part in the procedure before the Commission after the admissibility stage on this case which is in our opinion inadmissible. Now, out of respect for the Commission and of course for our Committee, we wish to explain in a detailed way our views on this point and we therefore intend to present to you a written memorial. We accordingly request the Committee to grant sufficient time for the preparation of this written memorial, which will touch on the political and legal aspects of the case whose importance and complexity are obvious, an appropriate deadline would be our October meeting," CONFIDENTIAL - 43 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 14

The Representative of Greece said that this case represented the most massive violation of human rights in Europe since the 2nd World War. These violations had taken place on a huge human scale. Furthermore, they were still continuing, causing much misery to the people of Cyprus. The case should be dealt with as soon as possible and the question of procedure dealt with with the minimum of delay; the tragedy of thousands of Cypriot people had to be faced. The Representative of Turkey said it was a question of the misery and tragedy of Turkish Cypriots also. He recalled that the Turkish Cypriots had been waiting for twenty years to learn the fate of their missing loved ones, and indeed to know their own fate. The Representative of Greece said that he had not singled out any community for special mention; he had spoken of the people of Cyprus. Mr. Loucaides was convinced that all members of the Committee were concerned about this case and recognised the urgency. The timetable for dealing with the case must be tighter than on the previous occasion. Two months should be sufficient for the preparation of written comments by the Turkish delegation. It was to be expected that a short report could be prepared, especially as a voluminous document had already been prepared by the Turkish authorities at the admissibility stage of the case before the European Commission. Mr. Loucaides was confident that the Committee of Ministers would undertake its task expeditiously, bearing in mind that, if a longer period for the preparation of the written comments was called for, that would imply consideration of the item by Ministers at their spring 1985 Session. Like his Greek colleague, he recalled that the case affected all the people of Cyprus and a rapid conclusion was therefore called for. The Representative of Turkey said that he was in total confusion concerning the arguments advanced by Mr. Loucaides. What did the Greek Cypriots want? Was this a different case or was it the same as the previous one? In reality there was no difference between the two cases. They were still trying to cover-up the heart of the matter - the fate of the missing Turkish Cypriots and also the fate of the Turkish Cypriots - by inventing new arguments. It was for this reason that the file needed to be examined in depth. It was also not clear whether they would prefer a hasty decision or a just one. It would not be reasonable to reach a hasty decision on such a complex matter. The Turkish authorities had to consider this case in the greatest detail and the comments that they would be submitting would be as full and detailed as in the previous case. This meant that sufficient time had to be set aside. The Chairman read out Rule 8 on the application of Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights: "The Chairman of the Committee shall obtain the opinion of the representatives of the State Party or States Parties to the dispute in regard to the procedure to be followed, and the Committee shall specify, if necessary, in what order and within what time-limits any written submissions or other documents are to be deposited." CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 44 - Item 14

He said that he would maintain contact with the Cypriot and Turkish delegations with a view to making a proposal for the procedure to be followed in accordance with that rule. The Representative of the United Kingdom asked the Secretariat to provide information about the practice followed in previous interstate cases. He also asked for further elucidation concerning the effect of the holiday period on the time-limit to be specified by the Committee of Ministers. The Chairman noted that the Deputies would resume consideration of this item on 21 June 1984.

The Chairman made the following statement: "On 14 June it was agreed that, under rule 8 of the rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Chairman should obtain the opinion of the representatives of the parties to this case with regard to the procedure to be followed. The aim was to enable the Deputies, still in accordance with rule 8, to specify amongst other things within what time-limits any written submissions were to be deposited. A series of meetings took place between the Chairman and each of the delegations concerned. On 14 June the Representative of Cyprus stated that, while being prepared to take part in an examination of the case by the Ministers' Deputies, he would request, on the strength of Article 2.3 of the Deputies' Rules of Procedure, that the final examination and the decision on the case should occur at the Committee's ministerial level at its next session, on 22 November 1984. At the same time the Representative of Cyprus asked that the Secretariat provide a legal opinion on this aspect of the procedure. The Secretariat's legal opinion has been distributed to delegations under the reference CM(84)135. Obviously, the question of the applicability of Article 2.3 of the Deputies' Rules of Procedure and of Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee of Ministers cannot be given detailed consideration in the light of the Secretariat's legal opinion at the present meeting: a certain time is needed for studying the document. Following contacts with the delegations of the parties, which initially revealed divergent opinions on the time-limit for depositing written submissions and hence on the date on which the Deputies might resume consideration of the case, the Chairman believes it might be possible to agree on a solution along the following lines: CONFIDENTIAL - 45 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 14

The Deputies would resume their examination of the item "Cyprus against Turkey - Decision to be taken under Article 32 to the European Convention on Human Rights" at their 376th meeting, in October 1984. The examination would cover the merits of the case as well as the question of the application of the two sets of Rules of Procedure in the event of one or another of the delegations reserving its position on the subject. For the preparation of that meeting, it would be agreed that the parties should deposit their written submissions by Friday 5 October 1984 at the latest; the Secretariat would then have them translated as quickly as possible. The choice of this deadline - two weeks before the day on which the Deputies can resume consideration of the case - would, of course, mean that the 4-week rule for submitting documents would be waived in this case." The Representative of Cyprus said that, although his delegation would have preferred a shorter time-limit for the submission of memorials, he was ready to accept the Chairman's proposal in a spirit of compromise. The Representative of Denmark emphasised the difficulties his delegation would encounter if the 4-week rule for the submission of documents was not observed. The Chairman pointed out that the date had been chosen following consultations and that in any event no decision would be taken in October. The Representative of Turkey said he could not express a view on the question of Article 2.3 of the Deputies' Rules of Procedure as the Secretariat's legal opinion had been made available only that day. Although wishing to be co-operative, he reiterated his authorities' reservation on both the substance and the form, including any question concerning procedure. The Representative of Italy thanked the Chairman and paid tribute to the efforts he had made in the present case as well as to the co-operativeness of the two parties. He suggested that the two parties submit their memorials in both official languages so as to save translation time. The Representative of Cyprus said that his delegation's memorial would be submitted in both languages. The Representative of Turkey emphasised the excessive shortness of the time-limit for preparing his delegation's memorial, which meant that it would not be able to submit it in both languages. The Representative of Ireland said that because his delegation was non-resident he had been unable in the past to travel to Strasbourg for some special meetings of the Committee. However, in view of the timetable for resumed consideration of this item, he wished to make it CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 46 - Item 14 clear that, if the Committee were eventually to decide to hold a meeting between scheduled meetings to consider this case, his delegation would have no objection. Because of the importance attached by his authorities to the Convention his delegation would make every effort to participate in such an eventual meeting. Decision The Deputies, having heard the foregoing statements, agreed to resume consideration of the item "Cyprus against Turkey - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights" at their 376th meeting (October 1984), it being understood that the Parties will deposit their written submissions by 5 October 1984 at the latest. CONFIDENTIAL - 47 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 15

15. BRAMELID AND MALMSTROM AGAINST SWEDEN Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C23 of 9.3.84)

The Representative of Sweden said that his Government accepted the report of the European Commission of Human Rights in this case and that the Swedish Parliament had adopted an amendment to the legislation which would come into force on 1 July 1984 according to which a party not satisfied with a decision of the arbitrators could start a procedure before an ordinay court. He also said that his authorities agreed to publication of the report of the Commission. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels).

CONFIDENTIAL - 49 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 16

16. COLLOQUY ON "HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALIENS IN EUROPE" (Funchal, 17-19 October 1983) (Concl(84)370/18, CM(84)14)

The Chairman Invited the Deputies to resume consideration of the report on the Colloquy on "Human Rights of aliens in Europe", held in Funchal from 17 to 19 October 1983 (CM(84)14). Decision 1 below The Representative of Italy said that his authorities did not share the criticisms directed against the organisation of the Colloquy to which reference had been made at the Deputies' 370th meeting (April 1984, item 18). They were satisfied with the explanations given by the Director of Human Rights on that occasion. The Representatives of the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Switzerland and Austria said that they could take note of the report appearing in CM(84)14. The Representative of Denmark added that his authorities were in principle in favour of colloquies such as that organised in Funchal particularly in view of the fact that they provided an opportunity for contact with grass root movements. He was also glad to note that the conclusions of the Funchal Colloquy would now be described as a "final report", which was a more appropriate term. Decision 2 below The Representative of the Netherlands expressed his approval of the transmission of the final report to the bodies listed. It was understood of course that the content of the report could in no way be regarded as binding on member governments. The Representatives of Italy, Switzerland, France and Austria also supported the transmission of the report to the bodies listed. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 50 - Item 16

Decision 3 below The Chairman noted that the Secretariat had proposed that ad hoc terms of reference be assigned to ten steering committees or ad hoc committees of experts. A number of delegations had questioned the advisability of this action, stressing the importance of avoiding overburdening expert committees and of preventing an unnecessary flow of paper. Accordingly, the ad hoc terms of reference would be assigned to one committee, the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), and the other committees would receive it for information. If the latter committees wished to propose follow-up action they were of course entitled to do so. Co-ordination between committees would be ensured by the Secretariat. Following a proposal by the Representative of Greece, the wording of the ad hoc terms of reference would be abridged to read "... and to report back on activities which could be undertaken following that Colloquy". Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the final report presented by Mr Ruiz-Gimenez at the Colloquy on "Human Rights of Aliens in Europe" (CM(84)14); 2. agreed to transmit the final report, for information, to the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE), to the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter (T-SG), the Consultative Committee of the European Convention on the Status of Migrant Workers (T-MG), and to the Standing Committee on the European Convention on Establishment (T-CE); 3. adopted Decision No. CM/329/210684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee on Human Rights (CDDH), as it appears at Appendix IV to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL - 51 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 17

17. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH) Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-23 March 1984) (CM(84)102)

Assembly Recommendation 962 on development co-operation and human rights The Secretariat being required to draft a reply to Assembly Recommendation 962 in the light of the opinion of the CDDH on the text, the Director of Human Rights said that the terms of reference of the CDDH were limited and related to only certain aspects of Recommendation 962; in fact, as the CDDH had itself indicated, several points with which it had not dealt in its opinion were very markedly political in character and should be considered carefully. The Secretariat would accordingly find it helpful to receive information from delegations which would make it possible to reflect the governments' positions satisfactorily. The Representatives of France and Austria said that their authorities were in favour of Recommendation 962, which corresponded to the main lines they were following in their relations with developing countries. Draft Recommendation No. R(84)... of the Committee of Ministers on the struggle against racial discrimination, hatred and violence The Chairman said that the Secretariat would be notifying the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) of the opinion of the CDDH on the draft Recommendation at its next meeting (25-29 June 1984). Digest of Case Law of the European Convention on Human Rights The Representative of the United Kingdom said he was unable to understand the length of time that had been allowed to elapse before drawing up a new Digest of Case Law, as the previous Digest stopped short in 1967. It appeared that other undertakings had in the past been deemed to have more priority. In connection with the comment by the Director of Human Rights to the CDDH on the reduction of appropriations for publications, the Representative of the United Kingdom thought that the reduction should not have worked to the disadvantage of the Digest. Priorities must be observed, and other publications were of a lower priority than the Digest. The budget could in future include a separate entry for the Digest. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 52 - Item 17

The Representative of Denmark said he supported that suggestion, but was sorry that at the last discussion on the budget the estimates for the human rights sector had been cut. The Director of Human Rights said that as the first Digest had not been regarded as entirely satisfactory - despite its merits - and had not been brought up to date for a great many years, an entirely new Digest in fact had to be planned. He personally, from the time he had been appointed Director of Human Rights, in 1980, had given top priority to the undertaking, but had come up against considerable difficulties. These concerned the scale of the project (the first volume, in English, had just come out, and the whole work, covering all Case Law from the beginning, would run to six volumes of between 700 and 900 pages each), and the inadequacy of resources in money and staff: the result obtained would not have been possible without outside aid (the Netherlands institute SIM) and financial support from the Netherlands authorities, to which he was anxious to pay tribute once more. A very substantial proportion of the work (finalisation of the manuscript, proof reading, translation, miscellaneous verifications, etc) was being undertaken by the Directorate of Human Rights itself, which had simply been allowed to use the specialised services of two persons recruited on a temporary basis, whose contracts were renewed at the end of each month. A situation of this kind did not really facilitate performance of so important a task, the completion of which still involved an immense amount of work (subsequent volumes, updating, French version, etc). The Representative of Switzerland said that the difficulties stemmed from the fact that the monies earmarked for the Digest were not itemised and had to come from appropriations under Vote II of the budget. It was in fact a mistake to regard the undertaking as a part of the traditional intergovernmental activities; it was an integral part of the system for the protection of human rights. The sums set aside for this purpose should accordingly be entered separately under different budget votes. The Director of Human Rights said that the Secretariat would consider the question of the most appropriate point in the budget for the appropriations for the Digest with great care. It was vital to bear in mind the effects of the undertaking on the staff of the Directorate of Human Rights. Press communiqué Recalling the discussion surrounding the press communiqué published at the close of the CDDH meeting (Concl(84)370/37a, item 8), the Representative of the United Kingdom stressed the extent of the amendments made by the Directorate of the Press and Information Services (DPI) to the text adopted by the CDDH. He felt that the DPI should make sure that the text it brought out was effectively approved by the Steering Committee concerned, so as to comply with Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure for committees. CONFIDENTIAL - 53 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 17

Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the opinion of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) on Assembly Recommendation 962 on development co-operation and human rights (item 8 and Appendix III to CM(84)102) and agreed to resume consideration of this Recommendation at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels) on the basis of a draft reply to be prepared by the Secretariat; 2. took note of the CDDH's opinion on draft Recommendation No. R(84)... of the Committee of Ministers on the struggle against racial discrimination, hatred and violence (item 15 and Appendix IV to CM(84)102) and agreed to resume consideration of the draft Recommendation (Addendum IV and Corrigendum to CM(82)236) in the light of that opinion at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels); 3. took note of the CDDH's observations concerning the urgent need for allocation of the necessary resources for the publication and updating of the digest of case law on the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the CDDH attaches a very high degree of priority (item 20b of CM(84)102), agreed to bear them in mind when considering the draft budget for 1985 and with that in view instructed the Secretariat to reconsider the manner in which the appropriations involved are presented in the draft budget; 4. having regard to decisions 1 to 3 above, took note of the report of the 15th meeting of the CDDH as a whole (CM(84)102).

CONFIDENTIAL - 55 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 18

18. DRAFT Protocol TO THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF THE LIST OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS SET FORTH IN THE CONVENTION (Concl(84)372/9, CM(82)230 Addendum I, CM(84)37 and Add., 84 and Assembly Opinion No. 116)

The Chairman recalled that the Deputies were required to examine the draft Protocol (CM(82)230, Addendum I) and in particular the following points not yet decided: a. the "à la carte" system b. the scope of the explanatory report c. Articles 2 and 4 of the draft Protocol d. Article 7. Delegations had been invited to obtain precise instructions, particularly on the two first points. The Representative of the United Kingdom wished to make some preliminary observations of a general nature about the draft Protocol. He first referred to the statement made by the Representative of Belgium at the 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 9) and pointed out that the aim should be to have the Protocol ratified by the largest possible number of States. He referred to difficulties encountered by several governments including his own. First, the number of applications against the United Kingdom which had been declared admissible by the Commission amounted to about one third of all admissible applications. Of the total of 74 cases already dealt with or pending before the Court, 15 concerned the United Kingdom. A very large amount of the case law consisted of United Kingdom cases and it was desirable that the provisions which applied to the United Kingdom should be the same as applied to other Parties. Secondly, the United Kingdom had not been in a position to ratify Protocols Nos. 4 and 6 and his government would be in a very unpleasant situation if it was unable to ratify this new Protocol. He then referred to the decision taken at the 243rd meeting of the Deputies (item XL) which read: "Draft texts of conventions, charters etc... should be submitted to the Committee of Ministers only CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 56 - Item 18

- for final approval, or - for the resolution of specific disagreed points of major principle or of political importance" and hoped that he would not have to rely on that text or to oppose the opening for signature. None of the items submitted for examination by the Deputies complied with those criteria. It was therefore particularly desirable to refer the text back to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH). Moreover, the order in which the items were submitted seemed to him illogical in that they would start by examining the final clauses. But above all, how could one decide for or against the "à la carte" system or the Articles dealing with the explanatory report, without knowing what the substantive Articles contained? Eight of the experts in the CDDH had expressed themselves in favour of the text being sent back either as a whole or in part. Though it was true that the Deputies had previously decided against the reference back it should be noted that this decision was taken before the Oztürk judgment and the CDDH's subsequent opinion that at least part of the text should be sent back to it. The Chairman pointed out that the Committee of Ministers was in fact in the course of applying the decision referred to by the Representative of the United Kingdom. The Representative of the Netherlands said that the first time the draft Protocol was examined he had been against referring the text to the CDDH. In the meantime technical problems had arisen. He would like to know what was going to happen to the amendment submitted by his delegation before deciding on the questions of the "à la carte" system and the scope of the explanatory report. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that after having examined the memorandum of the Secretariat in CM(84)84 and the Conclusions of the 372nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the German authorities maintained their position that the draft of the seventh additional Protocol should be referred back to the CDDH. They submitted the following arguments to explain their attitude: "1. With regard to the memorandum of the Secretariat the German authorities do not share the opinion of the Secretariat that the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Oztürk case does not have any far-reaching consequences on the draft Protocol as this is contradicted by the fact that six judges submitted carefully elaborated opinions dissenting from the judgment of the Court, among them the Austrian judge Prof. Matscher. These six judges would not have expressed their dissenting opinions if they had not been convinced that the judgment would have far-reaching consequences. The opinion of the Secretariat is likewise refuted by the deliberations of the Select Committee of Experts on simplified and summary procedures in criminal cases as reflected in document PC-R-PS(84)3. CONFIDENTIAL - 57 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 18

2. With regard to the Austrian intervention at the 372nd meeting the German authorities think that the arguments put forward are not convincing either. After the Court has classified minor fines with a value of 60 German marks as criminal offences and has stated in its judgment on the Engel case that the gravity of the sanction is decisive for the qualification of a matter as a criminal offence, the German authorities do not think it wise to subscribe to Article 2 of the draft Protocol and thereby to enter into an international obligation the content of which is not foreseeable and will therefore lead to a host of new appeals on the question of whether petty contraventions are limited by a fine of 200, 100, 50, 20 or 10 German marks. The German authorities are also not prepared to face such an uncertain legal situation with regard to the direct application of the Convention by German Courts. This would not be in line either with the responsibility which contracting States of the Convention have for the proper functioning of the organs of the Convention which today are already overburdened. 3. The allegation of the Secretariat that the Oztürk judgment does not have any effect on Article 4 of the draft Protocol and the qualification of disciplinary and similar professional proceedings is refuted by the decision of the Commission, by which a complaint of this kind was forwarded to the Federal Government with an explicit reference to the Oztürk judgment. 4. After careful consideration the German authorities therefore do not see themselves in a position to recommend to the Federal Government and the German parliament the adoption of the two articles of the draft Protocol in their present form. 5. On the other hand, referring the draft Protocol back to the CDDH would offer a chance to comply with the criticism of the Parliamentary Assembly and to widen the draft Protocol by incorporating additional rights. In view of the uncertainty created by the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Court the following rights should be envisaged in this respect with priority: the right of a person to a fair appeals procedure in the event that an administrative decision affects that person seriously. This would correspond to the proposal of the Austrian judge Prof. Matscher in his dissenting vote on the Oztürk judgment. And this would also be an essential contribution to the proper functioning of the Commission and the Court as the overburdening of the latter is created to a large extent by the growing number of proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention in which the question arises whether they touch upon "civil rights" or "criminal proceedings" in the sense of Article 6, para. 1 of the Convention or whether they do not fall at all under this Article. This problem affects not only the Federal Republic of Germany but also the other member States. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 58 - Item 18

- Possibly the right to compensation in cases of expropriation could be included which is discussed by the expert committee DH-EX. A clear legal situation in this respect could help to avoid uncertainties in future jurisdiction and the subsequent flooding of the Strasbourg organs with superfluous complaints. In summing up the German authorities think it more useful to elaborate a reasonable seventh additional Protocol with a short postponement than to run the risk that a considerable number of member States will not ratify the Protocol. It should also be taken into consideration that national parliaments should not be forced at short intervals to ratify new additional Protocols (6th Protocol on the death penalty 1983; 7th Protocol 1984, 8th Protocol on procedure 1985 and possibly 9th Protocol on compensation for expropriation and on other rights in 1985/1986). 6. If the Protocol is referred back to the CDDH some elements for the corresponding "ad hoc terms of reference" have been prepared by the German authorities." The Representative of Austria said that the Austrian statement mentioned by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany was not made at a meeting of the Deputies but sent directly to the German delegation. As to the Austrian judge's dissenting opinion it only went to show the independence of the judges. The Representative of Greece recalled the decision which had been taken by the Deputies not to send the text back to the CDDH and of the fact that the Committee of Ministers had discussed the text at length. It was quite clear that the Committee of Ministers could not achieve unanimity and therefore the decision must be made by the majority. The Representative of France said that his authorities were very interested in the draft Protocol and hoped that it would be adopted as quickly as possible and by the greatest possible number of governments. Reference back to the CDDH would not make it possible to achieve this result and the Committee of Ministers would find itself once again in the same situation. He therefore supported the Secretariat's proposal to examine the outstanding points in the order suggested but could also agree to examining them in the reverse order as suggested by the Representative of the United Kingdom. The Representative of Italy said that he had understood at the 372nd meeting that delegations would be asked to make known the points of view of their governments on the outstanding points, which he was ready to do. His authorities saw no advantage in referring the text back to the CDDH. It was for the Committee of Ministers to reach a decision on the remaining differences, which were of a political nature. An "à la carte" Protocol would be worse than a Protocol ratified only by some States. CONFIDENTIAL - 59 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 18 (cont'd 4)

The Representative of Denmark supported the Representative of Italy and opposed reference of the text back to the CDDH. His authorities could accept the text as it stood. He agreed with the point of view of the Representative of Belgium about the number of ratifications but doubted whether the CDDH could reach agreement. In connection with the objections raised by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, he did not think that the Oztürk judgment made a reference back to the CDDH necessary. However, if a majority were in favour of a reference back to the CDDH he would prefer it to be limited to Articles 2 and 4. Referring to the possibility mentioned by the Representative of the United Kingdom that a single delegation might oppose opening for signature, he said that that was only a practice. His authorities could accept the text at it stood. The Representative of Norway agreed with the points of view expressed by the Representatives of Italy and Denmark. It was true that it might be considered that technical problems had arisen; however, one could not call in the experts every time this happened. this would make the procedure much too cumbersome. The large number of outstanding questions were of a political nature. The Director of Human Rights said that he appreciated the argument that it was desirable for the Protocol to receive the support of the greatest possible number of governments. From the beginning of the Convention there had been differences in the obligations of the States and in particular the optional provisions of the Convention were not always accepted by all the States. He added, however, that there had been a snowball effect for those clauses and the ratification of the Protocols. On the question of the large number of cases brought before the Commission concerning the United Kingdom, he thought that one of the reasons was probably that that country had continued to follow the dualist theory so that the European Convention of Human Rights was not part of the domestic law and could not be relied on before the domestic courts. There was also the fact that there was no "Bill of Rights". In this connection he cited a recent article by Mr. Anthony Lester: "Fundamental rights: the United Kingdom isolated?" which set out the history of the United Kingdom's attitude and hesitations in the past in connection with the Convention, and in particular Article 25, though those hesitations had finally been overcome. Several countries, including the United Kingdom, had ratified the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights though it contained stricter provisions than those in the draft Protocol. He again repeated that the draft was a result of many years work and that the Court and the Commission had expressed favourable opinions on the text. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 60 - Item 18 The questions relating to the "à la carte" system and the scope of the explanatory report did not fall within the category of the final clauses and they had been deliberately submitted to the Committee of Ministers by the CDDH. It was true that the United Kingdom expert had been in favour of the "à la carte" system and strengthening the role played by the explanatory report. On the other hand the majority, as was shown by paragraph 13 of the CDDH's report (page 6 of Addendum I to CM(82)230), had drawn attention to the fact that the "à la carte" system would be fatal to the cohesion of the machinery of protection established by the Convention. Again, the majority considered that the practice concerning the explanatory report should not be changed. These were eminently political questions because the introduction of the "à la carte" system would constitute a precedent and the same applied to the standing of the explanatory report. From a procedural point of view there was nothing to be gained by sending this text back to the CDDH. At the request of the Federal Republic of Germany he had made a sounding of opinions in the CDDH on the results of which he did not share the interpretation given by the Representative of the United Kingdom. He was happy to note the position adopted by some delegations on Articles 2 and 4. The fact that the Oztürk judgment had produced six dissenting opinions did not in any way affect the draft Protocol because the divergence had related to the interpretation of Article 6(1) of the Convention and not to the draft Protocol. He drew attention to paragraphs 33 and 34 of CM(84)84 which showed that though Article 6 of the Convention did not enable the Court to make a distinction between serious and lesser offences, such a distinction was made in Article 2 of the draft Protocol. Article 4 had led to a misunderstanding in the minds of the German authorities, as was apparent from paras. 38 to 40 of CM(84)84: in fact the Oztürk case was very different from the Engel case and the Court itself had stressed the difference between the two. The argument relied on by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany that one could take advantage of referring the text back to the CDDH to include new rights would in fact, as regards a possible Article 6 bis, limit rights which already existed under the Convention. He concluded by stressing that, at the level of principle, what some delegations were trying to do was to alter case law by legislative methods. The Representative of the United Kingdom said that Mr. Lester's article was very interesting. One of the arguments put forward against incorporation was precisely the fact that the United Kingdom could not accept the two Protocols already referred to. It was possible that the large number of cases was the result of the Convention not being incorporated in domestic law; nevertheless, British counts already took account of the convention and the case law of the European Court. CONFIDENTIAL - 61 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 18

Nor could the impact of pressure groups which were very active be overlooked. As to the snowball or persuasive effect of ratification by other States, experience had demonstrated the contrary. Three territories for whose international relations the United Kingdom was responsible had already requested that Article 25 should cease to be applied to them and there had been no renewal in relation to them in 1981. The problem might arise in connection with other such territories when it came to renewing the acceptance of the optional clause next time. In this connection he reminded them of the statements made by his predecessor, Mr. Cape, in his farewell address (CM/Del/Concl(82)354) . The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, replying to the Director of Human Rights, said that his authorities must refer to difficulties which might arise not only in their own case but also for other governments. As regards the dissenting opinions in the Oztürk case the questions they raised were precisely those that were to be dealt with in the Protocol. It was an exaggeration to say that the proposal made by the Federal Republic of Germany would entail restrictions on the Convention. The Representative of Sweden said that six out of nine delegations were against referring the Protocol back to the CDDH and that he shared their point of view. He also agreed with the Representative of France on the procedure to be followed. An indicative vote on referring the text back to the CDDH produced the following result: 4 for, 9 against and 7 abstentions. The Representative of the United Kingdom, supported by the Representatives of Switzerland and Liechtenstein, asked for an indicative vote on the reference back of Articles 2 and 4 alone. The Director of Human Rights pointed out that if the Committee of Ministers did decide to refer Articles 2 and 4 back it would be useful if the CDDH were to know the position adopted by the Committee of Ministers on the political questions, namely the "à la carte system" and the scope of the explanatory report. The Representatives of France, Luxembourg, Portugal and Greece supported this point of view. The Representatives of Norway said that the question of the "à la carte" system was of great importance for his authorities and he would be obliged to vote against the reference back of Articles 2 and 4 if the vote was held before the question of the "à la carte" system was decided. The Chairman invited the Committee to examine the questions as presented in Notes No. 4994. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 62 - Item 18

a. The "à la carte" system The Representatives of Cyprus, Austria, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Liechtenstein and Italy stated that they were opposed to the "à la carte" system. The Representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that a system of that kind had been accepted for the Social Charter and for other Conventions. An indicative vote on the "à la carte" system produced the following result: 2 in favour, 16 against and 2 abstentions. b. Scope of the explanatory report The Chairman recalled that the proposal implied the addition of an Article 7 bis or the adoption of a Resolution in order to clarify the scope of the explanatory report, which would amount to modifying practice followed hitherto. The Representatives of Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark and Turkey were not in favour of the proposal. The Representatives of France and Italy said that their authorities considered that explanatory reports did not constitute instruments of authentic interpretation of international agreements. The Representative of Sweden, supported by the Representatives of Norway, Cyprus and Spain, was not in favour of the proposal and added that one should be guided by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties according to which an explanatory report was only one element of interpretation. It would create confusion if practice were to be modified in respect of just one Protocol. The Representative of Ireland supported by the Representative of the United Kingdom was in favour of adding an Article 7 bis worded as proposed in paragraph 17 of Addendum I to CM(82)230. An indicative vote on the proposal to add an Article 7 bis produced the following result: 2 in favour, 15 against, 3 abstentions. An indicative vote on adoption of a Resolution clarifying the scope of the explanatory report produced the following result: 2 in favour, 14 against, 3 abstentions. An indicative vote on the second version of Article 7 bis produced the following result: 3 in favour, 16 against, 1 abstention. CONFIDENTIAL - 63 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 18 c. Articles 2 and 4 The Chairman reminded the meeting of the proposal by the Netherlands delegation to replace the words "everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal" by "everyone convicted in criminal proceedings". The Representative of Denmark pointed out that his country would have to modify its constitution in order to be able to accept that amendment. The Representative of Belgium was prepated to agree that that point should be referred back to the CDDH, as it was a legal problem. The Representative of France preferred the initial wording of Article 2 but was able to accept the Netherlands proposal if it had the support of the majority. The Representaive of Greece also expressed his preference for the initial version submitted by the CDDH. The Representative of Austria reminded the Deputies that the experts had already examined the Netherlands proposal and had not found it acceptable. The Representative of Spain shared the view of the Representatives of France and Greece. In reply to a request for an opinion by the Reprsentative of Portugal, the Director of Human Rights confirmed the fact that the proposal had been examined by the experts, who had not accepted it. An indicative vote on the proposal to refer Articles 2 and 4 back to the CDDH produced the following result: 7 in favour, 5 against, 7 abstentions. An indicative vote on the Netherlands proposal produced the following result: 3 in favour, 10 against, 6 abstentions. The Representative of the Netherlands stated that his authorities, if they signed the Protocol, would make an interpretative declaration stipulating that they were not bound beyond the explanation of that Article given in the explanatory report. An indicative vote on the amendment proposed by the Assembly for the deletion in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the following words "was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or ..." produced the following result: 1 in favour, 16 against, 1 abstention. An indicative vote on referral back to the CDDH of these two Articles on the basis of the proposal made by the Federal Republic of Germany produced the following result: 7 in favour, 6 against, 7 abstentions. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 64 - Item 18 d. Article 7 The Chairman reminded the meeting that the Assembly had proposed that Article 7(2) be replaced by a text to the effect that declarations made in accordance with Articles 25 and 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights become operative in respect of the provisions of the Protocol. The Representative of Greece could not accept that proposal which would have the affect of preventing a State which had not accepted Article 25 or 46 from signing the Protocol. The Representative of Austria said that his authorities feared that a clause of that kind might make it more difficult to accept the Protocol. The Representatives of France, Denmark, Italy, Cyprus and the United Kingdom went along with the Representatives of Greece and Austria. The Representatives of Norway, Switzerland, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands were able to accept the proposal. An indicative vote on the Assembly's proposal produced the following result: 5 in favour, 12 against, 3 abstentions. The Representative of Belgium, supported by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, said that his delegation feared that the Protocol would be ratified only by a slender majority. In future the Secretariat ought not to propose a text of which it was not sure that it would be accepted by a large majority. The Representative of the United Kingdom also supported the comments of the Representative of Belgium and said that the experts were in the process of examining the possibility of instituting another form of control machinery and that the present Protocol might well be the last concerning extension of the Convention. The Director of Human Rights observed that the discussion had concluded the labour of several long years. The CDDH, whose draft had just been accepted by the Committee of Ministers, had worked very painstakingly and not in any sense hastily. It knew that it would not be possible to achieve unanimity. But the danger was of arriving at a situation where the Council of Europe would have finally settled for rights that were less than those adopted universally . CONFIDENTIAL - 65 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 18

He pointed out that the possibility of alternative control machinery had never been contemplated in the context of the present Protocol but only as regards economic and social rights. He proposed that discussion of the item be resumed in September for the purpose of final adoption of the text of the Protocol and that it be decided to open the latter to signature, fixing the date possibly for the ministerial session in November. The Representative of Austria supported this latter proposal. The Chairman concluded that the Deputies would be invited to adopt the final text of Protocol No. 7 at their 375th meeting (September 1984) while the Secretariat was instructed to supply them with the text without delay (the document would bear the reference number CM(84)137). They would also be invited, possibly, to decide to open it to signature and to fix the date therefor. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels).

CONFIDENTIAL - 67 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 19 19. PROPOSAL FOR THE HOLDING OF A MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON EQUALITY BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN (CM(84)372/20, CM(84)89)

The Representative of France referred to his government's proposal, which he had put to the Deputies at their 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 20), to hold at the beginning of 1986 in Strasbourg, at the headquarters of the Council of Europe, a ministerial conference on equality between women and men. He stated that the objectives of such a conference, as they emerged from the discussions between the experts of the Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM) (CM(84)89, pages 13-14), were quite clear. As for the themes, it seemed to the French authorities to be premature to define them at the present stage; they wanted all member States to be involved in the selection of the themes. The French government keenly desired a decision to be taken as to the principle of holding such a conference. The Representative of Sweden said that his authorities supported this French idea and expressed satisfaction that France proposed that the conference be held in Strasbourg. As for the themes, he proposed women's right to work and the representation of women in decision-taking bodies. The Representative of the Netherlands said that his authorities had not yet taken a stand concerning the proposals. But they considered that if a conference of that kind were to take place it should be held in the light of the Nairobi conference to assess the results of the United Nations Decade for Women. The Representative of Norway who had, at the 372nd meeting of the Deputies (May 1984, item 20), already announced his authorities' agreement in principle to the holding of the conference said that western countries did indeed need a forum to discuss problems at ministerial level and exchange the knowledge they had acquired. The Representative of the United Kingdom, supported by the Representative of Switzerland, explained that her authorities' attitude was close to that of the Netherlands government. They realised that France did not wish to impose themes but as a result the proposal was too vague. A complete agenda should be prepared in advance. In this way the preparatory work as regards the holding of the conference should go on but the decision to hold it be taken later. She said that this approach should be applied to all proposals for conferences and not just that one. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 68 - Item 19

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, who was in favour of holding the conference, considered like the Representative of the United Kingdom that the themes should be specified before a final decision was taken on the holding of the conference. The Representatives of Spain, Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Cyprus and Denmark expressed their agreement in principle to the holding of the conference and the proposal to make the CAHFM responsible for preparing it. The Representative of Italy was also in favour of holding the conference, in principle. His authorities also wished that there should be a link between the European Conference and the United Nations Conference. The problem of equality between women and men was on the Italian government's work programme and it had set up a committee to explore every aspect of the question. The Chairman emphasised that if the conference took place after the Nairobi Conference it would not be in order to assess the United Nations Decade, as that would have been done at the World Conference, but rather to take stock of the situation in Western European states so as to lay down the main paths of future policy in Western Europe as regards equality between women and men. He reminded the meeting that the Council of Europe's task was to deal with the European aspect of international problems. He observed that the majority of delegations were in agreement with the principle of holding the conference and that a small number wished to defer the decision. Consequently he proposed that the Bureau of the CAHFM, which would meet in September, be given a mandate to study the themes for the conference in greater detail and that the Deputies resume discussion of this item in October. To that end the Bureau of the CAHFM would meet in an enlarged form, including another two members, as suggested in the CAHFM report itself (CM(84)89, page 14). Decisions The Deputies 1. adopted Decision No. CM/340/220684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Bureau of the Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM-BU), as it appears at Appendix V to these Conclusions; 2. agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 376th meeting (October 1984 - A and B levels). CONFIDENTIAL - 69 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20

*20. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON CRIME PROBLEMS (CDPC) Report of the 8th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-6 April 1984) (CM(84)107 and Add. I to VI)

Amendment of the terms of reference of the Committee for Co-operation in Prison (PC-R-CP) Replying to questions and remarks from the Representative of Greece, Belgium and Switzerland, the Director of Legal Affairs explained that the expenses to be borne for the appointment of a scientific expert for the revision of the "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners" would be covered by the ordinary budget for the programme of activities. He recalled that in 1955 the United Nations had adopted Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners on a worldwide scale; in order to adjust them to European conditions and to update them, the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution (73)5, containing the present version of the "Standard Minimum Rules". Now, ten years later, a further updating was necessary to take account of recent developments in the field and of the constraints of the prevailing economic situation; it was hoped to submit this updated version to the UN Congress to be held in Milan during the summer of 1985. Since the members of the select committee, five very senior officials in their respective countries (Austria, Cyprus, Italy, Netherlands and Sweden), would have difficulty in finding the necessary time to carry out such detailed work, and since the Secretariat lacked the necessary expertise and specific knowledge of the prison world, the PC-R-CP had thought it indispensable to propose as scientific expert its previous Chairman, now retired, who had both the expertise and the time to carry out the work before the dealine of summer 1985 and was also ready to accept this task for a modest fee. The Representative of Switzerland said that the seniority of the PC-R-CP members did not justify the appointment of independent experts. The Representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) had carried the proposal of the select committee by 18 votes in favour. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 70 - Item *20

The Chairman put to a vote the question of the appointment of a scientific expert for the revision of the "Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners". The result was the following: 15 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions (carried). Draft Recommendation on the criminal record and the rehabilitation of convicted persons The Representatives of the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, in spite of certain hesitations expressed earlier by their authorities, were now in a position to accept the draft Recommendation. The Representative of the United Kingdom abstained during the adoption of the Recommendation. Criminal record (elaboration of a European model) For the Representative of the Netherlands this activity was neither useful nor easy to bring to an end. Nevertheless he would not object to it but simply abstain. Following a suggestion by the Representative of Greece, the Chairman noted that this matter would be examined in the light of the discussion on the report of the Ministers' Deputies working party on working methods in the Council of Europe, when "p.m. activities" were discussed in general. Draft Convention on offences relating to cultural property The Representative of Spain made the following statement: "With regard to draft Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property I must inform you of my authorities' grave reservations regarding this text - reservations which, moreover, were also expressed in the opinion given by the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) at the start of December 1983. In our opinion, offences relating to cultural property have three aspects: criminal, civil and administrative. If one of these three aspects is neglected, an imperfect and very vulnerable system of protection for works of art will be created. For this reason: a. the criminal aspect should cover repression of the offence committed; b. the civil aspect should deal with restitution of the work of art to its legitimate owner in the country of origin; and CONFIDENTIAL - 71 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20 c. the administrative aspect should involve the preparation of a catalogue of objects which may not be exported because they form part of the cultural heritage of a member State. These three aspects are inseparable and it is only by combining them adequately that one can ensure effective protection of cultural property. In the case in question this has unfortunately not occurred. According to the CDCJ 'Article 12 of the draft ... did not satisfy all States with regard to the problem of the acquisition in good faith by a third party of stolen or, as the case may be, illegally exported cultural property'. No acceptable solution has been found to two fundamental points, viz restitution of the cultural property and compensation in the case of forced restitution, on account of the diversity of national legislation on the subject. On the other hand, general protection of acquisition in good faith would or might prevent effective protection of the property we are discussing. Another question which does not seem to have been adequately settled is that of designating the authority in the requesting State as the competent authority responsible for setting the amount of compensation or assessing whether the buyer acted in good faith. As has already been pointed out by the CDCJ, restriction of the draft Convention only to the criminal aspects of the problems is likely to lessen (and even multify) the effectiveness of the text. Not to mention the 'à la carte' definition of the 'catalogue' of cultural property provided for in Appendix II to the draft (Article 2, para. 2). For all these reasons and others which would take too long to mention we consider that the terms of reference given to the European Committee on Crime Problems at the time have not been satisfactorily fulfilled. It is therefore highly desirable that the draft Convention should be re-examined. In this respect, we are highly interested in the CDCJ's suggestion that we should do this in a multidisciplinary framework and in conjunction with the other international organisations concerned in order to attempt to adopt an international instrument providing effective protection of cultural property. At this stage we consider the draft Convention unacceptable to our country, while emphasising that the subject considered is of exceptional interest to us." CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 72 - Item *20

The Representative of the Netherlands made the following statement: "The draft Convention as it stands now is not acceptable for my authorities. They think that the Convention should contain an Article concerning the bona fide ownership of cultural property stolen in an foreign country. We think that such an Article should stipulate that the owner in good faith of a stolen work of art should restitute it to the State that has asked for it. However, the requesting State should pay a price decided on by a judge of the country of the owner of the work of art. With such an Article the Convention would be in accordance with the UNESCO Convention of 1970 on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. In the absence of such a provision we think that there is no justification for a separate European Convention. Therefore, I propose that the draft Convention be sent back to the CDCJ for re-examination." The Representative of Sweden referred to the absence of civil law provisions and noted in particular that the question of bona fide acquisition of works of art was not covered by the draft Convention. The Representative of Denmark stressed the absence in the draft Convention of civil law provisions. It contained only a set of rules already existing in other international Conventions and could therefore delay their ratification. The Representative of the United Kingdom said that the draft Convention was not acceptable in its present form. At the stage of the discussion she would not however go into all the detailed comments provided by her authorities. The Representative of the Republic of Germany made the following statement: "The German authorities welcome the improvements which have been made to Article 8 of the draft Convention on offences relating to cultural property. However, to avoid any misunderstanding regarding interpretation of the new sentence which has been added at the end of paragraph 2 of the Article in question, viz 'Restitution of the property in question is however subject to the conditions laid down in the law of the requested Party'; the German authorities wish to make it clear that as far as the seizure of cultural property for restitution to the applicant is concerned, this sentence does not exclude the consideration of restrictions based on national law." CONFIDENTIAL - 73 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20

The Representative of France could not accept the powers of intervention given to the CDPC in the case of difficulties arising between States, envisaged in the second part of Article 31. He suggested replacing it by "and shall monitor its execution". The Representative of Norway was ready to accept the draft Convention, but was worried by the fact that no delegation in the CDPC had indicated that it would proceed to the ratification of the Convention in the near future. The Representative of Italy made the following statement: "The Italian delegation proposes the following two amendments to the draft European Convention on offences relating to cultural property to improve it structurally so as to enable the aims set out in the Preamble to be effectively pursued. 1. We propose that Article 28(1) be amended to exclude the possibility of reservations regarding Article 8(3), since reservation regarding that Article would exclude from the machinery of the Convention the 'seizure and restitution of cultural property ... to the person designated by the judgment', which is really the concrete aim of the entire judicial procedure and of co-operation on this subject between the various states. 2. The Italian delegation also proposes the insertion in Article 12 of the words '... and reparation' after the word 'sanctioning' to emphasise the Convention's purpose of reparation (compensation). 3. In addition to the aforegoing and in the light of the CDPC's discussions, we emphasise that the Convention covers only the criminal aspects of offences against European cultural heritages. We must therefore now settle the matters of possession in good faith, which in every case prevents restitution of property removed from its legitimate owner. To this end, we suggest that we should include in the programme of legal co-operation activities, the topic 'preparation of a draft Protocol as an instrument for settlement of matters relating to the restitution of cultural property and in particular relating to the possession of property in good faith'". The Representatives of Portugal and Turkey considered the draft Convention as a first step towards the protection of cultural property, and stated that they supported the Italian proposal for an additional Protocol. The Representative of Switzerland also considered the draft Convention as a first step towards the protection of cultural property. Becasue as it was, the Swiss authorities were in favour of its adoption, even if the text still left open certain gaps; these could possibly be filled in by the adoption of a supplementary text later. CONFIDENTIAL - 74 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the attempts made by the CDCJ and the CDPC to find common ground had failed and it would not be advisable to send the text back to the CDPC only. To make sure that this Convention had more success than the UNESCO one (only Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Turkey had ratified it), he proposed that further action be twofold: the Committee of Ministers might, by ad hoc terms of reference, instruct the CDCJ to consider the matter of bona fide ownership and draft either some Articles or a Protocol covering it, while the Secretariat prepared a document replying to the comments put forward during the present meeting concerning other points of the text, which relate exclusively to the penal aspects of the problem. This proposal was supported by the Representatives of Italy, Austria and the Netherlands. The Representative of Spain proposed that a revision of the text be carried out in close co-operation with the other competent international organisations. The Representative of Greece thought that ad hoc terms of reference could be given to the CDCJ only after the governments had been informed of the views exchanged at the present meeting and had studied the paper promised by the Secretariat. The Chairman noted agreement on decision 4 below. He also noted that when the Deputies resumed consideration of the draft Convention in October no time would have been lost since the CDCJ would not be in a position to carry out any additional work at its June meeting and the CDPC would not meet again until 1985. Draft Recommendation on the harmonisation of national legislations relating to firearms The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands asked for postponement of the discussion on this point. The Representatives of Turkey and Sweden were in favour of the adoption of the draft Recommendation. The Representative of Denmark said she would submit some amendments in writing. The Representatives of France, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway expected that they would have to put forward certain reservations. CONFIDENTIAL - 75 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20

The Representative of Belgium said that, if a vote were to be taken, he would abstain. The Representative of Portugal made the following statement: "My delegation wishes to refer to Article 2 of the draft Recommendation and more particularly to section (a) which lists prohibited firearms. The firearms in question are prohibited because of their particularly dangerous nature and the Portuguese authorities have difficulty in accepting that the final part of section (a) does not limit more severly the possibility of waiving the general system of prohibition for private individuals. This point of views has moreover already been expressed by the Portuguese delegation to the CDCP because the Portuguese authorities consider that private individuals should in no circumstances be authorised to keep firearms in the categories mentioned in Article 2(a) of the draft Recommendation or at least that if exceptional authorisations were to be granted the firearms in question should not keep the dangerous characteristics which had dictated their classification as prohibited weapons. This aspect is of particular importance, especially in a period in which terrorism is causing concern for our governments and in which all precautions are fully justified to avoid dangerous weapons being accessible to groups other than those who normally use them in the military and militarised forces." The Director of Legal Affairs, in the light of the stand taken by several delegations, suggested postponing consideration of the text to a forthcoming meeting, possibly in November when a detailed examination of the text might be more opportune. To his mind, in fact, there was no point in sending the text back to the CDPC at that stage. The difficulties seemed to be more of a political nature than of a technical or legal nature. Metal detectors Explaining the background of the question of metal detectors, the Director of Legal Affairs said that the CDPC had found the matter exceeded its competence and that it was necessary to involve other disciplines. For that reason the Secretariat had proposed that the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) be asked to carry out work on the subject. The Representative of Greece proposed that the CDCJ should be included under point 4 of the draft ad hoc terms of reference as an additional steering committee to be associated with the work of the CDCC. This proposal was put to the vote but failed to secure the majority necessary for its adoption. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 76 - Item *20

The Director of Legal Affairs proposed that the CDCJ should be included under point 5 of the ad hoc terms of reference as the other committee to be kept informed of the work of the CDCC. Both the CDCJ and the CDPC might be invited to contribute at a later stage to civil law and penal law aspects respectively. Draft Recommendation on foreign prisoners The Representative of Sweden stated that her authorities would implement the principles contained in the annexe to the Recommendation in accordance with the needs of the situation prevailing in Sweden. 16th Criminological Research Conference The Director of Legal Affairs pointed out that the persons listed in Appendix V to CM(84)107 would be invited to the Conference in their personal capacity, and not as representatives of their governments; it went without saying that their expenses would not be borne by the Council of Europe budget. He informed the Committee of further proposals to invite experts from Canada, Australia and the United States which he could support, the experts in question being well-known criminologists. Distribution of publications in the CDPC's field of activity The Director of Legal Affairs said that, following talks with the Director of Administration, the problems raised by the CDPC under item 1.B.17 of CM(84)107 were on the point of being settled; the Committee of Ministers did not therefore need to discuss this matter. Decisions The Deputies 1. approved the amendment of point 5 of the terms of reference of the Committee for Co-operation in Prison Affairs (PC-R-CP) proposed by the CDPC (item I.A.2 of CM(84)107) so as to include therein as a matter of first priority the "revision of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners", and noted that, in accordance with the usual procedure, the Secretary General would appoint a scientific expert to carry out that task; 2. adopted Recommendation No. R(84)10 on the criminal record and the rehabilitation of convicted persons, as it appears at Appendix VI to these Conclusions, and authorised publication of the explanatory report relating thereto (Addendum I to CM(84)107); CONFIDENTIAL - 77 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20

3. agreed to examine in the framework of the draft programme of activities for 1985 the CDPC's wish that the subject of the criminal record (elaboration of a European model) be maintained p.m. among its future activities (item I.B.I); 4. agreed to resume consideration at B level at their 376th meeting (October 1984 - A and B levels), of the draft Convention on offences relating to cultural property (Appendix A to the Addendum to CM(84)107), in the light of a Secretariat document reflecting the various views expressed at the present meeting and, if appropriate, commenting on them; 5. took note of the position expressed by the CDPC on the subject of the extension of the ad hoc terms of reference assigned to it by the Committee of Ministers by Decision No CM/309/211083 (examination of measures which might be recommended to member States on the use of metal detectors) and adopted Decision No. CM/330/210684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC), as it appears at Appendix VII to these Conclusions; 6. agreed to resume consideration at B level at their 378th meeting (November/December 1984 - A and B levels), of the draft Recommendation on the harmonisation of national legislations relating to firearms (Appendix I to Addendum III to CM(84)107), in the light of a Secretariat document reflecting the various views expressed at the present meeting and, if appropriate, commenting on them; 7. adopted Decisions No. CM/331/210684 and CM/332/210684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference respectively to the Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM) and the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) to give an opinion on the draft Recommendation on violence in the family (Add. IV to CM(84)107) as they appear at Appendices VIII and IX to these Conclusions; 8. took note of the opinion expressed by the CDPC on Assembly Recommendation 950 on the extradition of criminals (Appendix III to CM(84)107) and adopted the following reply to that Recommendation: "Having sought the opinion of the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), the Committee of Ministers sets out below its additional comments on Assembly Recommendation 950 on extradition of criminals to those contained in its interim reply on this subject. Paragraph 10(a)(i) While agreeing with the Assembly's opinion that it is desirable for Council of Europe member States to improve the means of international co-operation, particularly in the field of extradition, with States in CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 78 - Item *20 the Americas, and understanding why the Assembly's recommendation that the question of an accession to the Inter-American Convention on Extradition be studied, the Committee of Ministers feels it necessary to underline a number of difficulties which arise in this context: - According to Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Inter-American Convention on Extradition, only States having the status of permanent observer to the OAS may accede to that Convention. Accession is therefore possible for only nine Council of Europe member States (Austria, Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland). - The Convention was opened for signature only in 1981. Not knowing which of the OAS member States are likely to ratify the Convention, it is not possible at this moment for the Council of Europe member States concerned to assess the usefulness of an accession to the Inter-American Treaty. - In view of the systems of criminal justice, in particular the human rights standards applied in some of the States belonging to the OAS, which might have repercussions on the operation of the Convention, it might be preferable for Council of Europe member States to conclude bilateral treaties. - Some of the provisions of the Inter-American Convention give rise to objection and might require some Council of Europe member States to make reservations: extradition may not be refused, for instance, in the case of military offences or on humanitarian grounds, and Article 8 which lays down the principle 'aut dedere aut iudicare' might not be acceptable. Paragraph 10(a)(ii) While accepting that the requirement of a treaty may constitute an obstacle and therefore agreeing with the substance of the recommendation, the Committee of Ministers nevertheless hesitates to endorse the recommendation as it would apply to only three member States (Belgium, Netherlands, United Kingdom) and only to their relations with non-member States. CONFIDENTIAL - 79 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *20

Paragraph 10(a)(iii) The Committee of Ministers is convinced that States already take all necessary measures to prevent criminals from escaping justice. To the extent that the recommendation aims at strengthening border controls, it wishes to emphasise the repercussions which such measures would have on the policy of free movement of persons and the trend towards reducing or abolishing border controls. Paragraph 10(b)(i) The Committee of Ministers shares the view, underlying this recommendation, that lack of harmonisation of substantive penal law constitutes one of the obstacles to the smooth application of extradition treaties, in particular in view of the double criminality requirement. It wishes to point out, however, that comparative law already plays an important role in member States' law reform preparations. Paragraph 10(b)(iv) The Select Committee of Experts on the Operation of European Conventions in the Penal Field (PC-R-OC) is already reviewing the practical application of the European Convention on Extradition. This review includes the question of whether extradition procedures can be simplified. The Select Committee has taken note of the Assembly's recommendation in this respect"; 9. adopted Recommendation No. R(84)ll on information about the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, as it appears at Appendix X to these Conclusions; 10. adopted Recommendation No. R(84)12 on foreign prisoners as it appears at Appendix XI to these Conclusions, and authorised publication of the explanatory memorandum relating thereto (Appendix IV to Addendum V to CM(84)107); 11. took note of the final activity report of the Select Committee of Experts on Prison Regimes and Prison Leave (PC-R-RP) (Activity 23.5.2) (Addendum VI to CM(84)107) and of the CDPC's decision to put that committee's report at the disposal of prison administrations in roneotyped form (item I.B.7 of CM(84)107); 12. took note of the CDPC's opinion on document CM(83)20 ("The fight against drug dependence") (Appendix IV to CM(84)107) and agreed to examine in connection with the draft programme of activities for 1985 the CDPC's proposal for the inclusion of a new activity p.m.: "Repression of drug abuse - co-operation with the Pompidou Group if and as requested by that body" (item I.B.9 of CM(84)107); CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 80 - Item *20

13. authorised the Secretary General to invite the observers from non-member states and international organisations listed in Appendix V to CM(84)107 and those referred to in the course of the present meeting to take part in a personal capacity in the 16th Criminological Research Conference (26-29 November 1984) (item I.B.12); 14. having regard to decisions 1 to 13 above, took note of the report of the 8th meeting of the CDPC (CM(84)107 and Addenda I to VI) as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL - 81 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *21 *21. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF TERRITORIAL ASYLUM, REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS (CAHAR) Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 26-30 March 1984) (CM(84)120)

The Representatives of Belgium, France, and Spain said they could agree to instructing the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the legal aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) to continue the drafting of a draft Agreement on the responsibility for examining asylum requests. Thus, in spite of certain problems with the text and some doubts about the foreseeable outcome, the efforts already deployed by the CAHAR so far would not have been wasted and a chance would be given for the text of the draft Agreement, which in its present form was unacceptable, to be reviewed and improved. The Representatives of the Netherlands, Cyprus and Belgium were in favour of extending the CAHAR's terms of reference for two more meetings for this purpose. The Representative of Denmark wanted the activity to continue; the Danish representative in the CAHAR had voted against the present text only because he wanted it to be more substantial. The Representative of Turkey made the following statement: "Experts of 7 member countries out of the 15 represented in the March meeting of CAHAR have expressed their reservations on a compromise text. This creates serious misgivings as to how this exercise will continue. An Agreement without the participation of quite a number of member countries, among whom we have the largest receivers of refugees and asylum seekers, will hardly contribute to the solution of prevailing issues. This delegation is therefore of the opinion that, unless there is a positive change in the positions of those who are directly involved in refugee problems and unless a larger degree of support is achieved, there is no real purpose at this stage in asking CAHAR to continue with drawing up a draft Agreement." CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 82 - Item *21

The Representatives of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Austria said that, in the light of the CAHAR report, they were sceptical about the likelihood of a positive result being obtained if the work of the CAHAR on this subject was to be carried on now. Therefore, they proposed that this activity be put aside by the CAHAR until it considered the time ripe for re-opening the discussions with a view to reaching an agreement. In the meantime, the CAHAR should continue to work on the other items of its terms of reference, notably the periodical exchanges of views on developments in the field of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons. The Representative of Italy was in favour of the continuation of the work of the CAHAR on the draft Agreement. His government attached great importance to the problem of the responsibility for examining asylum requests, since two categories of countries were involved in this respect: the countries of first asylum and those granting permanent asylum. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed serious misgivings about the possible outcome of this activity but he could follow the majority. The Director of Legal Affairs said that the future of the CAHAR was not in question now since its terms of reference were wider than the drafting of an Agreement on the responsibility for examining asylum requests. The Committee of Ministers had of course the power to ask the CAHAR to leave aside this activity for a while and to raise the matter again only when there was a real chance of making progress. Following a vote, the Chairman noted that there was agreement on the decisions below. Decisions The Deputies 1. agreed that consideration by the ad hoc Committee of Experts on the legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) of the draft Agreement on the responsibility for examining asylum requests (Appendix V to CM(84)120) should be deferred and that the CAHAR would report to them on this matter when that committee considers it appropriate to do so; 2, taking into account decision 1 above, took note of the report of the 15th meeting of the CAHAR (CM(84)120) as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL - 83 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *22 *22. PROCEDURES FOR VERIFYING APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM Written Question No 275 by Mr Büchner (CM(84)113 and Add.)

The Representative of the Federa1 Republic of Germany made the following statement: "If during asylum application procedures the applicant refers to non-political offences committed abroad, the German criminal prosecution authorities, in order to be able to take the necessary criminal measures, are not authorised to verify such information without the consent of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice. Such consent is given only for individual cases and provided that the enquiry addressed to the foreign country does not mention the application for asylum. The German authorities do not consider that this procedure is incompatible with Committee of Ministers Recommendation No R(81)16 nor that there is any interference with Principle No 9 of the Recommendation. The confidential nature of the application for asylum and of statements made in connection therewith is in all cases preserved." The Director of Legal Affairs pointed out that Mr Büchner's Written Question No 275 referred to the practice of a specific country whereas the Secretariat's comments (CM(84)113 Add.) were of a general nature and were not aimed at any national practice in particular. The Secretariat's legal analysis merely examined certain aspects of asylum application procedures in the light of Recommendation No R(81)16 on the harmonisation of national procedures relating to asylum. The Representatives of Italy and Spain thought that the information provided by the German delegation could be included in the Committee of Ministers' reply to Mr Büchner's question. The Representatives of Belgium and the Netherlands, on the other hand, proposed that the Committee of Ministers restrict itself to the general considerations set out in CM(84)113 Add. The Representative of Austria thought that the reply to Written Question No 275 should comprise two separate parts - the Committee of Ministers' reply proper and the mere transmission of the German statement to the Assembly. CONFIDENITAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 84 - Item *22

The Representative of Switzerland felt that parliamentarians should be discouraged from submitting written questions which related to the domestic situation in a member State and were therefore covered by national constitutional practice. The Committee of Ministers should reflect on how to reply in principle to such questions. The Representative of Italy agreed with the Representative of Switzerland. He nevertheless pointed out that, in replying to a written question about a given country, the Committee of Ministers could always include in its reply any information supplied by the country concerned. In reply to a question by the Netherlands Representative, the Secretary to the Committee recalled that the general matter of the Committee of Ministers' replies to written questions from members of the Assembly would be dealt with when consideration of the report of the working party on the Council of Europe's working methods was resumed. Decision The Deputies instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft reply to Written Question No 275 by Mr Buchner, in the light of the views expressed at this meeting, for examination at B level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels). CONFIDENTIAL - 85 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *23 *23. COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE (CAHAQ) Report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-23 March 1984) (CM(84)86 and Add. I and II)

The Director of Legal Affairs recalled that, because of the policy of budgetary austerity pursued by the Committee of Ministers, the Ad hoc Committee on the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CAHAQ) had met only once a year since its creation. The CAHAQ's proposal that the travel expenses of two experts (an archaeologist and a lawyer) from each member State be borne by the Council of Europe budget had not been accepted for the same reasons. Therefore the Ad hoc Committee had not been in a position to execute its specific terms of reference within the expected deadline. The Committee of Ministers was accordingly invited to extend the duration of the specific terms of reference of the CAHAQ (paragraph 26 of CM(84)86 and Appendix III). The Representative of the Netherlands was able to agree to the proposed extension of CAHAQ's terms of reference, although the limitation of meetings held by committees of experts to one a year did sometime have favourable effects on their work. Decisions The Deputies 1. extended until 31 December 1985 the specific terms of reference of the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on the Underwater Cultural Heritage (CAHAQ) (CM(84)86 Appendix III); 2. waived the restricted character of the texts of the draft Convention on the protection of the underwater cultural heritage (Addendum I to CM(84)86) and the draft explanatory report (Addendum II) in order to enable private bodies or associations carrying out activities related to the protection and conservation of the underwater cultural heritage to formulate their comments on those drafts (see paragraphs 27 and 28 of CM(84)86); 3. taking into account decisions 1 and 2 above, took note of the report of the 5th meeting of the CAHAQ (CM(84)86 and Add I and II) as a whole.

CONFIDENTIAL - 87 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 24

24. EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER Appointment of five members of the Committee of Experts set up in pursuance of Article 25 of the Charter (Concl(84)367/26, CM(84)21) the Chairman noted that there were four groups of candidates; as far as the first and third groups of candidates were concerned, there was in each case one vacancy and one candidate only. The Deputies elected the following candidates by acclamation: - Mr. T. ÖHLINGER (Austrian) (first group) - Mr. B. F. BULL (Norwegian) (third group). The Chairman noted that as regards the second group there were two candidates and one vacancy and as for the fourth group there were three candidates and two vacancies. Subsequently the Deputies proceeded to the election, by secret ballot, of the other members of the Committee of Independent Experts in accordance with Article 25(2) of the European Social Charter. Decision

The Deputies, in accordance with Article 25(2) of the European Social Charter, appointed the following five experts as members of the Committee of Independent Experts, for a period of six years as from 19 September 1984, to replace the five members whose term of office expires on 18 September 1984; - Mr T ÖHLINGER (Austrian) - Mr W F DE GAAY FORTMAN (Dutch) - Mr B F BULL (Norwegian) - Mr G KOJANEC (Italian) - Mr J VIDA SORIA (Spanish)

CONFIDENTIAL - 89 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 25 25. COUNCIL OF EUROPE RELATIONS WITH MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR Report of the 1st meeting of the Liaison Committee (Strasbourg, 12-13 March 1984) (Concl(84)367/34d, CM(84)106)

The Representative of France reiterated his country's interest in consultations between management, labour and the Council of Europe as indicated to the Deputies a short while previously by Mr Roland Dumas, the French Ministers of European Affairs and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers (see Concl(84)372/2). He suggested that the Liaison committee should hold a special discussion of the social sectors of the next Medium-Term plan and that this should be done either during the Committee's meeting in February 1985, which could if necessary be extended, or at an extraordinary meeting. The French Government's aim was to encourage tripartite reflection on future activities of the Organisation. The Representative of Switzerland said that the French proposal had been anticipated at the Liaison Committee's meeting (see paragraph 64 of CM(84)106). He expressed his agreement with the proposal in principle but thought that only certain subjects should be dealt with and not the entire draft Plan. Consideration would have to be given to the procedure to be followed. Following a statement by the Representative of Italy, the the representative of the Secretariat said there was nothing to suggest that the Union of Industries of the European Community (UNICE) would not take part in the discussions. In any case, the Liaison Committee could meet perfectly well even if one of the groups invited did not attend. The Representative of Austria confirmed that the UNICE had always expressed a reserved but not negative attitude regarding the Liaison Committee. His government attached great importance to the dialogue with management and labour. He supported the French proposal but did not see why the consultations should be restricted to social affairs. A decision on this point could be taken at a later stage in the preparation of the Plan. The Representative of Belgium, on the other hand, thought the scope of the consultations should not be wideneîd beyond the sphere mentioned by the Representative of France. The Representative of Switzerland recalled point (a) of the Liaison Committee's terms of reference (CM(83)182) and thought that the same limitations on the subject matter should apply in the consultations proposed by France. CONFIDENTIAL - 90 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 25

In reply to a question from the Representative of Sweden, the Head of Plan and Programme Division observed that the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the UNICE had been consulted in writing in 1980 on the draft Second Medium-Term Plan after the latter had been submitted to the Committee of Ministers at the end of 1979. Only the ETUC had made comments, referring exclusively to Sector 6, 7, 8, 9 and 17 and to Field IV of the Plan. Decisions The Deputies 1. expressed their agreement in principle to the Liaison Committee between the Council of Europe and management and labour (LCML) considering at a future meeting the parts of the draft Third Medium-Term Plan devoted to socio-economic and migration fields, including their legal, cultural and educational aspects; 2. took note of the fact that the Liaison Committee proposes holding its next meeting in February 1985, and that the date will be determined after the Deputies have considered the report that the Secretary General will be presenting at the end of 1984 on the conduct of the hearings decided on by the Liaison Committee (paragraph 75 of CM(84)106); 3. taking into account decisions 1 and 2 above, took note of the report of the Liaison Committee (CM(84)106) as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL - 91 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *26 *26. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL AFFAIRS (CDSO) Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 9-13 April 1984) (CM(84)103 and Add. I and II)

The Representative of Switzerland, supported by the Representatives of Belgium and Cyprus, said he shared the views of the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) regarding the inadequacy of the daily allowance paid to Council of Europe social fellowship holders and thought the amount should be raised. The Representative of Italy expressed the same opinion while specifying that an increase in the amount of the allowance could also be offset by a reduction in the number of fellowships awarded. The Representative of the Netherlands said he was opposed to the taking of decisions on intergovernmental activities outside the examination of the draft annual programme of activities. The Director of Economic and Social Affairs said that the reason why the CDSO was asking the Committee of Ministers to agree to the principle of holdig a colloquium or round table on alternatives to hospitalisation for the very old in 1985 was so that preparations for it could be begun immediately. This statement of attitude would in no way prejudice the outcome of the budgetary discussions and their implications for the financing of the activity in question. For his part, the Representative of France confirmed his government's intention to contribute to the financing of the colloquium, but said that the form and amount of that contribution had yet to be decided. He supported the CDSO's request and hoped that the Deputies would immediately approve the holding of the colloquium. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the completion of Activity 5.3.2 on the situation of unpaid working women and instructed the Secretariat to draw the attention of the Steering Committee for Social Security (CDSS) and the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) to the conclusions of the CDSO in respect of that Activity (cf. CM(84)103 paragraph 20 and Addendum I); CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 92 - Item *26

2. authorised publication of the report on the right of assembly on the employer's premises and the right of workers to be fully informed of their employer's economic and financial situation (CDSO(84)10), in its revised version (cf. CM(84)103 paragraphs 21 - 24); 3. noted that the file on Activity 5.6.4 on the protection of workers in the event of employers' insolvency had been transmitted to the Committee of Experts on Bankruptcy Law (CJ-DF), it being understood that the legal instrument to be drafted by that committee would be sent in turn to the CDSO for an opinion (cf. CM(84)103 paragraphs 29 - 31 and Add. II); 4. took note of the CDSO's opinion on the memorandum "the fight against drug dependence - a distinctive policy for the Council of Europe" (CM(83)20) and agreed to consider it, together with the opinions formulated by the other committees consulted, at one of their forthcoming meetings (CM(84)103 paragraph 32); 5. took note of the opinion of the CDSO as to the inadequacy of the amount of the daily allowances granted to fellowship holders and agreed to consider this when examining the budgetary proposals for 1985 (CM(84)103 paragraphs 39, 40 and 47); 6. took note of the proposals of the CDSO concerning its future activities and agreed to examine them when discussing the 1985 Intergovernmental Programme of Activities (CM(84)103 paragraphs 43 - 60); 7. agreed to give favourable consideration to the holding of a round table on alternatives to hospitalisation for the very old in 1985, when examining the 1985 Budget and Intergovernmental Programme of Activities (CM(84)103 paragraph 50); 8. taking into account decisions 1 to 7 above, took note of the 15th report of the CDSO (CM(84)103 and Add. I and II) as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL - 93 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *27 *27. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY (CDSS) Report of the 21st meeting (Strasbourg, 26-30 March 1984) (CM(84)109)

The Representative of Greece emphasised the importance his country attached to study of the possibility of establishing a centre for training those responsible for social security. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the CDSS's proposal concerning its programme of activities for 1985 and agreed to examine them in the framework of their discussions on the budget and on the draft Intergovernmental Programme of Activities for 1985 (CM(84)109, paras. 42-46); 2. agreed to examine, in the framework of their annual selection of Committee of Ministers Recommendations on which governments are invited to report, the CDSS's proposal to select Recommendation No R(79)7 concerning the speeding up of payment of mixed-career pensions (CM(84)109, paras. 57 and 58); 3. noted that the CDSS had transmitted to the European Health Committee (CDSP), for its opinion, the report on social security institutions' contribution to preventive measures as well as the draft Recommendation prepared by the Committee of Experts on social security institutions' contribution to preventive measures (SS-PM), in accordance with the co-ordination arrangements between the CDSP and the CDSS foreseen in the Intergovernmental Programme of Activities with regard to Activity 4.5.2 (CM(84)109 para. 71); 4. taking into account decisions 1-3 above, took note of the report of the 21st meeting of the CDSS (CM(84)109) as a whole.

CONFIDENTIAL - 95 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *28

*28. PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE (PARTIAL AGREEMENT) (CD-P-SP) Report of the 20th Session (Strasbourg, 10-12 April 1984) (CD-P-SP(84)4)

The Director of Economic and Social Affairs said that consideration of the draft Resolution AP(84)... concerning the transmission of the flavour of smoke to food (Appendix E to CD-P-SP( 84 ) 4 ) should be deferred. He explained there had been a difference of opinion between the Committee of Experts on Flavouring Substances and the CD-P-SP regarding the use of certain terminology. Regarding the request for an opinion on Assembly Recommendation 969 on the sale of pharmaceutical products in the countries of the Third World, he said that the CD-P-SP might have difficulties in executing its terms of reference by October 1984. The Committee of Experts on Pharmaceutical Questions had prepared a draft as requested but it was possible that the final draft might not be agreed within the time limit specified in the terms of reference. Decisions The Representatives on the Committee of Ministers of the seven States Parties to the Partial Agreement in the Social and Public Health Field (1) and the Representatives of Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland 1. adopted Resolution AP(84)2 on the inclusion of packaging leaflets in pharmaceutical specialities and the nature of the information shown on such leaflets (previously Resolution AP(74)7), as it appears at Appendix XII to these Conclusions; 2. took note of the CD-P-SP's approval of the 2nd edition of the booklet "Cosmetic Products and their Ingredients" and of its publication (item 5.2 of CD-P-SP(84)4); 3. noted that the CD-P-SP has agreed to Sweden's participation in the work carried out by the Committee of Experts on residues in food of animal origin of substances administered to animals (item 6 of CD-P-SP(84)4); 4. took note of the CD-P-SP's approval of the 6th edition of the booklet "Pesticides" and of its publication (item 8.1.2 of CD-P-SP(84)4); 5. taking into account decisions 1 to 4 above, took note of the report of the 20th session of the CD-P-SP (CD-P-SP(84)4) as a whole , including the timetable of forthcoming meetings as set out on page 15 of the report.

(1) Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and the United Kingdom

CONFIDENTIAL - 97 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *29

*29. FUTURE OF HEALTH STRUCTURES Assembly Recommendation 979 (Concl(84)370/3, CM(84)117)

The Representative of the United Kingdom said that her authorities had expressed dissatisfaction with, and serious doubts about, the proposals made by the Assembly in Recommendation 979 on the future of health structures. On the other hand, they welcomed Secretariat memorandum CM(84)117 and expressed their agreement with the draft reply appearing therein. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement: "Although approving any initiative in the health field, the German delegation is sorry that Recommendation 979 of the Assembly contains only a lengthy series of declarations that are already familiar. This delegation would also like to point out that the European Health Committee (CDSP) is preparing guidelines for health promotion, with a view to preparations for the second Conference of European Ministers of Health. As the concern voiced by the Assembly in its Recommendation 979 and its suggestions coincide to a large extent with the work in preparation for the Conference to which I have just referred, I should like to state at this juncture that the German expert on the CDSP is going to propose at the committee's next meeting that the two activities be combined." Decisions The Deputies 1. adopted Decision No. CM/333/210684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the European Health Committee (CDSP) to give an opinion on Assembly Recommendation 979, as it appears at Appendix XIII to these Conclusions; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 98 - Item *29

2. adopted the following interim reply to Assembly Recommendation 979: "1. The Committee of Ministers has had a preliminary exchange of views on Assembly Recommendation 979 on the future of health structures. It wishes to point out that all the intergovernmental activities that have so far been completed or are under way in the health field are based on the same preoccupations as those expressed by the Assembly in its Recommendation 979. In fact, the Assembly Recommendation refers to a number of problems which are very much in the forefront in health matters and puts forward solutions which in the main accord with the tendencies expressed in the political and technical bodies, both national and international. 2. The development of education, training and information programmes and health promotion for the population reflect the preoccupations expressed by the first Conference of European Ministers responsible for health (Madrid, September 1981) when it considered, inter alia, the prevention of alcohol-related problems especially among young people and drug dependence. 3. Furthermore, in this context the Committee of Ministers wishes to draw the attention of the Assembly to its Recommendations No. R(82)4 and 5 respectively on the prevention of alocohol related problems especially among young people, and concerning the prevention of drug dependence and the special role of education for health. The European Health Committee (CDSP) has also completed work on the 'study of the methods and means necessary for the introduction and the promotion of teaching of nutrition in schools'. 4. Furthermore, a series of activities is currently under way on the training of teachers for health education, in conjunction with the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC), as are other studies concerning the promotion of health education for nursing staff, midwives, pediatricians and geriatricians. These activities are being carried out in close co-ordination with the World Health Organisation (WHO) Regional Bureau for Europe, the European Communities and the League of Red Cross Societies. A feasibility study is being carried out with a view to commencing in 1985 a number of education for health pilot projects aimed at preventing various forms of dependence and addiction. 5. The Committee of Ministers is attentive to the development of primary health care (referred to in paragraph 10.I(iii) of Assembly Recommendation 979); a survey was carried out in 1980 of the comparative costs of care dispensed inside and outside hospitals. Recommendation No. R(80)15 concerning a better distribution of medical care inside and outside hospitals which was adopted in the same year contains indications concerning the implementation of an integrated health policy in which pride of place was given to primary health care. Recommendation No. R(80)15 also stated that prevention, health education and rehabilitation were integral parts of such care. CONFIDENTIAL - 99 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *29

6. The CDSP is at present carrying out a survey on 'new trends in the organisation of mental health services at primary care level' which will be completed by the end of 1984 and will be among the papers to be considered at the 2nd Conference of European Ministers of Health, to be held in Stockholm in April 1985 on the subject of 'the promotion of mental health and psycho-social well-being and decentralisation of psychiatric care'. 7. As regards the active participation of the patient in his own treatment, the Committee of Ministers recalls its Recommendation No. R(80)4 concerning the patient as an active participant in his own treatment in which matters concerning the rationalisation of health expenditure and the organisation of health care had been studied in detail in connection with hospital expenditure. 8. The CDSP is at present also studying ways of keeping the elderly, particularly those who are ill, in their own homes, and the question will be given further consideration by the Committee of Ministers when the CDSP's study is completed. 9. In order to obtain the CDSP's overall view of Recommendation 979, and to give it the opportunity to report on the most recent developments in member States in this field, the Committee of Ministers has asked the CDSP to give an opinion on Recommendation 979 and will give further information to the Assembly when it has received that opinion".

CONFIDENTIAL - 101 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 30

30. MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON RESEARCH (Paris, September 1984) (Concl(84)367/3, 368/24e, 372/27d, CM(84)21 and Corr., CM(84)118)

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his authorities welcomed and supported the efforts for close co-operation with the European Science Foundation and the Commission of the European Communities in order to benefit fully from the experiences and the expert knowledge of those institutions as well as from their co-operation programmes. They also welcomed the concentration of the programme, especially regarding the structuring of the mobility theme. In future deliberations the senior officials should try to concentrate even further the individual aspects of this theme in order to connect them as closely as possible with the basic political aim of the Conference, which still had to be formulated. With regard to the date of the Conference it was expected that the actual Conference would take place on Monday, 17 September, irrespective of whether or not Ministers arrived in the afternoon of Sunday, 16 September. The Representative of Italy stressed the importance of the follow-up to the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research and wondered whether the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies would attend the Conference. The Representative of Sweden proposed that the Nordic Council of Ministers be invited to attend the Conference as an observer. The Representative of Austria, recalling the decision taken at the Deputies' 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 27d), proposed that the Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials on European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) be invited to attend as an observer. The Secretariat representative said that he would convey this information to the meeting of Senior Officials which would be taking place in Paris on 18-19 June 1984 and report back to the Deputies the following week on their reaction and on any other developments which should be brought to their attention. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 102 - Item 30

The Secretariat representative reported on the meeting of Senior Officials on 18-19 June. He said that the theme of the Conference was: European Co-operation in the field of Research: Development of contacts and exchanges between scientists, laboratories and research institutes in Europe . preparation of new scientific networks in Europe and the strengthening of existing networks . proposals for the development of scientific mobility. The European Science Foundation had presented the scientific evaluation of the proposals on the network theme presented by national delegations in close co-operation with the Commission of the European Communities, the Council of Europe and all national delegations. The provisional list of proposed network themes was: . research on the brain and behaviour; . food technology; . molecular biology; . biotechnology (including the following network themes: genetic category and molecular biology of plants and the genetics of plants); . earth sciences; . oceanography; . Mediterranean agriculture and tropical agronomy; . management of water resources; . scientific space research; . material sciences; . longitudinal research on human development; . catalysis; . energy; . data processing. The Committee of Senior Officials had examined the report on the mobility theme concerning: i. conditions of periods in and access to laboratories; ii. transport of scientific material; iii. system of European research fellowships. The Secretariat representative said that the Committee of Senior Officials had marked its agreement with the participation of the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Chairman of Senior Officials on COST as observers. He added that the Council of Europe Secretariat had been asked to contact the NATO Scientific Committee in its preparatory work for the Conference and to keep the Senior Officials informed of those contacts. CONFIDENTIAL - 103 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 30

As far as further preparatory work was concerned, he said that a meeting of the enlarged Bureau would be held on 4 July 1984 in Paris to draw up the basis for a political declaration to introduce the resolutions for the Ministerial Conference on the network and mobility themes. That text would be forwarded to all delegations before the next meeting of Senior Officials scheduled for 23 and 24 July 1984. At that meeting all items on the agenda of the Conference would be examined. The Committee of Senior Officials would also meet in Paris on 3 and 4 September and on 16 September. Finally, the Secretariat representative informed the Committee that the French Minister for Industry and Research, Mr Laurent Fabius, intended to Invite European Ministers responsible for Research to an informal dinner on 16 September in Paris. The Representative of Switzerland proposed that the European Southern Observatory (ESO) should be invited to the Conference as an observer. The Representative of Austria recalled that at the Deputies 367th meeting (February 1984, item 3) his delegation had commented in some detail on the proposed themes for the Conference and had laid particular emphasis on the need to include in the title a reference to "concerted co-operation". In the report of the first meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the preparation of the Conference (CM(84)118) the phrase "as well as European co-operative research" had been included in the title. From the oral report of the Secretariat he had not heard any reference to that phrase, even though his expert at the Paris meeting had no recollection of it having been deleted. It was most important that the phrase be maintained and the Senior Officials at their next meeting should resume consideration of the title with a view to its inclusion. In reply to a question by the Representatives of Ireland and Switzerland, the Secretariat representative said that the Secretariat contact with the NATO Scientific Committee was designed in particular to exchange information on fellowship schemes. The Secretary to the Committee said that NATO had not been represented at any events organised by the Council of Europe and had not applied for observer status on any of them. Any contacts would be in the framework of normal Secretariat contacts with other organisations. Referring to the proposal by the Representative of Switzerland, he said that it was usual practice for the observer status of international organisations to be examined first by the committee preparing a Ministerial Conference before any decisions were taken by the Committee of Ministers. The Representative of Ireland said that the proposed inter-Secretariat contacts with the NATO Science Council were not acceptable to his delegation. However, he noted that no decision was required on this point. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 104 - Item 30

The Representative of Sweden shared this view. The Chairman, winding up, noted that there was agreement on the five decisions below. As regards decision 1, it was clearly understood that the Committee of Senior Officials would be asked to resume consideration of the title of the theme of the Conference, taking into account the remarks made by the Representative of Austria, with a view to including the phrase "as well as European co-operative research" referred to in CM(84)118 or its equivalent. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the theme of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research, subject to the foregoing; 2. took note of the programme and timetable for preparing the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research (Parts C, E and F of CM(84)118); 3. noted that there existed general consent within the Committee of Ministers as to the advisability of inviting the following to take part in the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research: i. Finland and the Holy See as full members; ii. The following institutions, international organisations, personalities and non-governmental organisations as observers: - The Commission of the European Communities (EC) - The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - The European Space Agency (ESA) - The Nordic Council of Ministers - The European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) - The European Molecular Biology Conference (EMBC) - The Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials on European Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) CONFIDENTIAL - 105 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 30

- The European Science Foundation (ESF) - The European Southern Observatory (subject to the agreement of the Committe of Senior Officials); 4. noted that the Council of Europe Assembly will be invited to participate in the Conference; 5. asked their Chairman to represent the Committee of Ministers at the Conference.

CONFIDENTIAL - 107 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 31

31. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON EARTHQUAKE RESEARCH (CAHRT) Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg 19-20 December 1983) (Concl(84)372/23, CM(84)54 and Add.)

In reply to a question by the Representative of Sweden, the Secretariat representative said that the Chairman of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Earthquake Research (CAHRT), Professor L. Mendes Victor, and the co-ordinator, Professor J. Bonnin, had not attended the meeting on Co-operation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research (COST) in Helsinki at the beginning of June 1984 in accordance with the authorisation given by the Deputies at their 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 23). He explained that in view of an overloaded agenda, the COST Chairman had decided to postpone discussion of the question of earthquake research to its meeting in Brussels on 20 and 21 September 1984. The Representatives of Sweden and Belgium agreed that the two experts should now attend the September meeting of COST but no decisions should be taken on the question of subsequent liaison between the various European groups participating in the operational earthquake research programme until such time as COST had taken a positive stand on this matter. The Representatives of Austria and Turkey stressed the importance of avoiding any unnecessary delay in the follow-up to the proposals made by CAHRT. The Representative of Cyprus, referring to page 25 of the report of the 4th meeting of the CAHRT (CM(84)54), said that his Government's proposals concerning the test area in Cyprus had been submitted to the Secretary General. He expressed the wish that they be conveyed to the COST for them to be taken into consideration at its September meeting. The Representative of Italy asked for information concerning the training courses organised in the framework of the programme for the development of post-graduate training funded by the Council for @tural Co-operation (CDCC). CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 108 - Item 31

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his authorities were against the idea of meeting the travel costs of national experts taking part in official journeys by a European interdisciplinary team in the event of a major earthquake. Furthermore, they could not support the proposals set out under point 4 on page 3 of CM(84)54. The Secretariat representative, referring to the training activities listed within the European Research Programme on Earthquakes, said that they could be implemented in the framework of the European programme for the Development of Post-graduate training proposed by the Standing Conference on University Problems (CC-PU) and adopted by the CDCC. Each proposal would be assessed by the evaluation committee of the programme of the Council of Europe before being included in the activities programme of the Council of Europe in the field of higher education and research.

The Chairman in summing up noted that there was agreement on decision 1 below. Furthermore, the Deputies had taken note of points 3 and 4 appearing on page 3 of CM(84)54, it being understood that there were no financial implications for the Council of Europe budget other than that covered by the Cultural Fund. Taking note of those two points did not imply that delegations were necessarily in favour of them. As for the question of liaison between the various European groups particpating in the operational earthquake research programme, the Deputies would return to this matter at their 376th meeting in October 1984 in the light of the results of the next meeting of COST in September 1984, to be attended by two experts from CAHRT. Decisions The Deputies 1. authorised the Secretary General to incur the expenditure to cover the cost of travel and subsistence for Professor L. Mendes Victor and Professor J. Bonnin to attend the COST meeting in Brussels in September 1984; 2. agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 376th meeting (October 1984 - A and B levels). CONFIDENTIAL - 109 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *32

*32. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84).. ON THE SITUATION OF FOREIGN STUDENTS (Concl(84)370/28, CM(84)65 Appendix F)

The Chairman recalled that consideration of this draft Recommendation, the text of which appeared at Appendix F to CM(84)65, had begun at the Deputies' 370th meeting (April 1984, item 28). The Representative of Belgium said that his authorities could agree to the draft Recommendation with the exception of paragraph 12 of the Appendix thereto, which stated that "as far as possible, where fees are payable, foreign students should not be required to pay higher fees than those applied to national students". That provision would be incompatible with Belgian legislation on the subject. The United Kingdom Representative said that her authorities were generally not very happy with the text. They did not consider it was for the Council of Europe to tell students from othr countries where they should study. In particular, there were two paragraphs in the Appendix which called for reservations on their part, namely the already-mentioned paragraph 12 and the second sentence of paragraph 13, advocating measures to facilitate the return and reintegration of foreign students. As for paragraph 11, concerning the introduction of a special admission policy, it should be noted that admission policy in the United Kingdom was the responsibility of the universities themselves, which were autonomous. Lastly, paragraph 17, which proposed the creation of a university solidarity fund, seemed too rigid to the United Kingdom authorities. There were other ways of meeting the same needs. The Secretariat representative pointed out that the Appendix to the draft Recommendation set out a list of principles which governments were merely invited to take into account and was not therefore binding. The Representative of Italy expressed himself in favour of the Recommendation and added that in his country registration fees were already the same for foreigners and nationals and would remain so. The Representative of Cyprus was able to accept both the Recommendation and the Appendix thereto. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 110 - Item *32 Decision The Deputies adopted Recommendation No R(84)13 concerning the situation of foreign students, as it appears at Appendix XIV to these Conclusions. When Recommendation No. R(84)13 was adopted, and in application of Article 10.2.c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers' Deputies, the Representatives of Austria and Belgium reserved the right of their governments to comply or not with paragraph 12 of the Appendix to the Recommendation, and the Representative of the United Kingdom reserved the right of her government to comply or not with paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said Appendix. CONFIDENTIAL - 111 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 33 33. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS OF YOUTH QUESTIONS (CAHJE) Report of the 3rd meeting (Strasbourg, 2 - 4 May 1984) (CM(84)114)

The Representative of Greece said that his authorities were in favour of holding a ministerial conference on youth, and would be hosting a research workshop of the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) in Delphi, in March 1985, to be responsible for preparing a report which would provide the first theme for the conference on "the situation of young people". The Representative of Belgium wondered whether it would not be possible to make the third theme of the conference ("objective of international co-operation in the field of youth") more specific, by laying emphasis on European co-operation and European awareness among young people. The Representative of Switzerland agreed with the comment by the Representative of Belgium. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that the German authorities took the view that the conference themes should be connected with concrete youth policies and be of value to youth associations; they should not be excessively technical. Discussions should centre on questions of national policies, comparisons of those policies and problems of international co-operation. The Representative of Italy wondered why the particularly important question of drug addiction among young people, having been raised in the CAHJE, had not been taken as a sub-theme for the conference, and whether the question was to be dealt with in the Pompidou Group. The Representative of Spain said that if the drug problem were tackled, it would be a departure from the central subject of the conference, which was indubitably concerned with the participation of young people in society and the "development of associative activity". The Representative of the United Kingdom agreed with what the Representative of Spain had said. On a point of language, he felt that the English "associative activity" appearing in the title of the second sub-theme was not satisfactory. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 112 - Item 33

The Representative of Portugal said that his authorities had sent a letter to the Secretary General inviting the ad hoc Committee of Experts on Youth Questions (CAHJE) to hold a second meeting in preparation for the conference in 1984; the preparatory meeting should be held in Lisbon in October. The Representatives of France, Turkey and Austria said that they were in favour of a second meeting of the CHAJE being held in 1984. The Director of the European Youth Centre thanked Portugal for its invitation, as it was really essential for the CAHJE to hold a second meeting in 1984 for the purpose of preparing for the conference. If the Committee of Ministers accepted the invitation, it would be held in the early part of October. He also thanked Greece for hosting a European research workship in Delphi on "Young people as active citizens in society and the world of work", a subject which was connected with the main theme of the conference. The objective of European awareness had been discussed in the CAHJE, and was incorporated in the third theme, principally concerned in fact with European co-operation. A more political expression could probably be found, and this might be discussed by the committee at its next meeting. The committee had also raised the question of drugs and young people but had not taken it as a specific theme for a variety of reasons: complexity of the problem for non-specialists, need to concentrate the work of the conference, existence within the Council of Europe of structures which were better suited to the study of this question. On the matter of the second theme, the committee too had come up against terminology difficulties. The intention here was to consider aid to associations and encouraging associations to come together on a voluntary basis, not entirely covered by the French term "participation". The Director of the European Youth Centre also reported that the CAHJE had stated its support for the participation of Finland and the Holy See in the conference (both were already members of the committee); the committee would give further consideration to the question of possible observers at its next meeting. The Chairman wondered if the problem of drugs and young people, which seemed difficult to include in the programme for the conference, could not be raised at the ministerial conference of the Pompidou Group to be held in Paris in September 1984. The Representative of Italy said that it was probably too late to put it down for consideration at the September conference of the Pompidou Group. He felt there was a strong case for a rapprochement between that conference and the conference on youth, but did not see how it could be done in practice. CONFIDENTIAL - 113 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 33

The Director of the European Youth Centre said that the first theme was broad enough for special viewpoints to be given an airing; it was perfectly conceivable for one or other country, or for several countries together, to preprare a specific report on the question, which could then be discussed by the Ministers. It was clear, however, that the CAHJE had elected to give priority to the integration of young people in society and at work. The Chairman said that there would possibly be contacts with the Chairman of the Pompidou Group. He too thanked the Portuguese and Greek authorities for their invitations. In connection with the meeting of the CAHJE in Lisbon, the Director of the European Youth Centre said that according to the information in his possession travelling expenses would be borne by the member States, as was done for all meetings of committees of senior officials. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the proposals of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Youth Questions (CAHJE) with regard to the themes of the first Conference of European Ministers responsible for Youth and of its possible dates (points 5a and 5d of CM(84)114); 2. authorised the CAHJE to hold a second meeting in 1984 (Lisbon, 3-5 October) for the purpose of preparing the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Youth (point 5h of CM(84)114), it being understood that the travel and subsistence expenses of the members of the CAHJE will not be borne by the Council of Europe budget; 3. having regard to decisions 1 and 2 above, took note of the report of the third meeting of the CAHJE (CM(84)114) as a whole.

CONFIDENTIAL - 115 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 34 34. 4TH EUROPEAN MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT (Athens, 25-27 April 1984) (CM(84)121 and Add.)

The Representative of Belgium thought that the resolutions adopted at the 4th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment (CM(84)121) should be forwarded to the Council of the European Communities as well. The Representative of Italy raised the matter of action taken by the European Communities on texts adopted by the 21 which were sent to them by the Committee of Ministers. The Chairman suggested that the Representative of Italy should raise this matter during the discussion with Mr E Noël, the Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities (see item 3 of the agenda for the present meeting). In reply to a question from the Representative of Portugal, the Secretariat representative said that decisions taken by the Council of the European Communities were communicated to the Secretariat but less formally than decisions of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers were forwarded. Decision The Deputies 1. took note of the recommendations addressed to the Committee of Ministers in Resolution No 1, paragraph (1), Resolution No 2, paragraph (f) and Resolution No 3, paragraphs (f) and (g) and agreed to bear in mind Resolution No 3 paragraphs (f) and (g) of the 4th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment when considering the draft budget for 1985; 2. adopted Decision No. CM/334/210684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) and the Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT), as it appears at Appendix XV to these Conclusions; 3. instructed the Secretariat to forward Resolutions Nos 1, 2 and 3 of the 4th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment (CM(84)121) for information to the following bodies: - the Assembly, - the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE), CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 116 - Item 34

- the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning, drawing the attention of the Conference in particular to Resolution No 1, paragraphs (i) and (j), - the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (T-PVS), drawing its attention in particular to Resolution No 2, paragraph (g) and Resolution No 3, paragraph (h), - the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN), drawing its attention in particular to Resolution No 1, paragraph (i), - FAO, - UNESCO, - WHO, - UNEP, - ECE/UN, - OECD, - European Parliament, - Council of the European Communities, - Commission of the European Communities, 4. expressed their agreement for the 5th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment in 1987 in Portugal to be prepared by a Committee of Senior Officials serviced by the Secretariat (Resolution No 4, paragraph (h)). CONFIDENTIAL - 117 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 35 35. AIR POLLUTION AND ACID RAIN Assembly Recommendation 977 (Concl(84)367/9a, CM(84)123)

Owing to the date when CM(84)123 appeared, the Representative of Denmark could not take part in the discussion of Assembly Recommendation 977 on air pollution and acid rain. He accordingly suggested that the Deputies should not take a decision at the current meeting. The Representative of Switzerland said that the Swiss authorities observed that air pollution was not a new phenomenon, it had merely got worse recently; but it was certainly a complex problem. In general his authorities were pleased at the adoption of Recommendation 977 and with the debate that had preceded it in the Assembly. The text did not call for any particular comments as regards the preamble. On the other hand, the proposal to draw up a European Convention within the Council of Europe was unacceptable for the moment, because the fight against pollution had first to be conceived of and conducted on a continental scale. Althought the United Nations Convention on long-range transboundary air pollution was unsatisfactory, it could be supplemented by other specific measures. A group of Western European countries, for example, had decided to commit themselves to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by 30% between now and 1993. Those commitments would be submitted to the international conference on ways of reducing air pollution which would be taking place in Munich from 24 to 27 June 1984. It seemed unrealistic to imagine that the Eastern-bloc countries would ratify a Council of Europe Convention. Those countries - which were major polluters - had technical and financial difficulties and were not able to keep up with the Western countries in this sphere. But there were divergencies of view among the Western countries and these were likely to surface in the Council of Europe. There was also a need to avoid duplication of effort; hence it had already been agreed that the OECD would not deal with air pollution. On the other hand, the Council of Europe could co-operate with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in the sphere of nature protection. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 118 - Item 35

The Representative of Norway said that his authorities thought that the Geneva Convention was the appropriate instrument and framework for reducing air pollution. They were consequently opposed to drawing up a second Convention, which would result in duplication of effort and administrative complications and the concomitant risk of delaying reductions in emissions. The Norwegian authorities also pointed out that the action proposed in paragraphs 16 (d) and (e) of Recommendation 977 was already being taken under the Geneva Convention. The Representative of Austria, emphasising the importance of avoiding duplication, said that international co-operation had to centre on the Geneva Convention. The Eastern-bloc countries especially had to be involved in the operation, as all the Western countries had ratified the Convention. The Representative of Portugal said that his authorities were willing to co-operate in any research or initiative to reduce air pollution. They were accordinly in favour of holding the international symposium of experts mentioned in paragraph 21 of CM(84)123 and of the costs of interpreting and translation being borne by the Council of Europe budget. The Representative of Italv_ made known his authorities' doubts about the advisability of a new Convention, not only because the Geneva Convention already existed but also because the European Communities were already taking action. For the time being it was appropriate merely to continue thinking about the subject. Once again the problem arose of co-ordinating the work of the Council of Europe and the European Communities: in particular, how could Recommendation 977 most usefully be brought to the knowledge of the European Communities? The Head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division drew the Deputies' attention to the significance of the remarks in the Secretariat's document CM(84)123. In particular, it was not only acid rain that was threatening forests, other factors played a part, such as heavy metals, nitrogen oxides, ozone, inadequate management, droughts etc. If the Council of Europe's work was to be integrated with the Geneva Convention, however, it had to be recognised that that Convention contained no emission standards and fell short of the wishes expressed by several delegations. Recommendation 977 in fact raised the problem of the Council of Europe's specific role in relation to the Geneva Convention. This was obviously a political question. The Council of Europe's role was to protect nature. As the deterioration of forests was merely a premonitory sign of the dangers besetting lakes, soils and the environment in general, the Council of Europe could develop a number of activities and undertake projects in this very large field. CONFIDENTIAL - 119 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 35

As regards the international symposium of experts on the problem of air pollution, death of forests and economic repercussions, the Deputies were asked to approve in principle the payment of the costs of interpreting and of having documents translated (about FF 35,000) out of the Council of Europe's budget. The costs would in principle be covered by the appropriations already allocated. The Representative of Switzerland said he concluded three things at that stage of the discussion. He agreed to the Council of Europe's taking action to complement the Geneva Convention. The Secretariat ought to keep itself closely informed of initiatives taken by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the OECD, and if appropriate make suggestions for improvements. Finally, all the necessary information should be gathered so that a Council of Europe initiative could perhaps be proposed if the Geneva Convention proved inadequate. The Chairman stressed the sub-regional role that the Council of Europe could play in this field and agreed with the Representative of Switzerland's summing up. As regards the question of relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities raised by the Representative of Italy, he suggested mentioning it during the exchange of views with Mr Noël, the Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities (see item 3 of the agenda for the present meeting). As for the international symposiums he considered it would be premature to take a decision at that stage. The Representatives of Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands thought that experts from all member states should have the opportunity of taking part in the symposium if a grant were made. The Head of the Environment and Natural Resources Division pointed out that the symposium was not being organised by the Council of Europe. The Secretary General had decided to give it his patronage because of the importance of the topic. Since the symposium was a technical and scientific one, it was to be supposed that experts from several countries would be invited to attend, irrespective of nationality. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels).

CONFIDENTIAL - 121 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *36a 36. STANDING CONFERENCE OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL AUTHORITIES OF EUROPE (CLRAE) *a. Date of the 20th Session (1985) (CM(84)98)

Decision The Deputies approved the dates of 15 - 17 October 1985 for the 20th Session of the CLRAE.

CONFIDENTIAL - 123 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *36b *b. Co-operation and technical assistance in the matter of training for local and regional government staff Study concerning the advisability, details and financial implications of the CLRAE's proposals (Resolution 131) (CM(84)105)

The Representative of Portugal expressed a preference for a co-operation and technical assistance programme organised along the lines suggested in paragraph 7 of the Secretariat memorandum (CM(84)105), ie dispatch of officials highly specialised in training and administration to the countries concerned. The Representative of Switzerland, commented that the level of training of local and regional government staff in her country was generally high. Nevertheless, her authorities felt that it would be useful to introduce a general system of co-operation and technical assistance in the matter of training for local and regional government staff and were in favour of the proposal made by the CLRAE in its Resolution 131. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that the German authorities supported the CLRAE's work in general and its proposals for technical assistance regarding local government personnel in particular, especially as far as the practical measures mentioned on page 3, section II, of CM(84)105 were concerned. The Executive Secretary of the CLRAE informed the Deputies that the CLRAE's Standing Committee had recently rejected the Bureau's proposal to set up a "special fund". Consequently, financing option No 2 for the technical assistance programme (paragraph 15 of CM(84)105), which had been based on that proposal, could not be maintained. The only remaining possibility was, therefore, to finance the programme by the inclusion of the sum of FF 250,000 under Vote II of the Council of Europe budget from 1986 onwards (financing option No 1 described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of CM(84)105). The Representative of France said that his authorities had given their full attention to the CLRAE's and the Secretariat's proposals. They thought that the programme should be financed from the Council of Europe budget, though only as far as travel expenses were concerned. The other costs involved in assistance operations should be borne by the local or regional authorities concerned. The administration of the programme should be entrusted to the Secretary General on the proposal of the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM). CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 124 - Item 36b

The Chairman observed that any new activity depended on whatever priorities were adopted. The proposals would therefore have to be considered further in the context of the draft programme of activies for 1986. The Representatives of Sweden and the United Kingdom agreed with the Chairman. The Executive Secretary of the CLRAE pointed out that the Council of Europe's financial contribution would in any event be only partial and complementary to that of the local and regional authorities concerned (paragraph 9 of CM(84)105). In reply to a question by the Representative of Austria, he said that the scheme envisaged in Resolution 131 had been supported by the CLRAE as a whole. Although the South European countries in general were obviously more interested in the scheme, the possibility of reciprocal exchanges between the two geographical areas ought not to be ruled out, particularly on specific aspects of personnel training. The Representative of Switzerland would have been able to agree to neither of the financing options being ruled out from the outset. As for the selection of trainees, they should be chosen from among officials specialising in vocational training through local authority associations. The arrangements suggested by the Secretariat for awarding scholarships (section V of CM(84)105) were fully acceptable. Winding up the discussion on this item, the Chairman asked the Secretariat to give further consideration to the proposals in CM(84)105, especially their financial aspects, in the light of the priorities to be adopted for future activities (1986 budget). Decision The Deputies instructed the Secretariat to examine further, in the light of their discussion at the present meeting, the proposals contained in CLRAE Resolution 131 and to inform them of the outcome of this examination before their discussions on the 1986 draft budget. CONFIDENTIAL - 125 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *36c *c Financial statement concerning aid for the distressed population in Eastern Spain (Concl(82)352/14b, CM(84)115)

The Representative of Spain thanked the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) and the Council of Europe for the aid provided in connection with the disasters which had devastated the coastal area in Eastern Spain. He was in full agreement with the idea of transferring the balance from the operation to the CLRAE's working capital fund. The United Kingdom Representative wondered how it was possible for the CLRAE to experience difficulty in spending money raised for a specific relief operation. She thought it highly unorthodox to allocate money to purposes other than those originally intended. The Representatives of France and Greece had similar doubts about the justification for reallocating the money raised. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to inform the CLRAE of the views expressed by certain delegations on this subject. The Executive Secretary of the CLRAE said that any aid project decided on by the CLRAE was of a specific kind and therefore amounted to a set sum of money. However, there was the problem of disposing of the interest that gradually accrued from the funds raised until they were actually paid over, which often occurred a considerable time after the project had been decided on. The Representative of Portugal said he was fully satisfied with the existence of a permanent relief fund that enabled immediate action to be taken to deal with the effects of unforeseeable disasters such as the one that had recently stricken the outskirts of Lisbon. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the financial statement of 30 April 1984 concerning "Aid to the distressed population in Eastern Spain organised by the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE)" (CM(84)115); CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 126 - Item *36c

2. authorised the Secretary General, following payment of the scheduled contribution towards the restoration of agricultural structures in the region of Pais Valenciano, to transfer the unexpended balance of the special account "Aid to the distressed population of Eastern Spain" into the special account "Working capital fund for CLRAE disaster relief". CONFIDNTIAL - 127 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 36d d. Texts adopted at the 18th Session (Strasbourg, 18-20 October 1983) and Assembly Opinion No 118 (1984j (Concl(84)372/24, CM(83)201)

The Chairman referred to the discussions which the Deputies had had at their 372nd meeting with Mr Bernard Dupont, Acting President of the CLRAE, (May 1984, item 24 and Appendix VII), and to the decisions already taken on that occasion concerning the transmission of the texts adopted to Council of Europe bodies. He invited the Deputies to turn their attention to the action purposed in the Notes on the Agenda. In a general comment on the texts adopted by the CLRAE at its 18th Session, the Representative of Switzerland said that his authorities shared on the whole the views expressed in Assembly Opinion No 118 and in particular in its paragraph 6 inviting the Conference to pay more attention to the work done by all the Council of Europe bodies, in order to avoid overlapping, and to keep local and regional authorities duly informed thereof. They also considered that point 8 of the Opinion showed good sense and realism. With regard to CLRAE Opinion No 23 on certain aspects of the European Community's transport policy, the Representative of the United Kingdom questioned the proposal to communicate paragraph 12 to the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for preparing the Ministerial Conference on Research, as the subject of transport had not been considered for the agenda of that conference. With regard to Resolution 137 on regional institutions covering urban agglomerations and neighbouring communities, the Representative of Belgium expressed doubts about transmitting paragraph 6 to the governments of the member States. On the other hand, he suggested that Section D should be included in the transmission. With reference to paragraph 8 of Resolution 140 on the examination of the credentials of delegates to the Conference, the Representative of Belgium expressed hesitations about the CLRAE raising problems of interpretation of a text which it itself had proposed after lengthy discussions: Paragraph 15 (ii) of the Resolution was embarrassing in this respect. He also objected to the fact that some 9 or 10 countries appeared to have set themselves up in judgment of the others. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed sympathy with this point of view. The Representative of Switzerland could understand it to an extent. However, he wished also to stress the positive aspect that paragraphs 8 and 15 (ii) of Resolution 140 showed concern for the genuinely democratic representation of local and regional authorities within the Standing Conference. Moreover, the procedure envisaged in paragraph 15 (ii) ensured that the Committee of Ministers would have the opportunity to examine the proposed interpretation. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 128 - Item 36d

The Representatives of Austria and Greece pointed out that the CLRAE was an assembly whose resolutions were adopted by a majority vote of the individual delegates present; it was therefore misleading to speak of certain countries judging others. The representative of the Secretariat said that in paragraph 8 of Resolution 140 the Standing Conference had not intended to imply that whole delegations were not in conformity with the requirements of the Charter, but merely that in the view of a majority of delegates this was the case of one or the other member of a national delegation. It was accepted that some problems could not be solved from one day to the next and that even the new Charter had not solved everything: hence the provisions of paragraph 15 (ii). The Standing Committee of the CLRAE had in fact just adopted its interpretation of the text and transmitted it to the Committee of Ministers, which would therefore be called upon to examine it in the near future. Referring to paragraph 14 of Resolution 140 and Article 2(c) of the Charter, the Representative of Belgium said that his authorities would not notify the Secretary General of the procedure by which delegates to the CLRAE were chosen so long as the problem raised by paragraphs 8 and 15 (ii) of the Resolution had not been resolved. With regard to Resolution 145 on local and regional authorities and the challenge of unemployment, the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that this subject was not a matter of local responsibility in this country. The Representative of Sweden said that as the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal matters (CDRM) had decided in principle to include virtually the same subject in its work programme for 1985, the proposal to ask it to take into account Part B of Resolution 145 was particularly appropriate. With regard to Resolution 146 on local and regional authorities and nature parks in Europe, the Representative of the United Kingdom said his authorities considered it badly conceived and badly drafted. He found it odd that the CDRM should be consulted whereas the subject fell within the scope of the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN). With respect to paragraphs E (b), (c) and (d) of the Resolution he said that the whole question of a possible campaign for the countryside was in the melting-pot and it would be unwise to anticipate that decision. He further maintained that it was unnecessary to ask the Secretary General to carry out a study of ways of implementing the proposal for a European video library on nature parks, since there was already a specialist committee - the CDSN - in this field which could be consulted. CONFIDENTIAL - 129 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 36d

The Representative of Greece said he had reservations about transmitting the recommendations contained in Part C of Resolution 146 to the governments of member States because they were too far-reaching and his own government might have difficulty in following them. The Chairman pointed out that the mere transmission of the recommendations to committees of experts, governments or other international institutions did not alter the fact that they were recommendations of the CLRAE, not the Committee of Ministers. He considered that as the Conference had requested the drawing up of the European Outline Convention on Transfrentier Co-operation, it was logical that the CDRM, as the Committee responsible for that Convention, should be consulted. He further said that a decision to take account of the CLRAE's recommendations when examining the various opinions on a possible campaign for the countryside did not constitute any form of commitment as to the organisation of such a campaign. The representative of the Secretariat said that Resolution 146 concerned not "national parks" but "nature parks", which might be of a regional dimension or even smaller and be the responsibility of regional authorities. The proposal for the creation of a European video library on nature parks had already been considered by the national agencies of the European Information Centre for Nature Conservation; the CLRAE's recommendation was imerely aimed at enabling the Secretary General to foster co-operation between the national agencies when the time came. The Representative of the United Kingdom proposed that in the ad hoc terms of reference the CDRM be asked to give its opinion in consultation with the CDSN.

The Representative of Belgium, in a reflection on the texts adopted by the CLRAE as a whole, said that the Standing Conference appeared to issue too many recommendations on too many subjects to too many different bodies. This did not enhance its effectiveness. The Chairman said that in his contacts relating to the next plenary session of the CLRAE he could himself raise the question of the Conference's working methods and the number of subjects debated. The Representatives of Sweden, the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway agreed with the comments of the Representative of Belgium. Furthermore, they felt that the Resolutions of the CLRAE were often excessively long and this reduced the likelihood of their making an impact. The Representative of Greece suggested that the various committees of the Standing Conference might be encouraged, when preparing draft resolutions, to standardise their drafting when addressing the governments of member States, in particular as regards the use of terms like "invites", "asks", "recommends" etc. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 130 - Item 36d

Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of Opinion No. 23 of the CLRAE on certain aspects of the European Community's transport policy; 2. agreed to transmit to the governments of the member States the recommendations contained in sections B, C and D of Resolution 137 of the CLRAE on regional institutions covering agglomerations and neighbouring communities, together with paragraph 8A of Assembly Opinion No. 118; 3. requested the Secretary General to carry out, in contact with the Stimulating Committee on Information, a study of the possibilities for implementing the proposals contained in Resolution 138 of the CLRAE on the information policy of the CLRAE, taking Assembly Opinion No. 118 (para. 8B) into account, and to report back to them at a future meeting; 4. took note of the amendments made by the CLRAE to its Rules of Procedure in Resolution 139 on the revision of the Rules of Procedure of the CLRAE; 5. took note of Resolution 140 of the CLRAE on the examination of the credentials of delegates to the Conference; 6. invited those governments which have not done so to notify the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of the procedure by which delegates to the CLRAE are chosen in their countries in accordance with Article 2(c) of the Charter (see paragraph 14 of the Resolution 140 of the CLRAE and paragraph 8E of Assembly Opinion No. 118); 7. agreed to examine paragraphs 15 and 16 of Resolution 140 of the CLRAE and paragraph 8E(c) of Assembly Opinion No. 118 when they receive the proposals from the Standing Committee of the CLRAE regarding the interpretation of Article 2(a) of the Conference Charter; 8. agreed to transmit to the governments of the member States the recommendations contained in Part I of Resolution 141 of the CLRAE on the regional policy of the member States of the Council of Europe and the European institutions, together with paragraph 8F of Assembly Opinion No. 118; CONFIDENTIAL - 131 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 36d

9. adopted Decision No CM/335/210684 as it appears at Appendix XVI to these Conclusions and assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT) to give an opinion on the proposals contained in paragraphs III. 2 - 6 of Resolution 141 of the CLRAE; 10. adopted Decision No CM/336/210684 as it appears at Appendix XVII to these Conclusions and assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) to give an opinion on the proposals contained in paragraph IV.1 of Resolution 141 of the CLRAE; 11. adopted Decision No CM/337/210684 as it appears at Appendix XVIII to these Conclusions and assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) to give an opinion on the desirability of drafting model agreements on the subjects referred to in paragraph IV.2 of Resolution 141 of the CLRAE; 12. agreed to transmit to the governments of the member States the recommendations contained in Resolution 142 of the CLRAE on the status and working conditions of local and regional elected representatives, particularly in paragraphs 9 and 13, together with paragraph 8G of Assembly Opinion No. 118; 13. agreed to transmit to the governments of the six Alpine States that are members of the Council of Europe (Austria, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) the recommendations contained in paragraph 10 of Resolution 143 of the CLRAE on the co-operation of the Alpine regions, together with paragraph 8H of Assembly Opinion No. 118; 14. instructed the Secretary General to bring the content of Resolution 143 of the CLRAE and paragraph 8H of Assembly Opinion No. 118 to the notice of the Yugoslav authorities concerned; 15. agreed to transmit to the governments of member States the recommendations contained in part C of Resolution 144 of the CLRAE on young people in towns, together with paragraph 81 of Assembly Opinion No. 118; 16. asked the Secretary General to invite the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) to review the draft Recommendation on the function of local and regional authorities in employment policy (CM(84)51, Appendix IX), taking into account Part B of Resolution 145 of the CLRAE on local and regional authorities and the challenge of unemployment; CONFIDENTIAL CM:Del/Concl(84)374 - 132 - Item 36d

17. asked the Secretary General to take account of the wish expressed by the CLRAE in paragraph C-I-1 of its Resolution 145 when preparing the draft programme of activities for 1985; 18. agreed to examine paragraph C-I-6 of Resolution 145 of the CLRAE when preparing the 1985 programme of activities and budget; 19. agreed to transmit to the governments of member States the recommendations contained in Part C of Resolution 146 of the CLRAE on local and regional authorities and nature parks in Europe, together with paragraph 8K of Assembly Opinion No. 118; 20. adopted Decision No CM/338/210684 as it appears at Appendix XIX to these Conclusions and assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) to give an opinion on the advisability of drawing up a model agreement on transfrontier nature parks as referred to in paragraph E(a) of Resolution 146 of the CLRAE; 21. agreed to take account of the recommendations made in paragraphs E (b), (c) and (d) of Resolution 146 of the CLRAE when they are examining the opinions they requested from the COUP, the CDAT, the CDSN and the CDRM on the objectives, themes, preparation and follow-up to a possible European campaign for the countryside (Decision No. CM/313/091283); 22. asked the Secretary General to carry out a study of the possible ways of implementing the proposals contained in paragraph E.e of Resolution 146 of the CLRAE (a European video library on nature parks) and to report to them at one of their forthcoming meetings; 23. agreed to transmit to the governments of member States the recommendations contained in paragraph 18 of Resolution 147 of the CLRAE on the dumping of radioactive waste at sea, together with paragraph 8L of Assembly Opinion No. 118; 24. agreed to examine the proposals contained in paragraph 19 of Resolution 147 of the CLRAE when they have been informed of the result of the Assembly's deliberations following the Parliamentary hearing on the elimination of radioactive waste to be organised by the Committee on Science and Technology of the Assembly in Stockholm in the autumn of 1984 and, in the meantime, asked the Secretary General to bring those proposals, where appropriate, to the notice of the Committee of Senior Officials which may be instructed to prepare the 5th Ministerial Conference on the Environment to be held in Lisbon in 1987; CONFIDENTIAL - 133 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 36d

25. agreed to communicate for information: a. to the Commission of the European Communities - Opinion No. 23 of the CLRAE, in particular paragraph 10A, and paragraph 8C of Assembly Opinion No. 118; - Resolution 141 of the CLRAE, in particular Section VII; - Resolution 145 of the CLRAE, in particular Section C-II; - Resolution 146 of the CLRAE, in particular Section D; b. to the Council of Ministers of the European Communities - Opinion No. 23 of the CLRAE, in particular paragraph 10B, and paragraph 8C of Assembly Opinion No. 118; - Resolution 141 of the CLRAE, in particular Section VII; - Resolution 145 of the CLRAE, in particular Section C-II; Resolution 147 of the CLRAE, in particular paragraph 20; c. to the European Parliament Opinion No. 23 of the CLRAE, in particular paragraph 10C, and paragraph 8C of Assembly Opinion No. 118; - Resolution 141 of the CLRAE, in particular Section VII; - Resolution 145 of the CLRAE, in particular Section C-II; d. to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - Resolution 141 of the CLRAE, in particular Section VIII; - Resolution 145 of the CLRAE, in particular Section C-III; e. to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - Resolution 145 of the CLRAE; f. to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) - Resolution 145 of the CLRAE; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 134 - Item 36d

26. taking into account decisions 1 to 25 above and those taken at their 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 24), took note of all the texts adopted during the 18th session of the CLRAE (CM(83)201) and Assembly Opinion No. 118; 27. invited their Chairman to inform the President of the Assembly and the Chairman of the CLRAE of the follow-up to the texts adopted during the 18th session of the CLRAE and Assembly Opinion No. 118. CONFIDENTIAL - 135 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *37 *37. EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (CDSN) Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 1984) (CM(84)116 and Add.)

The Representative of Switzerland said that her authorities had taken note of the opinion of the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) regarding a possible European campaign for the countryside. She added that they were in favour of such a campaign and the arguments put forward by the CDSN in its opinion were very apposite. Those arguments would be considered when the Deputies were called upon to take a stand on this matter. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, referring to the candidature of Berchtesgaden National Park for the European diploma, said that his authorities reserved the right to agree with the CDSN on measures to be taken other than those spelt out at Appendix VI to CM(84)116. The Secretariat representative stressed that the CDSN had not rejected the candidature of the Berchtesgaden National Park, but had deferred a decision until such time as certain measures had been implemented. He understood that these were already in hand. The Representative of Greece asked for some explanations about the renewal of the European Diploma awarded to the Gorge of Samaria in Crete. The Secretariat representative explained that, as a result of the flooding of the site in April 1983, the expert appraisal had had to be postponed to July, ie until after the annual meeting of the Committee of Experts on protected areas. This had delayed the whole procedure, and it was not until 1985 that the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) and the Committee of Ministers would be taking a decision. While this delay was regrettable, there should be no problem regarding renewal of the Diploma, as the experts' opinion was a favourable one. In reply to a question by the Representative of Spain, he explained that Sylvilagus floridanus was an American rabbit which had been introduced into Europe to replace the indigenous rabbit decimated by myxomatosis. The effects on the environment of the introduction of this rabbit had been serious in several regions and the initiative taken by the French government to study the problems raised by its further introduction was particularly timely. He expressed the hope that the necessary authorisation would be given for the two day meeting of experts referred to in item 7.2.1 of CM(84)116. The Representative of the Netherlands counted on the Secretariat doing its utmost to avoid requesting additional funds for this activity. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 136 - Item *37

The Representative of the United Kingdom shared this view and was confident that the FF 25,000 involved would indeed be found. Although she could exceptionally agree to the action proposed, she expressed reservations about the growing practice of introducing new activities which had not been budgeted for in the course of a financial year. She also said that the CDSN had failed to draw up a list of priorities for activities to be undertaken in 1985 at its 9th meeting. This was regrettable, but she was sure that the CDSN would comply in future with the directive adopted by the Deputies at their 373rd meeting (28-30 May 1984, item 2). Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the CDSN's opinion regarding a possible European campaign for the countryside (CM(84)116, item 6), noted that the CDSN has executed the ad hoc terms of reference assigned to it by Decision No CM/313/091283 and agreed to examine that opinion with the opinions expressed on the same subject by the Steering Committee for Urban Policies and the Architectural Heritage (CDUP), the Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT), the Steering Committee on Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) and the Bureau of the Committee on Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM); 2. adopted Recommendation No. R(84)14 concerning the introduction of non-native species, as it appears at Appendix XX to these Conclusions; 3. adopted Resolution (84)6 on the renewal of the European Diploma awarded to the Minsmere Nature Reserve (United Kingdom), as it appears at Appendix XXI to these Conclusions; 4. adopted Resolution (84)7 on the award of the European Diploma to the Purbeck Heritage Coast (United Kingdom), as it appears at Appendix XXII to these Conclusions; 5. noted the deferment of the candidature of the Berchtesgaden National Park (Federal Republic of Germany) for the European Diploma until the competent authorities have taken the steps set out at Appendix VI to CM(84)116 (see item 7.4.3 of CM(84)116); CONFIDENTIAL - 137 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *37

6. authorised the holding of a two-day meeting of experts at the Council of Europe in 1984 as part of Activity 19.1.10 to draw up a plan of action for prohibition of the introduction of a non-native species (Sylvilagus floridanus), on the understanding that experts' travelling and subsistence expenses will be borne by the French Government, that the cost of interpretation into French and English and translation of working papers (estimated at approximately FF 25,000 in total) will be borne out of Vote I of the Council of Europe Budget (cf. item 7.1.7 of CM(84)116) and that, if necessary, additional funds will be requested at the end of the year to cover this expenditure; 7. noted the CDSN's alterations to Sector 19 of the 1984 programme of activities as set out at Appendix VIII to CM(84)116, subject to continuation of the study on migratory species during periods of cold as part of Activity 19.0.1 (item 8 of CM(84)116); 8. taking into account decisions 1 to 7 above, took note of the report of the CDSN's 9th meeting (CM(84)116 and Addendum) as a whole.

CONFIDENTIAL - 139 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *38

*38. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL PLANNING (CDAT) Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-4 April 1984) (CM(84)110 and Add.)

Decision The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels, for consideration at B level).

CONFIDENTIAL - 141 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *39

*39. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL MATTERS (CDRM) Report of the 14th meeting (Strasbourg, 21-22 March 1984) (CM(84)112)

The Representative of the United Kingdom said her authorities were pleased with the excellent way in which the 6th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government was being prepared by the Italian Government but had reservations regarding the possibility that Ministers might find themselves confronted with a wide and unpredictable range of questions at the Colloquy to be held on the second day of the Conference between Ministers, Heads of Delegation and Representatives from the Assembly and the CLRAE. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the state of progress in preparations for the 6th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government (Rome, 6-8 November 1984), noted that there was general consent within the Committee of Ministers to participation by Finland, Yugoslavia and OECD as observers at the Conference, and authorised the costs of participation (travel and subsistence) of the Chairman of the Committee of Experts on Local and Regional Structures (RM-SL), attending the Rome Conference as Rapporteur, to be charged to the Council of Europe budget up to the limit of the appropriations allocated to Field VII of Vote II; 2. took note of the CDRM's opinion regarding a possible European campaign for the countryside (Appendix IV to CM(84)112), noted that the CDRM has executed the ad hoc terms of reference assigend to it by Decision No. CM/313/091283, and agreed to examine that opinion together with those which the Steering Committee for Urban Policies and the Architectural Heritage (CDUP), the Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT), the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) and the Bureau of the Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM) had been asked to submit on the same question; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 142 - Item *39

3. took note of the periodical report on the state of signatures and ratifications of the European Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, in accordance with ad hoc terms of reference No. CM/149/140979 (Appendix V to CM(84)112); 4. agreed to examine the CDRM's proposals (point 5.2 of CM(84)112) on its activities in 1985 in the framework of their examination of the draft programme of activities and the draft budget for 1985; 5. taking into account decisions 1 to 4 above, took note of the report of the CDRM's 14th meeting (CM(84)112) as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL - 143 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *40 *40. RULES FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE RELATING TO THE INTEGRATED CONSERVATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF MONUMENTS AND SITES (Concl(84)370/33, CM(84)122)

The Representative of the Netherlands expressed his agreement with paragraphs 1-6 of the Secretariat memorandum (CM(84)122). However, he did not think it strictly necessary to simplify the procedure laid down in Article 3 of the Rules, as suggested in paragraph 7 of the memorandum. The Representative of Ireland was grateful to the Secretariat for its memorandum, which had clarified the Rules. His authorities were in favour of simplifying the procedure laid down in Article 3 in order to speed it up. With reference to paragraph 8 of the memorandum, he asked the Secretariat what progress had been made in preparing the draft European Convention on the Conservation of the Architectural Heritage and whether technical assistance would be included in the draft. He thought that the Convention would be very important. The Secretariat representative explained that the proposed simplification of Article 3 of the Rules was intended to speed up the organisation of technical assistance missions, which had become a permanent feature of the Council of Europe's intergovernmental work programme. Such simplification was proving desirable now that the Secretariat was receiving more and more requests for assistance. As for the preparation of the European Convention on the Conservation of the Architectural Heritage, the second meeting of the select group of experts set up for that purpose (held in Strasbourg from 18 to 20 June 1984) had enabled a second revised preliminary draft to be adopted, which would be sent out to all delegations within the next few days for comments and any proposals for amendments. The preliminary draft would be given a third reading by the select group in November 1984. It should be noted that the text included an Article on technical assistance. The Chairman noted that there was general agreement that the CDUP should be asked to study the question of simplifying the Rules, particularly Article 3 (Procedure) thereof. Decision The Deputies adopted Decision No. CM/339/210684 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Urban Policies and the Architectural Heritage (CDUP), as it appears at Appendix XXIII to these Conclusions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 145 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 41a

41. COUNCIL OF EUROPE BUDGETS a. 1984 budgetary situation (CM(84)77 and CM(84)96, paras. 4 to 11)

In introducing this item, the Director of Administration and Finance drew the Deputies' attention to four particular items. First, the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts had approved increases in the daily allowance rates for Secretariat official journeys averaging 18.5% in comparison with the 8% included in the 1984 budget. The Budget Committee had not recommended the increase in the appropriation of FF 160,000 necessary to cover the shortfall. The Secretariat would endeavour to keep within the overall appropriations for this type of expenditure, but wished to reserve the right to request additional resources later in the year. Secondly, confirmation had now been received of the Co-ordinating Committee's recommendation to award a cost-of-living increase of 3.78% as from 1 January 1984. Thirdly, the agreement with the Association of Free-lance Interpreters (AIIC) concerning temporary language staff was likely to be signed in July, subject to official confirmation from the French authorities of the Social Security arrangements. Finally, the proposed OECD feasibility study mentioned in paragraph 14 of document CM(84)77 was now likely to take place and might start in 1984, but would be at a much reduced cost. In reply to a request for additional information from the Representative of Switzerland, who had noticed with considerable satisfaction the intention of the Secretariat to make every effort to contain expenditure within the appropriations available, the Director of Administration and Finance further commented that because of the reduced provision for salary adjustments included in the 1984 budget and dependant upon the award granted from 1 July 1984, supplementary appropriations may have to be requested for staff remuneration. It should however be possible to finance this from the unspent balance of the 1983 budget rather than request additional contributions from member States. A supplementary appropriation would also be needed for the pensions budget owing to the unpredictable nature of pension liabilities and the difficulty of forecasting them accurately. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 146 - Item 41a

The Representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that details of the telefax facility had not been included in the 1984 draft budget. The Director of Administration and Finance stated that this expenditure was met from Sub-head 16 - Communications - and that stringent control was operated over the use of the facility. Decisions The Deputies 1. authorised, in accordance with the recommendation of the Budget Committee, an overspending not exceeding FF 100,000 on the Assembly's budgetary package in 1984; 2. took note of the 1984 budgetary situation as set out in CM(84)77 and of the Budget Committee's opinions (CM(84)96, paras. 4 to 11). CONFIDENTIAL - 147 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 41b b. General outline of prospects for the 1985 budget (CM(84)78 and 96, paras. 13 to 18)

The Director of Administration and Finance made the following statement : "Document CM(84)78 concerns the general prospects for the 1985 budget and gives the details of the Secretary General's proposals for real-term increases. After several years of austerity budgets, the Organisation is now in a difficult situation, and taking into account the severe current economic and financial circumstances, the Secretary General has proposed the minimum increase necessary to support the work done collectively in the Organisation, in particular its complementarity with the European Communities. The proposed real terms increase is 2.54% as shown in document CM(84)78 plus any amount to be included in the general budget for European Music Year 1985. This will depend on decisions to be taken by the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) in respect of the Cultural Fund's contribution to the year. Although European Music Year 1985 is probably the most noteworthy event in the Council of Europe's programme for the coming year, there are however other aspects of the Organisation's work which, although receiving less publicity, will have a greater impact on the budget. In the document on the 1984 budgetary situation information was given on the financial effect of the improvements in conditions for temporary language staff which it is proposed to implement in stages starting in 1984. The additional cost to the 1985 budget will amount to some FF 920,000. It is intended to keep proposals for establishment changes to a minimum, but even after allowing for some offsetting savings the cost is expected to be about FF 2,000,000. Returning to European Music Year 1985, it should be noted that the temporary B grade post it is proposed to create is for one year only. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 148 - Item 41b

Mention has been made in previous years budget documents of the problems created by the imposition of cuts in Head II of the budget. To remain within budgetary resources it has been necessary to delay the already overdue replacement of certain of the Organisation's equipment. The stage has now been reached where resources are required for a planned replacement programme. Expenditure will also be necessary to maintain the buildings' conformity with local fire regulations. The computerisation programme has now reached a stage where a further modest investment in hardware is needed in order to consolidate the existing situation and enable further progress to be made. The proposals in the 1984 draft budget for expenditure under Head III, particularly as regards official journeys, entertainment and consultants, were not approved by the Budget Committee or the Committee of Ministers. The programme of work for 1985 compels the Secretary General to repeat the requests he made for 1984. The enlargement of the Intergovernmental Programme of Activities which would be justified by the interest expressed by member States in the work of the Organisation would involve an unacceptable increase in resources. The Secretary General has therefore had to concentrate on priority areas and restrict his proposed increase to FF 1,500,000. A significant part of this increase concerns the holding of a Youth Week in support of the UN International Youth Year. The Assembly budget will also be affected in 1985 by the holding of a special event - the 6th Parliamentary and Scientific Conference in Tokyo, which is expected to cost about FF 200,000. As normally occurs, the Secretary General has had to reduce the desires of the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe from the original FF 240,000 to a more moderate FF 140,000. An increase in resources will be necessary in 1985 to carry out a biennial activity under the European Code of Social Security. The 1986 appropriation will of course revert to the 1984 level in real terms. To enable a more effective control of the use made of the grants made by the European Youth Foundation, an increase is proposed in the appropriation for official journeys to enable the Foundation's Secretariat to attend more grant-aided activities. The extraordinary budget will show a reduction of over FF 2,000,000 in 1985, plus further reductions in each succeeding year until it ceases to exist after 1989. In the section of this document dealing with developments beyond 1985, the problem of accommodation for the Human Rights Court and Commission - and for the staff of the three departments concerned - is raised. CONFIDENTIAL - 149 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 41b

As concerns the pensions budget, the situation which has arisen in 1984 is an example of the unpredictable nature of the liabilities which can arise under the pension scheme. The comments made in respect of 1985 should be considered in this light. In the Partial Agreement Budgets, apart from a few establishment changes, there are no exceptional proposals for 1985. The Budget Committee considers the proposed level of growth would not appear to be acceptable in current circumstances and that more account of the economic situation of member States should be taken. It recommends zero growth with one exception. It has also stated that the indexation of appropriations in accordance with inflation cannot always be automatic, but it must be pointed out that such a policy would represent a real terms cut. It is, however, also the duty of the Secretary General to take account of the wishes of Governments when drawing up budgetary proposals. Governments have repeatedly stated the importance they attach to human rights activities, also to youth activities, the European Social Charter and the Intergovernmental Programme of Activities. The proposed growth is a very significant reduction on the requests put to him and it is felt to be the minimum required to maintain the dynamism and vitality of the Organisation. The Secretary General is now seeking guidance from the Committee of Ministers with a view to the preparation of the draft 1985 budget, that is to say the rate of growth which is likely to prove acceptable and the priorities of your Committee. And perhaps to end on a cheerful and hopeful note, may I quote, as I have done previously, the words of Dr Garret FitzGerald, then Foreign Minister (and now Prime Minister) of Ireland, when replying to a parliamentary question put to him in the Assembly in April 1977 in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers: The Council of Europe is excellent value for money'." The Representative of Denmark referred to the austerity programme in force in the Danish national economy and considered that a zero growth target should be adopted, although in the final analysis some minor growth of up to 1% may prove acceptable as in past years. Growth in priority areas should be compensated by savings elsewhere, and adjustment of appropriations in line with inflation should not be automatic. Top priority was accorded to human rights activities. The Representative of Cyprus could accept real-term growth of around 1% in order to maintain the dynamism and vitality of the Organisation. Priority was given to human rights activities and cultural and legal co-operation. The Representative of Belgium was firmly in favour of zero growth. The Belgian national budget would include a reduction for the contributions to International Organisations. This impled a very strict examination of the Council of Europe budget for 1985. Priority areas were Human Rights and legal co-operation. The Representative of Austria regretted that the Budget Committee had not been able to support the Secretary General's proposals, which he considered to be reasonable taking the current economic situation into account. Priority was accorded to Votes II, III and IV, and in particular human rights activities and mass media. Publication of the Digest of Case Law was important to his country. European Music Year was a priority event in 1985 and the FF 300,000 needed for the special week in connection with International Youth Year should be provided. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 150 - Item 41b

The Representative of the United Kingdom considered that assessment of priorities by sector was not the best approach because excellent work was done in many sectors. Priorities should be expressed in terms of individual activities. He supported the recommendation of the Budget Committee for zero growth and agreed with its view against the automatic indexing of appropriations with inflation, in accordance with current United Kingdom practice. He was not in favour of any net growth in the establishment. He agreed with the implementation of the priority system suggested by the Deputies Working Party in order to allow growth where there was most pressure whilst adhering to zero growth overall. The Representative of Turkey had no specific figure for acceptable growth. He was in favour of flexibility allied to a sense of economy. Priority areas were human rights, migrant workers, legal co-operation, and activities in the fields of culture, education and youth. The Representative of Switzerland said that the aim should be nil growth, but he recognised that this was unlikely to be achieved. He noted that no growth was proposed in Vote IV, but realised that a major part of the establishment increases under Vote I would relate to that sector. Fields I, IV, VI and VIII of Vote II should be accorded priority for 1985. The Representative of Sweden considered a reasonable increase of around 0,5% to be acceptable, but that the proposed establishment changes would have to be examined very carefully. He shared the views of the Representative of the United Kingdom with regard to priorities and pointed out that completed activities should not automatically be replaced by other activities in the same sector. The Representative of Spain indicated that his authorities considered it necessary to provide, as in the past, for the needs of the Organisation by a real-term increase of 1.5.% for 1985. They accorded priority to human rights, legal co-operation, cultural activities, youth activities, the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, and migrant workers. The Representative of Portugal referred to the austerity measures in force in his country and consequently the only growth he could approve for 1985 was that relating to European Music Year. He gave priority to human rights, the social and economic field (in particular migrant workers), culture and education, legal co-operation and youth activities. The Representative of Norway was concerned that the Council of Europe should not become a "poor" Organisation in view of its importance to his country and could and was willing to accept a real-term increase of up to 1%. Priority areas were the Commission and Court of Human Rights and the Intergovernmental Programme of Activities, but any increases should not be at the expense of the Assembly. CONFIDENTIAL - 151 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 41b

The Representative of the Netherlands fully agreed with the recommendation of the Budget Committee of zero growth. Priority should go to human rights, legal co-operation and youth activities. The Representative of Luxembourg reserved his position because of the impending election in his country. He thought however that it would be difficult to accept any real-term increase and was not in favour of automatic indexation of appropriations with inflation. The Representative of Liechtenstein was able to accept limited real growth of the same order as that approved for the 1984 budget. Establishment increase would be acceptable only for the Court and the Commission of Human Rights, other changes being compensated elsewhere. He was in favour of the points assessment system proposed by the Deputies working party. Priority was accorded to human rights activities, legal co-operation and nature and environment. He wished to see proposals for new human rights accommodation in the light of the decreases now occurring in the extraordinary budget. The Representative of Italy explained that automatic indexation had recently been abandoned in his country. He was in favour of zero growth, although he recognised the need to provide for unavoidable increases in expenditure. Priority was given to human rights and the cultural and social fields although he agreed that priority should be decided on an activity basis. The Representative of Ireland could not accept the Secretary General's proposals and was generally in favour of the Budget Committee's recommendation, believing that growth should be restricted to the minimum. Resources should be concentrated on existing commitments and the unavoidable costs of extra work in the Court and Commission of Human Rights. He also urged a solution to the problem of office space in the Human Rights building. In addition, European Music Year, Youth Year and the Pompidou Group would require additional funding. He agreed with the comments of the Representative of Sweden on the non-replacement of completed activities with others in the same field and stated that he may suggest the deletion of some sectors during the budget debate. The Representative of Greece was in favour of zero growth although he was concerned that this aim should not be counterproductive and that it should be on a global basis, ie made up of increases and compensating decreases. He accorded priority to human rights, social and cultural activities and legal co-operation. The Representative of Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement : "The German authorities' attitude is in line with the results of the Budget Committee's report in CM(84)96. They are therefore in favour of zero growth in real terms and would like to ask the Secretary General to reduce his proposals submitted in CM(84)78 accordingly. Such reductions seem to be necessary particularly in Vote II which CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 152 - Item 41b according to the proposals of the Secretary General would show real growth 3.36%. As long as there are no clearly visible signs that the Council of Europe is concentrating financial means on tasks which justify priority treatment, the German authorities will favour zero growth in real terms also for Vote II. For us, projects with a high priority in 1985 are European Music Year and the contribution of the Council of Europe to International Youth Year. We expect these two projects to be carried out with sufficient financial means, which implies that less important projects in other fields will have to be postponed." The Representative of France said that the budgets of international organisations should reflect those of national administrations and he was therefore in favour of zero growth. He suggested that internal redeployment policies should be implemented. Priority was given to human rights, the Social Charter and activities concerning migrants. The Pompidou Group should also be given increased resources and staff. The Deputy Secretary General agreed with the comments made about the desirability of redeployment, but pointed out that this was not as simple as it had been in the past because internal structures had become more rigid. He also pointed out that indexation of salaries was not automatic at the Council of Europe and that purchasing power had been lost over recent years, just as with national administrations. Replying to questions raised during the debate, the Director of Administration and Finance also referred to automatic indexation and stressed that it was because this had not been applied to a number of sub-heads over recent years that the situation had now become so severe. With regard to computerisation this had made it possible to absorb additional work without additional staff. On redeployment, he pointed out that this policy was already being followed and that vacant posts were filled only after the requirement had been fully sustantiated and that otherwise they were transferred to a priority area. Finally, he outlined the need for new accommodation for the Court and Commission of Human Rights and for the Secretariat and stressed that no simple solution was available. The Head of the Plan and Programme Division pointed out that completed activities were not automatically replaced with others in the same sector, and that any new activities were subject to a rigorous examination before being proposed. CONFIDENTIAL - 153 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 42

42. FINANCIAL REGULATIONS Closing date of the period complementary to the financial year (CM(84)97)

Decision The Deputies adopted Resolution (84)5 amending Article 6 of the Financial Regulations, as it appears at Appendix XXIV to these Conclusions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 155 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 43 43. PERSONNEL MATTERS REFERRED TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE (CM(84)79, 80, 96 paras. 19 and 20)

Upgrading of an A5 post in the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights to A6 The Represetnative of Denmark recalled that it was his delegation that had raised this issue in the first instance. The Budget Committee had not recommended against, but merely that consideration should be deferred. He still believed the upgrading to be essential and the reasons for it self-evident. He maintained his proposal and said that he would prefer a decision to be taken on it at the present meeting. He was supported by the Representatives of Switzerland, Norway and Cyprus who thought that the decision should be taken at the present meeting. Several delegations having expressed a preference for following the line advocated by the Budget Committee, namely not to take a decision on the upgrading during the course of the financial year, and after further procedural discussion, the Deputy Secretary General said that this upgrading would be included in the Secretary General's budgetary proposals for 1985. The Deputies would accordingly be reverting to it when they came to consider the draft 1985 budget in November 1984. The Representative of Denmark said that he could accept the approach announced by the Deputy Secretary General. The situation had now changed in that previously there had been no proposal from the Secretariat for the upgrading of the post. Prolongation of a specific temporary A2 post beyond 30 June 1984 in the Directorate of Environment and Local Authorities The Chairman noted that there was no opposition to this proposal. Decision The Deputies agreed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Budget Committee, to release the frozen part of the 1984 appropriation intended for the remuneration of the programme assistant (FF 120,500, Sub-head 5) in the Directorate of Environment and Local Authorities.

CONFIDENTIAL - 157 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 44 44. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT TO REMUNERATION AND PENSIONS WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JANUARY 1984 201st Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (CM(84)130 of ...)

The Representative of Turkey reserved the position of his authorities concerning the level of the reduction coefficient to be applied to salary scales for staff serving in Turkey. Decisions The Deputies 1. approved the recommendations made by the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts in paragraph 8 of its 201st report (CM(84)130, Appendix II), and accordingly : 2. decided that the remuneration of staff serving in France and Belgium, where the consumer price index rose by more than 3% during the second half of 1983, shall be adjusted by the cost-of-living index in each country multiplied by a coefficient of 0.995, and that, as a result, an increase of 3.78% for France and 3.08% for Belgium shall apply as from 1 January 1984 to the scales of remuneration brought into effect on 1 July 1983; 3. noted that the present adjustment can in no way prejudice the results of the 1984 Annual Review and can not be considered as establishing vested rights in the event that these results prove to be less favourable to staff than those of the present adjustment; 4. noted that, in accordance with the interpretation given to paragraph 3 of its 34th report (CCG(65)5) by the Co-ordinating Committee at its 77th meeting held on 29 June 1966 (CCG/M(66)6), the remuneration of auxiliary staff serving with the Co-ordinated Organisations will be adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the 201st report; 5. noted that, by application of the decision taken at their 289th meeting (June 1978, item XVIII(b)) concerning the recommendation made in the 150th report of the Co-ordinating Committee (CM(78)101), pensions will be adjusted with effect from 1 January 1984 in the same proportion as the remuneration of serving staff; 6. released the appropriations frozen under Sub-heads 12 and 85 of the ordinary budget, Sub-head 4 of each of the Partial Agreement budgets and Sub-head 8 of the Pensions Budget for 1984 to the extent necessary for the implementation of the foregoing decisions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 159 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *45 *45. AD HOC MEASURES TO MAINTAIN TEMPORARILY BASIC SALARIES WHERE THE RESULTS OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURE AT 1 JULY 1983 WOULD LEAD TO REDUCTIONS 199th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (CM(84)126)

The Chairman referred to the Notes on the agenda for this item (Notes No. 5017), where it was stated that the 199th report of the Co-ordinating Committee concerned the question of a guarantee of nominal basic salaries where application of the method of calculating salaries would lead to reductions on 1 July 1983. For such cases it recommended an ad hoc measure guaranteeing up to 31 May 1984 the salaries and pension payments that result from the scales in force prior to 1 July 1983. As far as the Council of Europe was concerned he said that it could happen that application of the salary adjustment procedure could result in reduced basic salaries or pensions, but this had not in fact happened in the framework of the 1 July 1983 review. Accordingly, the 199th report was not of direct concern to the Council of Europe as in fact what it did was simply recommend the date of 31 May 1984 as being the final date of application of the temporary measure applied in respect of the 1 July 1983 salary review in accordance with paragraph 17(a) of the Co-ordinating Committee's 196th report (CM(84)18, Appendix II). In reply to a question put by the Representative of Switzerland as to why the 199th report of the Co-ordinating Committee had been placed on the agenda, the Director of Administration and Finance explained that it had not been until the report had been received, ie after the draft agenda had been approved, that it could be confirmed that it did not affect Council of Europe staff or pensioners.

CONFIDENTIAL - 161 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *46 *46. 1984 ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE DAILY SUBSISTENCE RATES FOR STAFF OF THE CO-ORDINATED ORGANISATIONS TRAVELLING ON DUTY IN TURKEY Addendum to the 197th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (CM(84)76 Addendum)

Decisions The Deputies approved the Addendum to the 197th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (Appendix II to CM(84)76 Addendum), and accordingly agreed that with effect from 1 July 1984 two rates of daily subsistence allowance be calculated for staff of the Co-ordinated Organisations travelling on duty in Turkey: - Class I: Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir - Class II: elsewhere.

CONFIDENTIAL - 163 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item *47

*47. RULES FOR ALLOWANCES FOR STAFF OF THE CO-ORDINATED ORGANISATIONS TRAVELLING ON DUTY 200th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (CM(84)125)

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his delegation would abstain if the question of approving the 200th report of the Co-ordinating Committee were put to the vote, in order to mark its disagreement with the doubling of the number of annual adjustments of daily subsistence allowance rates. Revising daily subsistence allowance rates every six months was not the practice in member countries nor in other international organisations. He would forbear from repeating the other arguments that had been put forward by the German expert: in the Co-ordinating Committee, and which could be read in paragraph 10 of that committee's 200th report (CM(84)125, Appendix II). The Director of Administration and Finance said that the position just stated by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany had been a minority view within the Co-ordinating Committee. The reason why the majority in that committee wanted the new system was in particular to put an end to the retroactive application of adjustments. Decision The Deputies approved the 200th report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (CM(84)125, Appendix II), and in particular the rules set out therein with effect from 1 July 1984 as recommended in paragraphs 2 and 3 of these rules.

CONFIDENTIAL - 165 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 48 48. PREPARATION OF FORTHCOMING MEETINGS

The Representative of Iceland said that his delegation would have difficulty in being represented at the 375th (September) and 376th (October) meetings as they were spread over two weeks. Decision The Deputies approved the draft agenda for their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels), as it appears at Appendix II to these Conclusions.

CONFIDENTIAL - 167 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 49a

49. OTHER BUSINESS a. Dialogue with the Secretary General

1. 4th Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport, Malta The Deputy Secretary General said that he had attended the 4th Conference of Ministers responsible for Sport, held in Valletta on 15 and 16 May 1984. The Conference had taken place in excellent conditions at the Mediterranean Conference Centre. The agenda had been meaty and discussions had proved extremely fruitful thanks to spontaneous interventions by Ministers. Fourteen Ministers or State Secretaries had been present. Eleven resolutions had been adopted, concerned with policy matters as well as co-operation within the Council of Europe. The Deputy Secretary General drew attention to two particularly important discussions: one on doping, and the other on the question of the Olympic Games. The ground for the first had been well prepared by the Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS), and the Ministers had eventually adopted an anti-doping Charter which would shortly be submitted to the Deputies possibly for adoption in the form of a Recommendation. The Charter was a fine demonstration of the originality of what the Council of Europe was doing in the field of sport; the question was both political and ethical, and demanded close co-operation between governments and sports associations. The second discussion had arisen out of the decision by the Soviet Union and other countries not to participate in the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, a question which was very much in the forefront. It was clear that the countries having decided not to participate would not go back on their decision. The Ministers had expressed concern over the fact that since Munich, the Olympic Games had invariably been beset by political difficulties; the choice of Seoul for 1988 did nothing to allay fears that such difficulties would arise again. The Ministers considered the future of the Games with particular reference to a speech by the President of the International Olympic Committee. The Deputy Secretary General said that the resolutions would be referred to the Deputies at a later stage in accordance with normal procedure. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 168 - Item 49a

The preparations for the Conference carried out by the Maltese authorities, and in particular Mr Sant, the Minister for Sport, had been excellent; a very warm welcome had been extended to all participants. The Deputy Secretary General had already written to Mr Sant thanking him for the efforts on the part of the Maltese authorities and for the generous hospitality shown in Valletta. The Representative of Italy said that a press communiqué had been issued by the Assembly Committee on Culture and Education deploring the decision taken by the Soviet Union not to participate in the next Olympic Games; however, no press communiqué on the same aspect had been issued by the Ministers participating in the 4th Conference. The Deputy Secretary General said that, at the conclusion of the Conference, the Chairman of the Conference had given a press conference under his own responsibility as well as that of the Ministers participating in the Conference. 2. XIVth Conference of European Ministers of Justice, Madrid 29-31 May 1984 The Deputy Secretary General said that the Secretary General, who had opened the Conference, had asked him to make the following statement to the Deputies : "The XIVth Conference of European Ministers of Justice was a great success, as were the previous conferences. Sixteen States were represented at ministerial level, which was an indication - if such indication were needed - of the importance attached by the Ministers themselves to their Conference. The opening session was marked by the presence of the Spanish Prime Minister, who had made an important speech. Mr Felipe Gonzales had referred to the exemplary results achieved by the Council of Europe in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and to the Organisation's notable efforts in the matter of legal unification and harmonisation. He had stressed also the importance of international co-operation as a basis for common action, which was essential as a means of coping with new phenomena whose effects went beyond national frontiers. In that connection, he had reaffirmed his Government's anxiety that a firm, concerted and supportive course of action on the part of the democratic States of Western Europe be devised, in order to face up to the threat of terrorism, and in particular had recalled his proposal that a European Conference on terrorism be held. He had further referred to the increasingly grave problem of drug trafficking and consumption; drugs had clearly shown themselves to be the most powerful factors for crime in present-day society, which it was essential to combat by means of a reinforcement of international co-operation in that sphere - notably in the Council of Europe. The measures which were needed in order to combat all criminal manifestations had to be both energetic and effective, but must at the same time be compatible with the demands made specifically by democratic societies. CONFIDENTIAL - 169 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 49a

Debates at the Conference, which were based on excellent reports submitted by the rapporteurs and various delegations, had been lively and interesting. The resolutions adopted by the Ministers are included in the draft agenda for consideration at your 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels). I wish particularly to draw your attention at this stage, however, to Resolution No. 4, on co-operation in the fight against terrorism and international organised crime. An interesting debate was held on this theme, placed on the agenda at the opening of the Conference at the request of Mr. L. Brittan, Secretary of State for the Home Department of the United Kingdom, at the close of which Resolution No. 4 was adopted, in which the Ministers of Justice recommend the Committee of Ministers "to ensure that these questions be studied urgently by an ad hoc body to be set up within the Council of Europe and open to all ministers exercising in their national government any responsibility relating to these problems". The Secretariat plans to put concrete proposals to you at an early date with a view to taking action along the lines urged in the Resolution. I should also like to stress that while the considerable success of the Conference was due in part to the interest shown by the Ministers in the topics dealt with, and the importance attached thereto, the exceptionally generous and cordial hospitality shown by the host government was a further contributory factor in that success, and I wish to thank the Spanish Government through the intermediary of its Representative. Lastly, I have to report that His Majesty the King of Spain was good enough to grant an audience to the Ministers, Heads of Delegation and the Secretary General at the Zarzuela Palace. All the participants were most appreciative of this gesture, which was seen as reflecting the importance attached by the Spanish authorities to what the Council of Europe is doing in the legal sphere." The Representative of Spain asked the Deputy Secretary General to convey his gratitude to the Secretary General. His authorities attached great importance to the Conference and to the follow-up to be given to the various resolutions adopted, in particular to Resolution No. 4 on co-operation in the fight against terrorism and international organised crime. The Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that the initiative to take action at the European level to fight against terrorism and international organised crime had been taken by his government. Resolution No. 4 on co-operation in the fight against terrorism and international organised crime called on the Committee of Ministers to consider these problems and to ensure that these questions be studied urgently by an ad hoc body to be set up within the Council of Europe. Both the Assembly and the press were interested in this matter. In fact, the Assembly had also called on the Committee of Ministers, in its Resolution 982 on the defence of democracy against terrorism in Europe, to take urgent measures to combat terrorism. He noted that the conclusions of the recent Conference of Ministers of Justice, as well as the Resolutions adopted, would be examined by the Deputies at their 375th meeting CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 170 - Item 49a

(September 1984 - A and B levels). He welcomed the fact that the Secretariat would be making concrete proposals as regards the follow-up to Resolution No. 4. He thought that the Deputies might consider either setting up an ad hoc body within the framework of the Council of Europe or else an ad hoc body on the basis of a Partial Agreement (such as the Pompidou Group) to consider the matters raised by the 14th Conference of European Ministers of Justice in Resolution No. 4. The Representative of Turkey said that he also wanted to underline the importance which his government attached to Resolution No. 4. He shared the views expressed by the Representatives of the United Kingdom and Spain. The fight against terrorism and international organised crime was important and a matter that required immediate action. As regards the form of the body to be set up within the Council of Europe, his delegation was open to all suggestions. The Representative of Greece agreed with the Representative of the United Kingdom and expressed his agreement with the setting up of an ad hoc body. The Representative of Italy said that he would not fail to transmit to his authorities what the Deputy Secretary General had said and the proposal made by the Representative of the United Kingdom. His authorities also attached great importance to this matter; he expressed his agreement with the views put forward by the preceding speakers and said that something concrete should be done within the framework of the Council of Europe to fight against terrorism and international organised crime. The Representative of France said that his authorities also attached great importance to the matters raised in Resolution No. 4. The setting up of an ad hoc body within the Council of Europe required serious exploratory work on the definition of the matters it could take up. The Representative of Norway said that his authorities also considered terrorism and international organised crime as a serious matter that required urgent action. On the whole, his government had taken a positive approach to Resolution No. 4. 3. Joint meeting of the Administrative Council and Governing Body of the Resettlement Fund in Izmir The Deputy Secretary General said that he had gone to Cesme, in Turkey, to attend the meetings of the Resettlement Fund from 6 to 8 June 1984, as several Deputies were aware. He did not propose to report in detail on the meetings, attended incidentally by a number of members of the Committee, but would merely mention that the most important issues discussed at the meetings, in his opinion, had been: the grant of social loans in the sum of 7.5 million dollars by the Governing Body; the discharge given by the Governing Body to the Administrative Council for its financial management in 1983, and a preliminary discussion on the harmonisation of member States' subscriptions to the capital of the Fund. CONFIDENTIAL - 171 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 49a

The Deputy Secretary General said that he was particularly anxious to emphasise the excellent quality - from all points of view - of the welcome extended to all participants and himself on the part of the Turkish authorities. He was confident that he was speaking for them all in saying that the working conditions, visits and social events could not have been better or more lavishly organised. Complete perfection had been attained. He wished to thank the Turkish authorites, through their Ambassador, and in particular all persons who in Cesme, Ankara and Istanbul had striven to make the 18th meeting a great success. The Representative of Turkey thanked the Deputy Secretary General for the statement he had made and the feelings he had expressed on the organisation of the meeting of the bodies of the Resettlement Fund in Turkey. All this was very natural and showed the importance of the role of the Council of Europe's Resettlement Fund. 4. Würzburg Congress The Deputy Secretary General said that the Congress on Craftsmanship and Conservation, organised by the Council of Europe in conjunction with the Federal German Crafts Union, had been held in Würzburg from 27 to 30 May 1984. It had been attended by over 300 political, administrative and professional personalities, conservation experts and architects. The opening and closing sessions had been honoured by the presence of the Federal Minister for Regional Planning, Building and Urban Development, Mr Oskar Schneider, the State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology, Dr. Albert Probst, and the Minister for Education and Culture of Bavaria, Prof. Hans Maier. The Council of Europe representatives had included the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Karl Ahrens, and Prof. Alfred Schmid, Chairman of the Swiss Federal Commission for Historic Monuments, who had formerly been a Chairman of the Steering Committee for Urban Policies and the Architectural Heritage (CDUP). The Würzburg Congress, following the Fulda Congress in 1980 and the Venice Seminar in 1982, had represented the third stage in the work undertaken by the Council of Europe as part of Activity 18.3.1 to promote crafts involved in the conservation of the architectural heritage. Before dealing with the items on their agenda, participants at the Congress had had the opportunity to inspect examples of restoration and conservation work in Würzburg and the surrounding area. The places they had visited had ranged from the most prestigious, such as the Baroque Residenz of the Bishops and Dukes of Würzburg and the University of Würzburg to far more modest realisations, such as half-timbered houses, small country town halls or simple rural calvaries. They had in each case been impressed by the care with which the work had been or was being carried out, and the determination that it should be true to the spirit of authenticity. The visits had provided a backcloth to the many statements presented at the actual Congress. The Deputy Secretary General wished to emphasise in this connection the particularly active participation by craftsmen representing the trades involved in conservation work. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 172 - Item 49a

A considerable number of recommendations had been adopted at the close of the Congress, and these would be circulated shortly. He was anxious at that stage to draw the Deputies' attention to those which concerned the future of crafts involved in the conservation of the heritage and the new opportunities they represented for young people. In conclusion, the Deputy Secretary General referred to the co-operation that had been established between Würzburg and its twinned city in Spain, Salamanca, and paid tribute to the decision to devote one of the numerous exhibitions mounted on the occasion of the Council of Europe Congress to the "cultural heritage" of Salamanca, by illustrating the various threats hanging over it. The Deputies would remember that the Committee had recently reached a decision on technical assistance for the City of Salamanca. The Deputy Secretary General asked the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to convey the Secretary General's thanks to the Federal authorities, those of Bavaria and the Federal German Crafts Union and the Chamber of Crafts of Würzburg for their assistance to the Council of Europe, which had enabled the Congress to be a real success. He also asked the Ambassador of Spain to thank the Mayor of the City of Salamanca, Mr Malaga, for kindly helping, through the exhibition devoted to his city, to confer a European flavour on the event. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany thanked the Deputy Secretary General for his kind words, which he would not fail to convey to his authorities. He welcomed the twinning of Würzburg and Salamanca. The Representative of Spain also expressed his gratitude to the Deputy Secretary General and welcomed the twinning of Würzburg and Salamanca. 5. Multidisciplinary Colloquy on health problems in the world of work The Deputy Secretary General reported that a multidisciplinary Colloquy had been held in Paris from 24 to 26 May 1984, at the invitation of the French Minister for Social Affairs and National Solidarity, Mr Pierre Beregovoy, on health problems in the world of work. The idea of the Colloquy had been launched in September 1981 by the French Minister of Health, at the first Conference of European Ministers of Health, in Madrid. The Colloquy had provided an opportunity for a very fruitful exchange of views between experts at the highest level. Fifteen member States, plus Yugoslavia and the Holy See, had been represented at the Colloquy, some at ministerial level. The Commission of the European Communities, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO) (Europe) and European organisations representing employers and workers had sent high-level representatives. At the end of three days' endeavours, conclusions had been adopted containing a number of recommendations for a course of action at national and international level. A more detailed report on the Colloquy would shortly be submitted to the Deputies. CONFIDENTIAL - 173 - CM/Del/Concl (84)374 Item 49a

The Deputy Secretary General said he was anxious, before concluding, to convey his warmest thanks, through the Permanent Representative of France, to the French authorities and in particular the French Minister for Social Affairs and National Solidarity for instigating the Colloquy and for their unstinted efforts to make it a success. He asked the Chairman to be his spokesman vis-à-vis the authorities of his country in expressing the gratitude of the Secretariat. The Representative of France thanked the Deputy Secretary General for the kind words, which he would not fail to transmit to his authorities. 6. Museum Prizes for 1983 The Deputy Secretary General said that the two 1983 Museum Prizes had been awarded early in May, as the Deputies no doubt knew: the European Museum of the Year Award to the Sargans Regional Museum, Switzerland, and the Council of Europe Prize to the Joanneum Museum in the province of Styria, Austria. Seven special commendations had also been made in connection with the Museum of the Year, and a booklet concerning the prizes was being distributed to the Deputies. The prizes had hitherto been subsidised almost entirely by sponsors: in the first few years by IBM, and since 1980 by the Arthur Andersen and Company Foundation. The Deputy Secretary General said that the annual budget for the prize worked out at approximately FF 400,000, not including secretarial services. The contribution of the Council of Europe, limited to funding the Council of Europe Prize, was met by the Assembly, but the award of the prize was entirely based on the organisation of the European Museum of the Year Award. At the last meeting of the independent organising committee, in Bath on 7 June 1984, it had been noted that following the withdrawal of the Arthur Andersen and Company Foundation it had not been possible to secure the services of another foundation to guarantee the award. If no solution to the financial problem had been found by the autumn, which was when most of the applicant museums for this year had to be visited, the question would arise whether the activity could be continued. If the Committee had to give it up, the Council of Europe Prize could not continue to be awarded, of course. The Deputy Secretary General felt he had to keep the Deputies informed of this disquieting situation, and referred to what he had said at their 356th meeting (February 1983, item 24a) during the dialogue with the Secretary General. In February 1983 the Chairman of the European Awards Committee had in fact reported on the creation of an Association of Friends of the Award and suggested that each member country should become a founder member of the Association, contributing a sum of 3,000 Swiss francs. To date only one member country (Greece) had indicated its willingness to do so. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 174 - Item 49a

The Deputy Secretary General said he would be grateful if the Deputies could report to their governments and suggest that they might consider the possibility of voluntary contributions and bring the names of any associations, organisations or commercial undertakings to which the committee might appeal to the notice of the Secretariat. Any proposals could be sent direct to Mr John Letts, Chairman of the finance sub-committee of the European Musuem of the Year Award, whose address is as follows: Mr John LETTS Chairman of the European Museum of the Year Award Finance Sub-Committee c/o Folio Society 202 Great Suffolk St., London SE1 1PR Tel. 01 407 7411 He also reported that the organising committee was in touch with the cultural attachés of the member States' embassies in London. He would report to the Deputies on the outcome of the committee's efforts in the course of the next few weeks. The Chairman said that the Deputy Secretary General would no doubt keep the Deputies informed of any developments on the financial problems he had referred to earlier. The Deputy Secretary General noted that the Deputies had taken note of his appeal for contributions. 7. Alterations to the premises The Deputy Secretary General said he fully realised, from experience, how complicated it was to get from the Palais de l'Europe entrance hall to the restaurant complex. This applied particularly to groups of visitors, who were present in force every day, but also to those who worked in the building. The Secretariat had therefore long thought that there was a need for more direct and easier access to the restaurants. The situation became still more complicated during parliamentary sessions, when numerous groups of visitors occasionally lost their way in the corridors, particularly in trying to proceed through the press area to the restaurant. Furthermore, journalists using the press room had been calling for some time for extra facilities, as they were frequently short of space. There were admittedly no technical reasons why the request of the press representatives should not be met, by the installation of additional desks and typewriters in the place of tables in the Press Bar; however, this would mean putting a stop to the continuous to-and-fro of visitors using those corridors. It was therefore planned to construct a new passage-way between the visitors' cloakroom at the further end of the exhibition area and the Control Centre. This work would not mean any substantial changes to the building. In addition, he was able to inform the Deputies that all the expenditure occasioned by the work would be defrayed by the European Parliament, as it was inadequate.during its sessions that press facilities were particularly CONFIDENTIAL - 175 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 49a

The Deputy Secretary General said that he had made a point of reporting to the Deputies on the matter, because before long they would be seeing men at work in that part of the building. The Representative of Luxembourg recalled that it was the Committee of Ministers which owned the Palais de l'Europe and wondered how the European Parliament had agreed to pay for the alterations referred to by the Deputy Secretary General. The Deputy Secretary General said that the journalists who had encountered difficulties during the sessions of the Assembly and in particular those of the European Parliament had informed the Directorate of Press and Information Services and the Press Services of the European Parliament of their difficulties. Subsequently, the European Parliament had agreed to meeting the cost of the construction in question. The Representative of Luxembourg asked whether it had been the Council of Europe or the European Parliament which had asked for the alterations. The Director of Administration and Finance said that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe had received the representatives of the press who had complained about the inadequacy of their facilities. They had also brought this matter to the attention of the European Parliament. The Secretariat of the Council of Europe had succeeded in persuading the European Parliament to pay for the alterations. The Representative of the United Kingdom said the work to be undertaken would no doubt facilitate access to the restaurant and welcomed the fact that the Council of Europe would not be paying for it. He wondered if any thought had been given to providing a separate entrance to the Palais de l'Europe for the public. The Deputy Secretary General said that the Secretariat was aware of the difficulties encountered and some thought had been given to this possibility in the past. The Secretariat would continue to consider the matter. 8. Ministerial Conference of the Pompidou Group The Deputy Secretary General reminded the Representatives of the member States of the Pompidou Group that the Ministerial Conference of the Pompidou Group would be held in Paris on 12 and 13 September 1984. The Permanent Representatives of the member States would in due course receive a full set of papers for the Conference. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 176 - Item 49a

9. Relations between the Council of Europe and the United Nations in the field of human rights The Representative of Belgium recalled that in 1982 his Minister for Foreign Affairs had taken an initiative with a view to instructing the Secretary General of the United Nations to enquire into the situation with regard to regional agreements concerning respect for human rights. That initiative had led to a Resolution of the UN General Assembly. It could be seen from the report of the UN Secretary General that the Council of Europe, which had indeed pioneered such regional agreements, had not replied to the questionnaire. Furthermore, again at the initiative of Belgium, a further Resolution along the same lines had been adopted in December 1983, following which the UN Secretary General had sent a new questionnaire to the regional organisations. The Representative of Belgium stressed the particular importance that his authorities attached to this matter and expresed the wish that the Secretariat could respond to this latest request from the UN Secretary General and to the subsequent appeals to the same effect. The Director of Human Rights expressed his gratitude to the Representative of Belgium for having raised this point. The Council of Europe had been invited to reply to the questionnaire before 31 May 1984. In view of the importance of the matter, he felt that the reply should be as substantial as possible. However, as a result of the heavy workload and the lack of staff in the Directorate of Human Rights, the drafting of the reply had been delayed. He had personally informed the Centre of Human Rights of the UN of this state of affairs. The reply would be sent to the United Nations within the next two weeks. Copies of the reply would be sent to delegations, some of which had drawn the Secretariat's attention to the importance they attached to this matter. The Director of Human Rights intended to propose the inclusion of an item in the draft agenda for the next meeting, in September 1984, of the Directors of Human Rights in international organisations, with a view to having an informal discussion about it. The Representative of Belgium noted with satisfaction the intentions of the Director of Human Rights, and thanked him for them. 10. Meeting of the Steering Committee of the Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy (Paris, 29 May 1984) The Representative of Denmark recalled that the Deputies had asked him to represent the Committee at the above-mentioned meeting (cf. Concl(84)372, page 3). He had duly attended the meeting, which had been chaired by the President of the Assembly. In addition to the members of the Council of Europe Assembly itself, the meeting had also been attended by parliamentarians from Finland, Japan, Canada and New Zealand. The Australian parliamentarian had been unable to be present and his place had been taken by the Australian Ambassador to Paris. CONFIDENTIAL - 177 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 49a

At the meeting, general satisfaction had been expressed with the first Strasbourg Conference, which had taken place in October 1983. It had been recognised however that there were certain lessons to be learned from that first experience. There had been general agreement that there should be a further conference of democratic countries in about 2 years time, and that the circle of participation should be extended beyond the member countries of the Council of Europe and OECD. Views diverged however on exactly how to go about extending participation. A suggestion that the extension should cover the ASEAN and Andean Pact countries faced the objection that this would leave out India, for example, which in terms of population was the largest parliamentary democracy in the world. In the light of this, the Finnish parliamentarian had proposed that there must be agreement on the principles and criteria for participation in future Strasbourg Conferences. The Representative of Denmark said that he had himself addressed the meeting of the Steering Committee of the Conference. He had recalled that the Committee of Ministers had not become involved in the organisation of the 1983 Conference - organisation had been entirely the responsibility of the Assembly - but the Committee of Ministers had been kept regularly informed of progress of the preparatory work. Many of the Ministers' Deputies had attended the Conference. He had added a personal remark that the point made by the Finnish parliamentarian as reported above was a very important one. It was certainly essential to establish principles and criteria for participation. Finally, he said that the next meeting of the Steering Committee would be taking place at the end of January or early in February 1985. The Chairman thanked the Representative of Denmark for his report and for having kindly agreed to represent the Committee of Ministers at the meeting of the Steering Committee. 11. Staff salaries This matter was raised in restricted session (see Addendum II to these Conclusions, which has been distributed to Heads of Delegation only).

CONFIDENTIAL - 179 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Item 49b b. Ad hoc Committee of Experts to exchange views on the draft Convention on the Rights of the Child (CAHDE)

The Chairman said that this item had been included in the agenda of this meeting as a result of a letter dated 18 June 1984 from the Representative of Norway. The Representative of Norway recalled that his authorities had proposed in June 1983 (361st meeting, item 9) that an ad hoc committee of experts be convened in Strasbourg to discuss western attitudes to the United Nations draft Convention on the Rights of the Child. As certain delegations had expressed reservations at that time, the Norwegian authorities had withdrawn their proposal. Following the recent meeting of the United Nations working party in Geneva, several governments had asked Norway to reiterate its proposal. His government proposed that the meeting, which would be held in September or October, should last two or three days and that the expenses should be borne by governments. It suggested that the following countries should be invited to send observers: Australia, Canada, Finland, the Holy See, New Zealand and the United States. The purpose of the meeting would be to permit a discussion on the draft Convention in order to reach a co-ordinated position before the working party's next meeting in Geneva. The Representatives of Austria, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Greece, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy supported the Norwegian proposal. The Representative of Spain also supported the proposal and suggested that the following countries should also be invited to send observers: Israel, Argentina, Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. Several delegations said they were unable to express a view on this last proposal at that stage and emphasised that the countries in question belonged to a group other than "Western Europe and Others Group". The Representative of Spain pointed out that the Latin American countries were at least as close to western Europe as those of the Commonwealth. The Chairman called to mind that the Norwegian proposal was the result of a request by the countries of the "Western Europe and Others Group". CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - 180 - Item 49b

The Representative of Norway said that the countries proposed by his delegation had already taken part in the work done so far. The Director of Human Rights recalled that there had been several exchanges of views at the Council of Europe on specific problems such as the Convention on torture or the right to development, to mention only those, and that the custom had been to involve the Council of Europe non-member countries belonging to the United Nations "Western Europe and Others Group". Decisions The Deputies 1. adopted Decision No. CM/341/220684 establishing the specific terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee of Experts to exchange views on the draft Convention on the rights of the child (CAHDE), as it appears at Appendix XXV to these Conclusions; 2. agreed to resume consideration at A level at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels) of the question of possibly inviting observers other than those mentioned in point 10 of the above-mentioned Decision. CONFIDENTIAL - a1 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX I

374TH MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (A and B levels) Strasbourg, 14-22 June 1984

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda (Notes No 4978 of 13.6.84) Political and General Policy Questions 2. Committee of Ministers - Follow-up to the 74th Session (CM(84)PV 1 and 2 prov.) (Notes No 4979 of 29.5.84) 3. Exchange of views with the Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities - (Concl(83)361/5, CM(84)92) (Notes No 4980 of 4.6.84) 4. United Nations - Exchange of views (Notes No 4981 of 13.6.84) 5. Balanced development in Europe - (Concl(84)367/5, 371/9, CM(83)198) (Notes No 4982 of 7.6.84) 6. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(84)372/6) (Notes No 4983 of 23.5.84) 7. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - (Concl(84)372/7, CM(78)62, CM(84)30 rev.) (Notes No 4984 of 23.5.84 CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a2 - Appendix I

Human Rights 8. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Cosans - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(83)365/8, Letters HD/C22 of 15.3.82 and HD/C21 of 29.3.83) (Notes No 4985 of 24.5.84 and Add of 12.6.84) 9. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Foti and others - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)370/11, Letters HD/C92 of 21.12.82 and HD/C91 of 28.11.83) (Notes No 4986 of 7.6.84) 10. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Silver and others - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)370/12, Letters HD/C24 of 8.4.83 and HD/C89 of 16.11.83) (Notes No 4987 of ...) 11. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luberti - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)370/13, Letter HD/C21 of 6.3.84) (Notes No 4988 of 24.5.84) 12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Goddi - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C35 of 19.4.84) (Notes No 4975 of 23.5.84) 13. Dores and Silveira against Portugal - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)370/14, Letter HD/C84 of 9.11.83) (Notes No 4989 of 28.5.84) 14. Cyprus against Turkey - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C12 of 1.2.84 CM(84)135 of 21.6.84) (Notes No 4990 of 25.5.84) 15. Bramelid and Malmström against Sweden - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C23 of 9.3.84) (Notes No 4991 of 25.5.84) 16. Colloquy on "Human rights of aliens in Europe" (Funchal, 17-19 October 1983) - (Concl(84)370/18, CM(84)14) (Notes No 4992 of 25.5.84) 17. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-23 March 1984) - (CM(84)102) (Notes No 4993 of 6.6.84) CONFIDENTIAL - a3 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix I

18. Draft Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Extension of the List of Civil and Political Rights set forth in the Convention - (Concl(84)372/9, CM(82)230 Addendum I, CM(84)37 and Add., 84 and Assembly Opinion No. 116) (Notes No 4994 of 6.6.84) Legal Questions 19. Proposal to hold a Ministerial Conference on equality between women and men - (Concl(84)372/20, CM(84)89) (Notes No 4995 of 30.5.84) *20(1)European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - Report of the 8th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-6 April 1984) - (CM(84)107 and Add. 1 to VI) (Notes No 4996 of 28.5.84 and Corr. of 7.6.84) *21(2)Ad hoc committee of experts on legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 26-30 March 1984) - (CM(84)120 of 22.5.84) (Notes No 4997 of 28.5.84) *22. Procedures for verifying applications for asylum - Written Question No. 275 by Mr Büchner - (CM(84)113 and Add. of 6.6.84) (Notes No 4998 of 6.6.84) *23. Committee of experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-23 March 1984) - (CM(84)86 and Add. I and II) (Notes No 4976 of 24.5.84)

* B level (1) Including - a draft Convention on offences relating to cultural property, - the following draft Recommendations: . on the criminal record and rehabilitation of convicted persons, . on the harmonisation of national legislation relating to firearms, . on violence in the family, . concerning information about the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, . concerning foreign prisoners. (2) Including the draft Agreement on the responsibility for examining asylum requests, adopted provisionally by CAHAR. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a4 - Appendix I

Economic and Social Questions 24. European Social Charter - Appointment of five members of the Committee of Experts set up in pursuance of Article 25 of the Charter - (Concl(84)367/26, CM(84)21) (Notes No 4999 of 28.5.84) 25. Council of Europe relations with management and labour - Report of the 1st meeting of the Liaison Committee (Strasbourg, 12-13 March 1984) - (Concl(84)367/34d, CM(84)106) (Notes No 5000 of 30.5.84) *26. Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 9-13 April 1984) - (CM(84)103 and Add. I and II) (Notes No. 4974 of 29.5.84) *27. Steering Committee for Social Security (CDSS) - Report of the 21st meeting (Strasbourg, 26-30 March 1984) - (CM(84)109) (Notes No 5001 of 24.5.84) *28(3)Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-SP) - Report of the 20th Session (Strasbourg, 10-12 April 1984) (CD-P-SP(84)4) (Notes No 5002 of 25.5.84 and Add. of 5.6.84) *29. Future of health structures - Assembly Recommendation 979 (Concl(84)370/3, CM(84)117 of 25.4.84) (Notes No 4977 of 25.4.84) Education, Culture and Sport 30. Ministerial Conference on Research (Paris, September 1984) - (Concl(84)367/3, 368/24e, 372/27d, CM(84)31 and Corr., CM(84)118 of 23.5.84) (Notes No 5003 of 30.5.84) 31. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Earthquake Research (CAHRT) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-20 December 1983) (Concl(84)372/23, CM(84)54 and Add.) (Notes No 5004 of 6.6.84)

* B level (3) Including - Draft Resolution AP(84)... on the inclusion of packaging leaflets in pharmaceutical specialities of the nature of the information shown on such leaflets (formerly Resolution AP(74)7) - Revised draft Resolution AP(84)... concerning the transmission of the flavour of smoke to food. CONFIDENTIAL - a5 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix I

*32. Draft Recommendation No. R(84)... on the situation of foreign students - (Concl(84)370/28, CM(84)65 Appendix F) (Notes No 5005 of 25.5.84) Youth 33. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Youth Questions (CAHJE) - Report of the 3rd meeting (2-4 May 1984) - (CM(84)114 of 17.5.84) (Notes No 5006 of 4.6.84) Environment and Local Authorities 34. 4th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment (Athens, 25-27 April 1984) - (CM(84)121 of 23.5.84 and Add. of 4.6.84) (Notes No 5007 of 7.6.84) 35. Air pollution and acid rain - Assembly Recommendation 977 (Concl(84)367/9a, CM(84)123 of 4.6.84) (Notes No 5008 of 6.6.84) 36. Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) *a. Date of the 20th Session (1985) - (CM(84)98) (Notes No. 4971 of 16.5.84) *b. Co-operation and technical assistance in the matter of training for local and regional government staff - Study concerning the advisability, details and financial implications of the CLRAE's proposals (Resolution 131) - (CM(84)105) (Notes No 4972 of 21.5.84) *c. Financial statement concerning aid for the distressed population in Eastern Spain - (Concl(82)352/14b, CM(84)115 of 17.5.84) (Notes No. 4973 of 17.5.84) d. Texts adopted at the 18th Session (Strasbourg, 18-20 October 1983) and Assembly Opinion No 118 (1984) - (Concl(84)372/24, CM(83)201) (Notes No 4960 of 11.5.84 and Add. of 30.5.84)

* B level CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a6 - Appendix I

*37(4)European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) - Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 1984) - (CM(84)116 of 18.5.84, and Add. of 28.5.84) (Notes No 5009 of 6.6.84) *38(5)Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-4 April 1984) - (CM(84)110 and Add. of 6.6.84) (Notes No 5010 of 6.6.84) *39. Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) Report of the 14th meeting (Strasbourg, 21-22 March 1984) (CM(84)112 of 17.5.84) (Notes No 5011 of 4.6.84) *40. Rules for technical assistance relating to the integrated conservation of the cultural heritage of monuments and sites (Concl(84)370/33, CM(84)122 of 28.5.84) (Notes No 4961 of 24.5.84) Administrative Questions 41. Council of Europe budgets a. 1984 budgetary situation - (CM(84) 77 and 96 paras. 4 to 11) (Notes No 5012 of 25.5.84) b. General outline of prospects for the 1985 budget - (CM(84) 78 and 96 paras 13 to 18) (Notes No 5013 of 25.5.84) 42. Financial Regulations - Closing date of the period complementary to the financial year - (CM(84)97) (Notes No 5014 of 25.5.84) 43. Personnel matters referred to the Budget Committee (CM(84) 79, 80, 96 paras. 19 and 20) (Notes No 5015 of 25.5.84) 44. Cost-of-living adjustment to remuneration and pensions with effect from 1 January 1984 - 201st Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts - (CM(84)130 of 14.6.84) (Notes No 5016 of 14.6.84)

* B level (4) Including draft Recommendation concerning the introduction of non-native species. (5) Including draft Recommendation on balanced regional development. CONFIDENTIAL - a7 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix I

*45. Ad hoc measures to maintain temporarily basic salaries where the results of the application of the procedure at 1 July 1983 would lead to reductions - 199th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts - (CM(84)126 of 5.6.84) (Notes No 5017 of 5.6.84) *46. 1984 Annual Review of the daily subsistence allowance rates for staff of the Co-Ordinated Organisations travelling on duty in Turkey - Addendum to the 197th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts - (CM(84)76 Addendum) (Notes No 5018 of 28.5.84) *47. Rules for allowances for staff of the Co-ordinated Organisations travelling on duty - 200th Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts - (CM(84)125 of 5.6.84) (Notes No 5019 of 5.6.84) 48. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No 5020 of 20.6.84 and Corr. of 21.6.84) 49. Other Business a. Dialogue with the Secretary General b. Ad hoc Committee of Experts to exchange views on the draft Convention on the Rights of the Child (CAHDE).

* B level

CONFIDENTIAL - a9 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX II 375th MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (A and B levels) (Strasbourg, 17 - 25 September 1984)

DRAFT AGENDA

1. Adoption of the Agenda (Notes No. 5025 of ...) Political and General Policy Questions 2. North/South - Exchange of views with the participation of experts - (Concl(84)374/2) (Notes No. 5026 of ...) 3. Role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party (Concl(84)373/3, CM(84)63 and ...) (Notes No. 5027 of ...) 4. The working methods in the Council of Europe - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party - (Concl(84)373/2, CM(84)55 and Addendum) (Notes No. 5028 of ...) 5. Committee of Ministers - Preparation of the 75th Session (Notes No. 5029 of ...) 6. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(84)374/6) (Notes No. 5030 of ...) 7. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - (Concl(84)374/7, CM(78)62, CM(84)30rev.) (Notes No. 5031 of ...) 8. Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers to member States a. Reports by the governments on Recommendations selected in the 1981 - 1982 Selection (Notes No. 5032 of ...) b. 1983 - 1984 Selection (Notes No. 5033 of ...)

N.B. In accordance with the deadline rules for the despatch of reference documents and Notes on the Agenda the date limits are 20 and 31 August 1984 CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a10 - Appendix II

9. Consultative Assembly - Standing Committee (Oslo, 25 - 28 June 1984) - Texts adopted (Notes No. 5034 of ...) *10. Review of action taken by the Committee of Ministers on Recommendations adopted by the Consultative Assembly (Concl(83)362/12, CM(84)136 of ...) (Notes No. 5035 of ...) Human Rights 11. Nomination of candidates for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Cyprus - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5036 of ...) 12. Election of a member of the European Commission of Human Rights in respect of Cyprus - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5037 of ...) 13. Dores and Silveira against Portugal - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)374/13, Letter HD/C84 of 9.11.83) (Notes No. 5038 of ...) 14. C. Medway and Ball against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)372/16, letter HD/C87 of 15.11.83) (Notes No. 5039 of ...) 15. Zamir against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)372/14, letter HD/C13 of 6.2.84) (Notes No. 4950 of 7.5.84) 16. T. against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)372/15, letter HD/C14 of 7.2.84) (Notes No. 4951 of 7.5.84) 17. Bramelid and Malmström against Sweden - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)374/15, Letter HD/C23 of 9.3.84) (Notes No. 5040 of ...) 18. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Eckle - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)372/13, Letters HD/C60 of 27.7.82 and HD/C43 of 30.6.83) (Notes No. 5041 of ...) CONFIDENTIAL - a11 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix II

19. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Silver and others - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)374/10, Letters HD/C24 of 8.4.83 and HD/C89 of 16.11.83) (Notes No. 5042 of ...) 20. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C46 of 21.6.84) (Notes No. 5043 of ...) 21. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C47 of 21.6.84) (Notes No. 5044 of ...) 22. Judgments of the European court of Human Rights in the case of Duinhof and Duijf - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention of Human Rights - (Letter HD/C48 of 21.6.84) (Notes No. 5045 of ...) 23. Draft Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the Extension of the List of Civil and Political Rights set forth in the Convention - (Concl(84)374/18, CM(84)137 of ...) (Notes No. 5046 of ...) 24. Ad hoc Committee of experts to exchange views on the draft Convention against torture (CAHTT) (Strasbourg, 21 - 22 May 1984) - (CM(84)124) (Notes No 5023 of ...) 25. Ad hoc Committee of Experts to exchange views on the draft Convention on the Rights of the Child (CAHDE) - (Concl(84)374/49b) (Notes No. 5047 of ...) 26. Development co-operation and human rights - Assembly Recommendation 962 - (Concl(84)374/26, Appendix III to CM(84)102) (Notes No. 5048 of ...) Legal Questions 27. 14th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (Madrid 29 - 31 May 1984) - Follow-up - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5049 of ...) 28. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Ethical and Legal Problems relating to Human Genetics (CAHGE) - Report of the 2nd meeting (Strasbourg, 12 - 15 June 1984) - (Concl(83)367/20, CM(84)10 and ...) (Notes No. 5050 of ...) CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a12 - Appendix II

29. Draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on equality between women and men in the media - (Concl(84)372/20, Addendum I to CM(84)89, CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5051 of ...) 30. Draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the struggle against social discrimination, hatred and violence (Concl(84)374/26 Addendum IV and Corr. to CM(82)236 and Appendix IV to CM(84)102). (Notes No. 5052 of ...) 31. Defence of democracy against terrorism in Europe - Assembly Recommendation 982 - (Concl(84)372/4a) (Notes No. 5053 of ...) *32. European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 25 - 29 June 1984) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5054 of ...) *33. Ad hoc Committee of Experts for Identity Documents and Movement of Persons (CAHID) - Report of the 18th meeting (Strasbourg, 3 - 7 July 1984) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5055 of ...) *34. Dangers of over-population of domestic animals for the health and hygiene of man, and humane methods of limiting such dangers - Assembly Recommendation 860 - (Concl(80)320/V, Concl(84)367/16) (Notes No. 5056 of ...) *35. Acquisition by refugees of the nationality of the receiving country - Assembly Recommendation 984 - (Concl(84)372/4a) (Notes No. 5057 of ...) *36. Procedures for verifying applications for asylum - Written Question No. 275 by Mr Büchner - (Concl(84)374/22, CM(84)113 and Add. and CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5058 of ...) *37. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Assembly Recommendation 983 - (Concl(84)372/4a) (Notes No. 5059 of ...)

* B level CONFIDENTIAL - a13 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix II

Economic and Social Questions 38. Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the preparation of the 3rd Conference of European Ministers of Labour - Report of the 1st meeting (Strasbourg, 16-18 May 1984) (CM(84)131) (Notes No. 5060 of ...) 39. Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the preparation of the 2nd Conference of European Ministers of Health (Strasbourg, 19-20 June 1984) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5061 of ...) *40.(1) European Health Committee (CDSP) - Report of the 15th meeting (Strasbourg, 18-20 June 1984) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5062 of ...) *41.(2) Committee on the Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the Disabled (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-RR) - Report of the 7th Session (Strasbourg, 15-17 May 1984) - (CM(84)133) (Notes No 5021 of ...) *42. Steering Committee on Population (CDDE) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 5-8 June 1984) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5063 of ...) *43. Steering Committee on Intra-European Migration (CDMG) - Report of the 10th meeting (Strasbourg, 15-18 May 1984) (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5064 of ...) *44. Employment in Europe - Assembly Recommendation 981 (Concl(84)372/4a, CM(84)134 of...) (Notes No. 5024 of ...) *45. Council of Europe Resettlement Fund - Report of the Governor for the financial year 1983 - (CM(84)132) (Notes No. 5065 of ...)

* B level (1) Including draft Recommendation No R(84)... on the prevention of hospital infections. (2) Including draft Resolution AP(84)... on a coherent policy for the rehabilitation of disabled people. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a14 - Appendix II

Education, Culture and Sport 46. 4th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs (Berlin, May 1984) - (CM(84)128 and 129 of ...) (Notes No. 5066 of ...) 47.(3) Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) - Report of the 46th Session (Strasbourg, 12 - 15 June 1984) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5067 of ...) 48. Comparative study of cultural policies - (Concl(84)370/27, CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5068 of ...) 49.(4) 4th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Sport (Malta, 15 - 16 May 1984) - (CM(84) ... and ...) (Notes No. 5069 of ...) *50. Cultural relations between Europe and Japan - Assembly Recommendation 954 - (Concl(83)356/9, CM(83)14) (Notes No. 5070 of ...) Environment and Local Authorities 51. Draft European Convention for the Protection of International Watercourses against Pollution - (Concl(83)367/30, CM(81)72, 83 Add. II, CM(82)106, CM(84)27, 28 and 68) (Notes No. 5071 of ...) 52. Toxic Waste - (Concl(84)368/20, CM(84)20) (Notes No. 5072 of ...) 53. Air pollution and acid rain - Assembly Recommendation 977 (Concl(84)374/35, CM(84)123) (Notes No. 5073 of ...)

* B level (3) Including draft Recommendation No R(84)... on the training of teachers in education for intercultural understanding, notably in a context of migration (4) Including draft Recommendation No R(84)... on the European Anti-doping Charter in Sport CONFIDENTIAL - a15 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix II

54. Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) - Interpretation of Article 2(a) of the Charter of the CLRAE - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5074 of ...) *55.(5) Steering Committee for Regional Planning (CDAT) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 2-4 April 1984) - (Concl(84)374/38, CM(84)110 and Add.) (Notes No. 5010 of 6.6.84) *56. Exhibition on contemporary architecture - Assembly Recommendation 975 and Resolution 813 - (Concl(84)368/21, CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5076 of ...) Press and Information 57. Europe Days - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5077 of ...) Administrative Questions 58. Appeals Board - Appointment of members - (CM(84)127 and ...) (Notes no. 5078 of ...) 59. Board of auditors - Appointment of a member - (CM(84)67) (Notes No. 5079 of ...) *60. Convention on the Elaboration of a European Pharmacopoeia - Accession of Greece (contribution to the 1984 budget of the European Pharmacopoeia) - (CM(84)...) (Notes No. 5080 of ...) 61. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 5081 of ...) 62. Other Business a) Dialogue with the Secretary General

* B level (5) Including draft Recommendation No R(84)... on balanced regional development.

CONFIDENTIAL

- a17 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX III (item 9) RESOLUTION DH(84)3 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 10 DECEMBER 1982 AND 21 NOVEMBER 1983 IN THE CASE OF "FOTI and OTHERS" (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"), Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of "Foti and Others", delivered on 10 December 1982 and 21 November 1983, and transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers; Recalling that the case had its origins in four applications against Italy lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights under Article 25 of the Convention by four italian citizens, Mr Benito Foti, Mr Felice Lentini, Dr Demetrio Cenerini and Mr Giovanni Gulli, the first three applicants alleging the violation of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention because of the transfer of their trial to the Potenza Regional Court, Mr Cenerini the violation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Convention because of ill-treatment he allegedly suffered at the hands of the police and because of his detention in the police station, and Mr Gulli the violation of Article 4 paragraph 1 and Article 6 paragraphs 1 and 2 because of the refusal to authorise his appointment as a personal guard and because a "reasonable time" had been exceeded; Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights; Whereas in its judgment of 10 December 1982 the Court: - Rejects by six votes to one the objection based by the Government on the "ex officio" examination of the issue of "reasonable time" within the meaning of Article 6 $ 1, in the case of Mr Foti, Mr Lentini and Mr Cenerini; - Declares unanimously that the government is stopped from relying on the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a18 - Appendix III

- Holds unanimously that there has been a breach of Article 6 paragraph 1 in respect of the four applicants; - Holds unanimously that it is not necessary also to examine the case under Article 13; - Holds unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50 is not yet ready for decision and invites the Commission to notify the Court of any settlement at which the Government and the applicants might have arrived; Whereas in its judgment of 21 November 1983 the Court unanimously: - Having taken note of the settlement with regard to Mr Foti and Mr Lentini, decides to strike the case off its list as regards those applicants; - Takes formal note of the results obtained in the case of Mr Gulli; - Holds that the Italian Republic is to pay: (a) to Mr Gulli, in respect of lawyer's fees and expenses, the sum of one million (1,000,000) Lire; (b) to Mr Cenerini, for damage suffered, the sum of ten million (10,000,000) Lire; - Rejects the remainder of Mr Gulli's and Mr Cenerini's claims; Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention"; Having invited the Government of Italy to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments, regarding its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by the judgments; Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Italy informed the Committee of Ministers of the measures taken in consequence of the judgments; Having satisfied itself that the Government of Italy has paid to the applicants the sums in relation to Article 50 of the Convention provided for in the judgment of the Court of 21 November 1983, Declares, after taking note of the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its function under Article 54 of the Convention in this case. CONFIDENTIAL - a19 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX IV (item 16)

DECISION No CM/329/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 30 June 1985 4. Terms of reference: To consider the final report presented by Mr Ruiz-Gimenez at the Colloquy on "Human Rights of Aliens in Europe" held in Funchal from 17-19 October 1983 and to report back on activities which could be undertaken following that Colloquy. 5. Other committees to be informed of terms of reference: Steering Committee on Intra European Migration (CDMG) Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) Steering Committee for Social Security (CDSS) Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) Ad Hoc Committee on Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum, Refugees and Stateless Persons (CAHAR) Ad Hoc Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM)

CONFIDENTIAL - a21 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX V (item 19) DECISION NO. CM/340/220684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: BUREAU OF THE COMMITTEE FOR EQUALITY BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN (CAHFM-BU) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: September 1984 4. Terms of reference: Formulate the themes which could be dealt with by a Ministerial Conference on Equality between Women and Men, if such a Conference were to be organised. 5. Other committee(s) to be informed of terms of reference: -

CONFIDENTIAL - a23 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX VI (item *20) RECOMMENDATION No R(84)10 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES ON THE CRIMINAL RECORD AND REHABILITATION OF CONVICTED PERSONS (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15 (b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Considering that a crime policy aimed at crime prevention and the social reintegration of offenders should be pursued and developed in the member States of the Council of Europe; Considering that criminal records are principally intended to provide the authorities responsible for the criminal justice system with information on the antecedents of the person on trial, in order to assist them in making a decision appropriate to that individual; Considering that any other use of criminal records may jeopardise the convicted person's chances of social reintegration, and should therefore be restricted to the utmost; Considering the need to promote close co-operation between Council of Europe member States on the basis of common principles for crime policy in this area; Having regard to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and to the work done by the European Committee on Crime Problems on the treatment of offenders, Recommends that the governments of member States review their legislation and their practice relating to criminal records with a view to introducing the following measures where necessary: I With regard to authorities or persons entitled to receive extracts from criminal records 1. Provide that the information mentioned on the criminal record will be communicated only in the form of extracts whose content will be strictly limited to the legitimate interest of the recipients; 2. Ensure that only the authorities responsible for the criminal justice system and those exceptionally authorised under the legislation on criminal records may receive the full list of entries on the criminal record; other publice bodies or the person concerned receiving only partial extracts; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a24 - Appendix VI

3. Wherever possible, enable any person proving his identity to inspect his entire criminal record; unless necessary for overriding reasons provided for in the legislation, avoid written communication of the record, in order to prevent any risk of misuse; 4. Consider that the possiblity of enabling the judicial authorities to order that certain entries should appear only on criminal records issued for their use; 5. Restrict to the utmost the communication of decisions relating to minors; II. With regard to criminal proceedings 6. Avoid, wherever possible, unnecessary public disclosure of criminal records during criminal proceedings, so as not to stigmatise the person concerned; 7. Encourage close co-operation beween the judicial authorities and the press, so that the latter may be made aware of the risk which references to an accused person's criminal record may pose to his social reintegration; III. With regard to the protection of information in criminal records 8. Take appropriate steps to protect information contained in criminal records, particularly when the latter are computerised; 9. Provide appropriate sanctions for breach of the confidentiality of information contained in criminal records; IV. With regard to rehabilitation 10. Provide for an automatic rehabilitation after a reasonably short period of time and, if appropriate, in addition a possibility of rehabilitation at an earlier moment at the request of the person concerned; 11. Take steps enabling the persons concerned to be informed: - of the conditions for automatic rehabilitation; - of the procedure for applying for rehabilitation; 12. Provide that enquiries in connection with rehabilitation proceedings be conducted discreetly in order to avoid harm to the person concerned; 13. Provide that rehabilitation implies prohibition of any reference to the convictions of a rehabilitated person except on compelling grounds provided for in national law; V. With regard to social reintegration 14. Organise, within penal institutions, activities aimed at strengthening the convicted person's links with the community in order to promote his social reintegration; CONFIDENTIAL - a25 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix VI

Recommends that governments of member States review their legislation and their practice concerning the issue of certificates of good conduct for the purpose of restricting their use and of ensuring, in any case, that they cover only criminal records and do not refer to the private life or morals of the person concerned; Recommends that the governments of member States encourage research on the questions mentioned above taking account of the findings when revising legislation or practice; Invites the governments of member States - to ratify, as soon as possible, the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, with a view to promoting international co-operation in this area; - to give full practical effect to their obligations under Articles 13 and 22 of the Convention within the limits of the commitments accepted by signatory parties; - to study the possiblity of withdrawing reservations relating to Articles 13 and 22 of the aforementioned Convention; Recommends that the governments of member States ensure that the European Committee on Crime Problems' report on the criminal record and the rehabilitation of convicted persons is widely distributed to the authorities concerned.

CONFIDENTIAL - a27 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX VII (item 20) DECISION NO. CM/330/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee : COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL CO-OPERATION (CDCC) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 1985 4. Terms of reference: To examine the measures which might be recommended to member States on the use of metal detectors (paragraphs 14.ii and v.d-f of Assembly Recommendation 921 concerning metal detectors and archaeology) and, if necessary, draw up in association with the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) or its Bureau a draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on this subject. 5. Other committees to be informed of terms of reference: European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ)

CONFIDENTIAL - a29 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX VIII (item 20) DECISION NO. CM/331/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: BUREAU OF THE COMMITTEE FOR EQUALITY BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN (CAHFM-BU) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: September 1984 4. Terms of reference: To formulate an opinion on the draft Recommendation on violence in the family prepared by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) (Add. IV to CM(84)107), in particular on whether it is advisable to deal there with measures of a social nature to help and assist victims of this type of violence or to envisage, if necessary, the preparation of an additional legal instrument on these aspects. This opinion will be communicated to the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) before being submitted ot the Committee of Ministers. 5. Other committee to be informed of terms of reference: Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO)

CONFIDENTIAL - a31 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX IX (item 20) DECISION NO. CM/332/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL AFFAIRS (CDSO) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: December 1984 4. Terms of reference: To formulate an opinion on the draft Recommendation on violence in the family prepared by the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) (Add. IV to CM(84)107), bearing in mind the opinion to be given by the Bureau of the Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM-BU) on this same draft Recommendation in September 1984. 5. Other committee to be informed of terms of reference: Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM)

CONFIDENTIAL - a33 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX X (item *20) RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)11 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15(b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Having regard to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983; Desirous of assisting Contracting States to fulfil their obligation, under Article 4.1 of the Convention, to furnish sentenced persons to whom the Convention may apply with information on its substance; Considering it essential that this information is provided in a language which the sentenced person understands; Convinced that a standard text to be used for conveying information on the substance of the Convention to potential transferees will assist Contracting States in arranging for the necessary translations, I. Recommends the governments of member States to provide an authoritative translation of the standard text annexed to this Recommendation into their official language or languages, taking into account any reservations or declarations to the Convention of which the potential transferees would need to be aware, and deposit the translation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe at the time of ratification, acceptance or approval of the Convention; II. Instructs the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to forward copies of the translations so received to each of the Contracting States for use by their prison authorities; III. Instructs the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to transmit this Recommendation to the governments of the non-member States which have participated in the elaboration of the Convention and to the governments of States invited to accede to the Convention. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a34 - Appendix X

Appendix to Recommendation No. R(84)11 STANDARD TEXT PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSFER OF SENTENCED PERSONS

The Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons enables, under certain conditions, persons who have received a custodial sentence in a country other than their own to be transferred to their home country to serve the sentence there. A brief explanation of these conditions is given below. This document does not constitute an exhaustive description of the Convention. If, therefore, you wish to enquire into the possibility of being transferred to serve your sentence in [administering State], you should ask the prison authority, or the appropriate authority in [administering State], for more detailed information, eg to arrange for you to receive a copy of the Convention and for both States to consider the possibility of your transfer. You may also address any request for information to a consular representative of [administering State].

Who has to agree to the transfer? A transfer requires: a. the consent of the person concerned or, where requisite, that of his legal representative; b. the consent of the State where he was sentenced; and c. the consent of the State to which transfer is requested. Who may benefit from a transfer to [administering State]? You may be eligible for transfer to [administering State] if the following conditions are fulfilled: a. if you are considered a national of [administering State]; b. if the judgment by which your sentence was imposed is final; c. if, as a general rule, at least 6 months of your sentence remain to be served, though in exceptional circumstances this period may be less; and d. if the offence for which you were tried is a criminal offence under the law of [administering State]. CONFIDENTIAL - a35 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix X

What sentence would need to be served following transfer? - [States using the "continued enforcement" procedure:] The maximum sentence to be served following transfer would be the amount of the original sentence which remained after deduction of any remission earned in [sentencing State] up to the date of transfer. If the sentence imposed in [sentencing State] was longer or of a different nature than the sentence which could be imposed for the same offence in [administering State], it would be adapted to the nearest equivalent sentence which was available under the law of [administering State] without being longer or more severe than the original sentence. - [States using the "conversion of sentence" procedure] It would not be possible to confirm before transfer the precise nature and length of the sentence to be served in [administering State], because the original sentence would need to be converted by [a court] [the competent authorities] in [administering State] following transfer to a sentence which could have been imposed if the offence had been committed in [administering State]. You would be given some idea, however, of the nature and length of the sentence to which the original sentence might be converted in [administering State] to help you to decide whether to seek a transfer. Under the terms of the Convention a sentence converted in this way will not be more severe nor longer than the original sentence, will not be subject to any minimum which the law of [administering State] may provide for the offence, and will take account of the full period spent in custody before transfer. If you are transferred, your sentence will be enforced in accordance with the law and regulations which apply in [administering State]. Prosecution for other offences Please note that in the event of your transfer the authorities of [administering State] are entitled to prosecute, sentence or detain you for any offence other than that for which your current sentence was imposed. Pardon, amnesty, commutation Your transfer would not prevent you from benefiting from any pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence which might be granted by either [sentencing State] or [administering State]. Review of original judgment If new information came to light after your transfer which you considered grounds for a review of the original judgment passed in [sentencing State], it would be for [sentencing State] alone to decide on any application for review. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a36 - Appendix X

Termination of enforcement If for any reason whatsoever the sentence originally imposed in [sentencing State] ceased to be enforceable in [sentencing State], the [administering State] authorities, as soon as they were informed of this, would release you from the sentence being served. Similarly, when the sentence being served in [administering State] ceased to be enforceable there, you could no longer be required to serve the original sentence imposed in [sentencing State] if you should return there. Some information on the procedure You may express your interest in being transferred to the authorities of either [sentencing State] or [administering State]. If the [sentencing State] authorities are prepared to consider your transfer, they will provide the [administering State] authorities with information about you, about the facts relating to your conviction and sentence and about the nature and length of your sentence. If the [administering State] authorities are prepared to consider your transfer, they will respond by providng [information about the nature and duration of the sentence you would need to serve after transfer] (1), [an indication as to how your sentence might be converted following your transfer] (2), together with information about the arrangements for remission, conditional release, etc in [administering State]. Provided both States are content to agree to your transfer, you will be asked whether, having received and considered the information provided by [administering State], you consent to being transferred under the Convention.

(1) Applies to States using the "continued enforcement" procedure. (2) Applies to States using the "conversion of sentence" procedure. CONFIDENTIAL - a37 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX XI (item *20)

RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84) 12 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING FOREIGN PRISIONERS (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Considering the large number of foreign prisoners detained in the penitentiary establishments of member States; Recognising the difficulties which these prisoners may face on account of such factors as different language, culture, customs and religion; Desirous of alleviating any possible isolation of foreign prisoners and of facilitating their treatment with a view to their social resettlement; Considering that such treatment should take into account the special needs of foreign prisoners and ensure that it provides them with opportunities equal to those accorded to other prisoners; Considering it desirable to establish certain standards at European level; Having regard to Resolution (73)5 on standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners and Resolution (75)3 on the legal and administrative aspects of criminality among migrant workers, Recommends the Governments of member States to be guided in their law and practice by the principles annexed to this Recommendation. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a38 - Appendix XI Appendix to Recommendation No. R(84)12 The following principles are designed to apply to foreign prisoners, that is to say to prisoners of different nationality who on account of such factors as language, customs, cultural background or religion may face specific problems. As far as prisoners awaiting trial or extradition are concerned, these principles should, however, be applied only to the extent that their implementation does not impair the purpose of the detention. In implementing these principles, account should be taken of the requirements of the prison administration, including prison security, and the availability of resources. The principles should be applied so as to ensure that the treatment of foreign prisoners is conducive to their social resettlement. This might require adopting particular measures in relation to particular categories of foreign prisoners, taking into account such factors as nationality, language, religious precepts and customs, cultural background, length of sentence, and liability to expulsion. Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that the treatment of foreign prisoners does not lead to their being disadvantaged. I. ALLOCATION TO PRISON ESTABLISHMENTS 1. The allocation of a foreign prisoner to a prison establishment should not be effected on the grounds of his nationality alone. If his allocation to a prison establishment is likely to alleviate his situation of isolation and to facilitate his treatment it may be effected according to his specific needs, particularly with regard to his communications with persons of the same nationality, language, religion or culture. This possibility should be envisaged in particular where the national penitentiary system takes account of the wishes of prisoners when allocating them to prison establishments. II. TREATMENT IN PRISON a. Measures to reduce isolation and promote social resettlement 2. To alleviate his feeling of isolation, a foreign prisoner's communications with other persons of the same nationality, language, religion or culture should be facilitated, for instance by permitting them to work, spend their leisure time or take exercise together. 3. Every effort should be made to give foreign prisoners access to reading material in their language. To that end, prisons might seek the assistance of consular services and appropriate private organisations. CONFIDENTIAL - a39 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix XI 4. Where a foreign prisoner is likely to be able to remain in the country of detention and wishes to be assimilated into the culture of that country, the prison authority should assist him in doing so. 5. Foreign prisoners should have the same access as national prisoners to education and vocational training. In order that foreign prisoners may have access to courses designed to improve educational and professional qualifications, consideration should be given to the possibility of providing them with necessary special facilities. 6. Visits and other contacts with the outside world should be so arranged as to meet the foreign prisoner's special needs. 7. Ordinarily foreign prisoners should be eligible for prison leave and other authorised exits from prison according to the same principles as nationals. The assessment of the risk that a foreign prisoner may leave the country and escape punishment should always be made on the merits of the individual case. b. Measures to reduce language barriers 8. Foreign prisoners should be informed promptly after reception into a prison, in a language which they understand, of the main features of prison routine, of available training and study facilities, and of possibilities, if any, for requesting the assistance of an interpreter. This information should be supplied in writing or, where this is not possible, orally. 9. A foreign prisoner who has no command of the language of the country in which he is detained should be provided with translation or interpretation concerning sentence, any right of appeal, and any judicial decision taken in the course of his detention. 10. To enable foreign prisoners to learn the language spoken in the prison, approrpiate opportunities for language training should be provided for them. c. Measure to meet special requirements 11. The religious precepts and customs of foreign prisoners should be respected. So far as practicable, foreign prisoners should be allowed to comply with them. 12. Account should also be taken of problems which might arise from differences in culture. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a40 - Appendix XI d. Measures to ease conditions of detention 13. Foreign prisoners, who in practice do not enjoy all the facilities accorded to nationals and whose conditions of detention are generally more difficult, should be treated in such a manner as to counter-balance, so far as may be possible, these disadvantages. III. ASSISTANCE BY CONSULAR AUTHORITIES 14. Foreign prisoners should be informed without delay of their right to request contacts with their consular authorities, the possibilities of assistance which might be accorded by these authorities and any action concerning them which is to be taken by the competent authorities having regard to existing consular treaties. If a foreign prisoner wishes to receive assistance from a diplomatic or consular authority, including action for his social resettlement in case of expulsion, the latter should be informed promptly of his wish. 15. Consular authorities should, at the earliest possible stage, assist their detained nationals, particularly by regularly visiting them. 16. In the course of their duties, consular authorities should offer any assistance possible to further the social resettlement of foreign prisoners, in accordance with the relevant regulations and arrangements of the country of detention. In particular, they should offer their assistance concerning the prisoner's family relations by facilitating visits from and contacts with members of his family. 17. Consular authorities should make every effort to provide, in accordance with existing prison regulations, literature and other reading material to help foreign prisoners maintain contacts with their home countries. 18. Consular authorities should consider the production of information leaflets for their detained nationals. These leaflets should indicate the location and telephone number of the nearest consulate and inform the prisoner of the possibilities of assistance which may be granted by consulates, such as visiting the prisoner, providing information as regards his defence, supplying literature and reading material, and suggesting possibilities of repatriation, particularly as regards the prisoner's transfer in application of existing international agreements. These leaflets should be made available to the prisoner at the earliest possible stage of his detention. IV. ASSISTANCE BY COMMUNITY AGENCIES 19. Prison authorities and community agencies working in the field of aid and resettlement of prisoners should, in collaboration, pay particular attention to foreign prisoners and their specific problems. Community agencies in the prisoner's home country should act in collaboration with the consular authorities of that country. CONFIDENTIAL - a41 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix XI

20. Community agencies should be encouraged to promote information for foreign prisoners about assistance which may be offered to them. Prison authorities should ensure that this information is easily accessible to foreign prisoners. 21. Contacts of foreign prisoners with community agencies should be facilitated. 22. With a view to according adequate assistance to foreign prisoners, prison authorities should grant community agencies all necessary opportunities for visits and correspondence, provided that the prisoner consents to these contacts. Where only a limited number of visits can be made, consideration should be given in appropriate cases to extending the visiting time and to making restrictions on sending or receiving letters more flexible. 23. With a view to facilitating contacts between community agencies and foreign prisoners, the competent authorities in each country should appoint a national contact bureau for community agencies which have responsibility for the social resettlement of prisoners and operate in its territory. The address of the national contact bureau as well as that of any diplomatic or consular authority should be communicated by the prison authority to any foreign prisoner at the moment of reception into the prison. 24. The organisation of assistance by volunteers likely to be able to assist foreign prisoners should be promoted and furthered. These volunteers should act under the responsibility of either the prison authorities or the consular authorities or the community agencies. As far as possible, these volunteers should be accorded the same opportunities as those referred to in paragraph 22. V. TRAINING AND USE OF PRISON STAFF 25. Training for prison officers and other categories of staff to support their work with foreign prisoners should be encouraged and incorporated in the normal training programmes. In general, such training should seek to improve understanding of the difficulties and cultural backgrounds of foreign prisoners so as to prevent prejudiced attitudes from arising. 26. Consideration should be given to having certain staff available for more intensive work with foreign prisoners and enhancing their ability to do so through the provision of more specialised training focussing, for instance, upon the learning of a language or particular difficulties occurring in relation to particular groups of foreign prisoners. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a42 - Appendix XI

VI. COLLECTION OF STATISTICS 27. Consideration should be given to the collection of routine statistics which allow foreign nationals to be classified with reference to factors of importance for practical administration. In this context it should be borne in mind that it is desirable to be able to sub-divide the foreign prisoner population with regard to nationality, length of sentence, main offence, residence in the country and liability to expulsion. So far as possible the statistics should cover the numbers received during the course of a year as well as a daily average. 28. Consideration should also be given to conducting occasional surveys on matters which do not easily lend themselves to analysis by routine statistics. VII. EXPULSION AND REPATRIATION 29. In order to allow for the most adequate prison treatment, decisions concerning expulsion should be taken as soon as possible, without prejudice to the prisoner's right to appeal against the decision, taking into account the foreign prisoner's personal ties and the effects on his social resettlement. 30. In view of the advantages to the prisoner's social resettlement, the competent authorities of the country of detention should, regardless of any decision on expulsion, consider the desirability of repatriating the prisoner, in accordance with existing international arrangements. CONFIDENTIAL - a43 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX XII (item *28) RESOLUTION AP(84)2 ON THE INCLUSION OF PACKAGING LEAFLETS IN PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALITIES AND THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON SUCH LEAFLETS (superseding Resolution AP(74)7) (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies) The Representatives on the Committee of Ministers of Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, these states being parties to the Partial Agreement in the social and public health field, and the Representatives of Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland, states which have participated in the public health activities pursued within the above-mentioned Partial Agreement since 1 October 1974, 2 April 1968, 23 September 1969 and 5 May 1964 respectively, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members and that this aim may be pursued by common action in the social and public health field; Having regard to the provisions of the Brussels Treaty signed on 17 March 1948 by virtue of which Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland declared themselves resolved to strengthen the social ties by which they were already united; Having regard to the Protocol modifying and completing the Brussels Treaty, signed on 23 October 1954 by the signatory states of the Brussels Treaty on the one hand and the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy on the other hand; Observing that the seven states parties to the Partial Agreement which have continued, within the Council of Europe, the social work hitherto undertaken by the Brussels Treaty Organisation and then by Western European Union, which derived from the Brussels Treaty as modified by the Protocol mentioned in the fourth paragraph above, as well as Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland, who participate in Partial Agreement activities in the field of public health, have always endeavoured to be in the forefront of progress in social matters and also in the associated field of public health, and have for many years undertaken action towards harmonisation of their legislation; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a44 - Appendix XII Being aware of the danger to public health deriving from the misuse of medicines in general; Having regard to the need, in the interest of public health, to supply users with clear and comprehensive information on the mode of administration, dosage and storage of medicaments placed on the market; Taking the view that each member state faced with the need to introduce regulations governing this matter would find it beneficial to harmonise such regulations at European level, Recommend that the governments of the seven states parties to the Partial Agreement, as well as the Governments of Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland, bring their national laws into conformity with the provisions set out hereafter: PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INCLUSION OF PACKAGING LEAFLETS IN PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALITIES AND THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON SUCH LEAFLETS I. General provisions 1. Where a packaging leaflet, hereinafter referred to as "leaflet", is included with a preparation, its purpose should be to provide information to the user on the mode of administration, the dosage and any necessary precautions concerning the storage of the preparation. 2. Information intended for the prescriber or the pharmacist should not be included as leaflets for the public. However in those countries where leaflets for the prescriber and the pharmacist may be included in the packaging, precautions should be taken to ensure that such leaflets are not made available to the public. 3. A distinction should be made between the information supplied with medicines available only on a medical prescription and that supplied with medicines which can be sold without a medical prescription. 4. The text of the leaflets should be in accordance with the authorisation to market the product and should be reviewed as necessary by the authority which authorises the sale of the product. 5. The text of the leaflets should apply to the product in question only and reference to any other product should be prohibited unless such reference is necessary to explain the contra-indications, side effects and interactions or the required concurrent use of two preparations makes such reference necessary. CONFIDENTIAL - a45 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix XII

II. Type of information 1. Medicines supplied only on medical prescription Leaflets accompanying medicines available only on medical prescription should contain the following information: - the name of the preparation; - the name(s) of the active ingredient(s) expressed as the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) where such exists; - the quantity of active ingredient(s) in each dose or, where necessary, as the percentage in the preparation; - the normal recommended dose and mode of administration, together with a statement that the dose may be modified at the discretion of the prescriber; - the principal therapeutic indications, when such inclusion is authorised by the competent authorities; - any commonly experienced contra-indications, side effects, interactions and essential precautions in use to be taken, when such inclusion is authorised by the competent authority; - advice to report any side-reactions to the prescriber or the pharmacist who supplied the medicine, when such inclusion is authorised by the competent authority; - any special storage conditions, if necessary; - a warning to keep medicines out of the reach of children; - the name and address of the holder of the marketing authorisation. 2. Medicines supplied without medical prescription The information on the leaflets accompanying medicines which are available without medical prescription should comply with the regulations concerning the advertising of medicines to the public (Resolution AP(69)3) and should include the following: - the name of the preparation; - the name(s) of the active ingredient(s) expressed as the International Non-Proprietary Name (INN) where such exists; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a46 - Appendix XII

- the quantity of active ingredient(s) in each unit dose or, where appropriate as a percentage of the preparation; - the mode of administration; - the usual dosage including, where appropriate, the dosage for children according to age; - the appropriate therapeutic indications, but none other than those approved in the authorisation to market the product; - any commonly experienced contra-indications, side effects, interactions and the essential precautions in use to be taken; - any special storage conditions, if necessary; - a warning to keep medicines out of the reach of children; - the name and address of the holder of the marketing authorisation; - instructions on the duration of treatment without consulting a physician, where necessary. 3. Medicines supplied on or without a medical prescription The following should be prohibited: - information enabling the patient to draw conclusions as to the nature or seriousness of his illness; - the inclusion of X-ray pictures or clinical photographs; - statements appealing to fear or tending to arouse fear of serious disease; - recommendations and testimonials, especially those purporting to emanate from persons holding qualifications in the medical field; - references to or quotations from articles published in texts or journals, medical, scientific or otherwise. CONFIDENTIAL - a47 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XIII (item *29) DECISION NO. CM/333/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference

1. Name of relevant committee: EUROPEAN HEALTH COMMITTEE (CDSP) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: November 1984 4. Terms of reference: To give an opinion on Assembly Recomendation 979 on the future of health structures 5. Other committee(s) to be informed of terms of reference : -

CONFIDENTIAL - a49 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX XIV (item *32) RECOMMENDATION NO. R(84)13 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING THE SITUATION OF FOREIGN STUDENTS(1) (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15(b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, 1. Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members, and that this aim can be pursued notably by common action in cultural matters; 2. Having regard to the European Cultural Convention; 3. Having regard to the European Convention on the equivalence of diplomas leading to admission to universities; 4. Having regard to the European Convention on the equivalence of periods of university study; 5. Having regard to the European Convention on the academic recognition of university qualifications; 6. Having regard to the European Agreement on continued payment of scholarships to students studying abroad; 7. Considering that the Council of Europe has always been encouraging academic mobility without any form of racial, religious, political or sexual discrimination; 8. Considering that the political, economic, social, cultural, educational and scientific interdependence between the States Parties to the European Cultural Convention, and between those States and others, is getting closer and more intensive;

(1) When this Recommendation was adopted, and in application of Article 10.2.c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers' Deputies, the Representatives of Austria and Belgium reserved the right of their governments to comply or not with paragraph 12 of the Appendix to the Recommendation, and the Representative of the United Kingdom reserved the right of her government to comply or not with paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said Appendix. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a50 - Appendix XIV

9. Considering that the practice of study in a country other than a student's home country is likely to contribute to a student's cultural and academic enrichment; 10. Considering that for the purpose of this Recommendation the term "university" shall be understood in its broadest sense, ie implying : i. universities; and ii. those other institutions of higher education and research not having the title of university but regarded as undertaking work of a generally equal nature by the competent authorities of the state in whose territory they are situated, I. Recommends the government of member States: a. to take account, in the establishment of their policies affecting universities, of the principles set out in the Appendix hereto or to draw them to the attention of the competent bodies concerned, so that they can be considered and, where praticable and appropriate, taken into account; b. to ensure that this Recommendation is distributed as widely as possible among all persons and bodies concerned with the situation of foreign students; II. Instructs the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to transmit this Recommendation to the governments of those contracting Parties to the European Cultural Convention which are not members of the Council of Europe. CONFIDENTIAL - a51 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix XIV

Appendix to Recommendation No. R(84)13 Principles for the formulation of policies regarding the situation of foreign students I. STUDY ABROAD, BASIC PRINCIPLES A. Preference for periods of study 1. In general, students should be encouraged to spend limited periods of study abroad, one or two years, depending upon the course of study. 2. In the interest of the students themselves, studies should normally be begun and carried on in the country of origin for about two years, allowing the students to acquire the necessary grasp of their field of study, unless the very nature of the study requires that the courses be started abroad. 3. Special encouragement should be given to any study abroad being planned and agreed by the institutions concerned as part of an integrated course or joint study programme. B. Students from developing countries 4. A special admission policy for students from developing countries favouring the needs of these countries should be encouraged. 5. Students from developing countries should in general first complete university studies in their own country before embarking on professional specialisation by means of complementary intensification and research studies in foreign countries. Such further education should be recognised in their own countries. 6. Where students from developing countries, because of the particular situation in their countries of origin, have reasons for pursuing full degree courses abroad, these courses should, if possible, take account of the problems and needs of the developing countries. The design of such courses necessitates a dialogue between the competent authorities in the countries of origin and in the states where such courses are held. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a52 - Appendix XIV

C. Political refugees 7. Foreign nationals who have been granted the status of refugees under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva 1951) in a state, should be treated as a national of that state as far as access to universities is concerned, and, where necessary, special help should be given to acquire an adequate command of the language and to reach the acquired academic level. II. ACCESS OF FOREIGN STUDENTS TO UNIVERSITIES 8. In principle, the host state and/or its academic institutions should not accept a candidate who would not be entitled to go on to universities in his own country, but without taking possible admission limitations into consideration. 9. If they so wish, a state and/or its academic institutions may institute more liberal measures; but their own requisite academic qualifications should in no case be altered. 10. It is of paramount importance that the responsible body in the host country checks that the candidates' command of the language is sufficient to enable them to understand the various courses they wish to follow before a place is offered in a university. 11. A special admission policy should be adopted for students coming from states with no universities, or without complete study courses. 12. As far as possible, where fees (registration etc) are payable, foreign students should not be required to pay higher fees than those applied to national students. III. RETURN AND RE-INTEGRATION 13. In admitting foreign students to university studies, the host countries proceed on the assumption that the foreign students, especially those who have been accepted for a full course of study, will return to their home country upon completing their courses of study and that they will on their own responsibility undertake every effort to secure their social and professional reintegration. Where necessary, measures to facilitate return and reintegration of foreign students should be introduced and/or improved. CONFIDENTIAL - a53 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 Appendix XIV

IV. INFORMATION ON STUDIES ABROAD 14. Updated information on studies abroad should be furnished by the competent authorities of each state; it shall be distributed and where necessary supplemented by specialised departments in each university. The Council of Europe network of national mobility information centres should be put in a position to play an important role and exploited accordingly by all those concerned. V. FINANCING AND SCHOLARSHIPS 15. Where appropriate, every effort should be made to establish or increase financial support for students wishing to study abroad in order to promote mobility. 16. Foreign students should be advised not to anticipate paid employment to meet their living costs, and before their arrival they should be requested to make provision for the financial means needed to complete their studies. 17. Each state or university institution of such should endeavour to set up, if such services are not provided for by other institutions, a University Solidarity Fund to assist students in temporary financial difficulties not due to their own fault (eg late payment of grants or scholarships). VI. RECEPTION SERVICES 18. To overcome the obstacles and the problems facing foreign students in their daily life, reception services (public or private, university or university-attached) should be set up, for effective reception, assistance, accommodation and guidance. Specialist staff should be trained for this type of work. 19. The administrative departments, both in the universities and in other responsible bodies, should simplify the various formalities that govern the personal situation of foreign students, notably the obtaining of residence permits and accommodation. VII. REVIEW, CONSULTATION AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN STATES 20. While respecting the responsibility of the individual states and institutions to determine their own policies on the admission of foreign students, states should be willing to undertake regular reviews of their own policies both by themselves and in consultation with other states, in order to monitor the effects of their own policies on student mobility. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a54 - Appendix XIV

VIII. STATISTICS AND SURVEYS 21. Statistics regarding foreign students should be improved, harmonised and continually updated, in particular regarding the various main groups (students spending only a part of their period of study abroad, students completing a full course of study abroad). CONFIDENTIAL - a55 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XV (item 34)

DECISION No. CM/334/210684

Ad hoc terms of rerence 1. Name of relevant committees: EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES (CDSN) STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL PLANNING (CDAT) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: May 1985 4. Terms of reference: To give an opinion on the possibilities of implementing the recommendations made by the 4th European Ministerial Conference on the Environment (CM(84)121) and to arrange at an appropriate level an exchange of views and experiences on the work carried out in the fields of regional planning and the environment (Resolution No 1, paragraph K) 5. Other committee(s) to be informed to terms of reference: -

CONFIDENTIAL - a57 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XVI (item 36d)

DECISION NO. CM/335/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL PLANNING (CDAT) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 1985 4. Terms of reference: To give an opinion on the proposals contained in paragraphs III.2-6 of CLRAE Resolution 141 on the regional policy of the member States of the Council of Europe and the European institutions, having regard to paragraph 8F of Assembly Opinion No. 118. 5. Other committee(s) to be informed of terms of reference: -

CONFIDENTIAL - a59 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XVII (item 36d)

DECISION NO. CM/336/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL MATTERS (CDRM) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 1984 4. Terms of reference: Give an opinion on the proposal contained in paragraph IV.1 of CLRAE Resolution 141 on the regional policy of the member States of the Council of Europe and the European institutions. 5. Other committee to be informed of terms of Steering Committee for reference: Regional Planning (CDAT)

CONFIDENTIAL - a61 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XVIII (item 36d)

DECISION NO. CM/337/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL MATTERS (CDRM) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 1985 4. Terms of reference: Give an opinion on the desirability of drafting, for the purposes of the Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation, model agreements on the subjects referred to in paragraph IV.2 of CLRAE Resolution 141 on the regional policy of the member States of the Council of Europe and the European institutions, namely: - the prevention of transfrontier pollution and co-operation between local and regional authorities; - environmental impact of major industrial installations 5. Other committee to European Committee for the be informed of terms of Conservation of Nature and reference: Natural Resources (CDSN)

CONFIDENTIAL - a63 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XIX (item 36d)

DECISION NO. CM/338/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR REGIONAL AND MUNICIPAL MATTERS (CDRM) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 1985 4. Terms of reference: In co-operation with the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN), give an opinion on the advisability of drawing up, for the purpose of the Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation, a model agreement on transfrontier nature parks, as referred to in paragraph E(a) of CLRAE Resolution 146 on local and regional authorities and nature parks in Europe and paragraph 8K(b) of Assembly Opinion No. 118. 5. Other committee to European Committee for the be informed of terms of Conservation of Nature and reference: Natural Resources (CDSN)

CONFIDENTIAL - a65 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX XX (item *37) RECOMMENDATION No R (84)14 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING THE INTRODUCTION OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statue of the Council of Europe, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members; Having regard to the resolutions of the European Ministerial Conferences on the Environment; Having regard to the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 19 September 1979 and in particular to Article 11.2 b thereof which enjoins strict control of the introduction of non-native species; Defining "introduction" as the release of non-native species into the natural environment, from which it was hitherto absent; Considering that non-native species are introduced into the natural environment inter alia for economic reasons, for hunting and fishing, ornament and attractiveness, biological pest control or accidentally; Noting that a diversity of indigenous wildlife is essential to the maintenance of the biological balance of ecosystems; Believing that many introductions have aggravated natural imbalances, especially in island systems, and that non-native species may sooner or later cause the destruction of natural ecosystems, indigenous animal and plant species and even the economy; Considering that the risks and consequences of introducing a non-native species are frequently incalculable and unforeseeable, even if meticulous research has been carried out, since the species introduced - displays in many instances great environmental adaptability and may therefore spread from the biotope to which it was hoped to confine it; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a66 - Appendix XX

- may spread rapidly because limiting factors (predators, competition, etc) are often absent or very few in number; it may thus become an ecological and economic pest capable of causing the disappearance of one or more local species or of an entire ecosystem, including all the intermediate levels; - may transmit diseases to indigenous populations; - may alter the genetic make-up of populations of a species and give rise to hybridisation; Convinced therefore of the need to control and regulate the introduction of non-native species in Europe, Recommends that the governments of the member States : 1. prohibit the introduction of non-native species into the natural environment; 2. authorise certain exceptions to the prohibition on condition that they: - have a study carried out - preferably by a research establishment responsible for nature conservation - to evaluate the probable consequences of such introduction for wildlife; - submit such studies for an opinion to the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the final decision resting with the governments concerned; 3. take the necessary steps to prevent as far as possible the accidental introduction of non-native species; 4. inform governments of neighbouring countries concerned of introduction schemes or accidental introductions. CONFIDENTIAL - a67 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XXI (item *37) RESOLUTION (84)6 ON THE RENEWAL OF THE EUROPEAN DIPLOMA AWARDED TO THE MINSMERE NATURE RESERVE (UNITED KINGDOM) (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15(a) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Having regard to Resolution (65)6 instituting the European Diploma; Having regard to Resolution (79)13 awarding the European Diploma to the Minsmere Nature Reserve; Having regard to the proposals of the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN), Renews the European Diploma awarded to the Minsmere Nature Reserve in Category A until 13 September 1989; Makes the following recommendations to the managers of the area: 1. Strictly limit the use of herbicides. Where possible, replace their use by mechanical methods or grazing. Undertake research to determine the effects of the herbicides used in the reserve on terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna and on the ecosystem in general; 2. Continue work on the establishment of a catalogue of flora and fauna; rare species should be identified and management measures worked out to protect and encourage them; 3. Examine the possibility of studying the reasons for the loss over the years of a number of species nesting in the reserve; 4. Co-operate more closely with the authorities responsible for the areas around Minsmere Nature Reserve, with a view to proper co-ordination of conservation policies for the region as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 22 - Item 2

The Chairman summed up the discussion on this item by saying that the Deputies could resume consideration of the rest of the matters raised in CM(84)55 in the light of a document to be prepared by the Secretariat in collaboration with the working party at one of their meetings in autumn 1984. Furthermore he asked those delegations that so wished to forward their observations (if any) on the working party's report, in particular on Chapter E (ie "relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly") before the forthcoming meeting of the Standing Committee in Oslo during the mini-session of the Assembly (25-29 June 1984). Decisions The Deputies 1. adopted the Directive of the Committee of Ministers to the steering committees and all other committees with programming functions concerning the choice and priority rating of proposed activities, as it appears at Appendix II to these Conclusions; 2. agreed that Written Questions submitted to the Committee of Ministers by members of the Assembly should not be left without a reply for a period of more than six months after they have been communicated to the Committee, and accordingly instructed the Secretariat to recall their attention to Written Questions to which for any reason a reply (if only partial) of substance cannot be given within that period, by submitting a draft holding reply in good time for its adoption before the expiry of the six month period; 3. agreed to forward to the Assembly the document entitled "Assessment of certain Council of Europe treaties" (CM(83)129); 4. asked the Secretary General to continue to express his views on priorities among the proposed activities in the draft Intergovernmental Programme of Activities (para. 52 of CM(84)55); 5. agreed, when discussing the draft budget, to hold a separate discussion devoted especially to the draft Intergovernmental Programme of Activities (para. 54 of CM(84)55); 6. instructed the Secretariat to consolidate certain connected activities into larger ones when presenting the draft Intergovernmental Programmes of Activities (para. 55 of CM(84)55); 7. instructed the Secretariat to prepare a study on the possibility of introducing progressively a system whereby estimates of the Vote I expenditure implications of each activity would be given in the draft Intergovernmental Programme of Activities (see paragraph 56 of CM(84)55); 8. agreed to resume consideration of the proposed points evaluation system (CM(84)55 paragraphs 46-48) at A level, if possible at their 375th meeting (September 1984 - A and B levels) in the light of proposals to be made by the working party on the arrangements for implementing such a system; 9. agreed to resume consideration of the report of the working party (CM(84)55) at one of their meetings in autumn 1984. CONFIDENTIAL - 23 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

3. ROLE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN THE PROCESS OF EUROPEAN UNIFICATION Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party (Concl(84)369/3, CM(84)63, CM(84)PV 1 prov.)

The Chairman invited delegations to continue their examination of the working party's report (CM(84)63) which they had started at their 369th meeting in March 1984 (item 3). The Committee could decide on the form of its Conclusions in the light of views expressed. He recalled in this context that at their 74th Session Ministers had instructed the Deputies to submit their proposals concerning the role of the Council of Europe in the process of European unification and on strengthening and enlarging co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Communities for their 75th Session in November 1984 and to make suggestions for the possible implementation of those proposals. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, in his capacity as Chairman of the working party, expressed the hope that delegations could approve at least some of the working party's proposals and, more importantly, implement them. It was a question of knowing whether the Council of Europe wished to continue to devote all its efforts to the 221 activities in its intergovernmental work programme or to play a role in what he would call "European policy". It seemed that the moment had come to decide if it was preferable to undertake and pursue each of the multifarious activities or to make a selection and to concentrate on some of them, preferably those having a political impact for "greater European unity" in the words of the preamble to the Statute. Political will was needed for that and, if a positive decision was taken in that sense, the contribution of the Council of Europe to developing the European identity would be enhanced all the more. His Government was thinking in particular of concentrating on the new developments in the social, scientific and technological fields. He called on delegations, steering committees and the Secretariat to bear these considerations in mind. The Representative of Austria believed that the momentum given by the Joint Declaration adopted by the Ministers of the member States of the Community and of EFTA on 9 April 1984 in Luxembourg, by the EFTA summit Conference at Visby, by the interest shown by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers through the personal presence of Mr. Dumas at the previous meeting of the Deputies and by the results of the 74th Session of the Committee of Ministers itself should be used to stress and strengthen the role of the Council of Europe in the process of CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)373 - 24 - Item 3

European unification. His authorities were therefore in favour of giving concrete follow-up action without delay to the working party's report and to the extract from the final communiqué of the 74th Session, to which the Chairman had already referred. Practical proposals should indeed be submitted to Ministers for adoption at their 75th Session. He also wished to support the statement made by his German colleague; the Committee should be ready to define priorities and make a selection among the various proposals put forward. The Representative of Switzerland agreed with the general thrust of the statement made by his German colleague; an effort should be made to concentrate activities. The proposals made by the working party on working methods concerning the elaboration of the work programme would help in this respect. In the opinion of his authorities, one aspect should remain in the centre of their deliberations and that was the question of relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities. The reciprocal roles of the two institutions in the process of European unification, especially in view of the imminent enlargement of the Communities, were of fundamental importance. As for the practical proposals to be submitted to Ministers at their 75th Session, he agreed with his Austrian colleague's comments. The Representative of the Netherlands recalled that his Minister had already commented on the working party's report at the 74th Session. However, he wished to repeat his authorities' appreciation for the many useful proposals put forward in the working party's report. Of course some proposals were more important than others but they agreed with the gist of them. He also agreed with his German colleague's comments concerning concentration of activities. The Representative of Sweden recalled that the working party's report on working methods and the present report overlapped to a certain extent. Perhaps some aspects could be examined concurrently, for example Conferences of Specialised Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly. He expressed his gratitude to his German colleague for having drawn up the comparison between the proposals put forward by Mr. Lied, general Rapporteur of the Assembly, in Resolution 805 and by the working party (Misc(84)22). That document would indeed be useful and facilitate comparison between the different proposals. Referring to his remarks at the 369th meeting concerning relations between the Council of Europe and the European Communities, (reciprocity of observers, the possibility of instituting a liaison committee, the practical co-operation between the Assembly and the European Parliament), he hoped that his suggestions would be borne in mind when practical proposals were being finalised. Finally, he said that close contact between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly should be maintained on this matter, especially as the Assembly was expected to adopt a text at its September part-Session on the follow-up to its Resolution 805. CONFIDENTIAL - 25 - CM/Del/Concl(84)373 Item 3

The Representative of Italy called on his colleagues to study the practical proposals already put forward by the working party. It should be borne in mind that the structures for increasing the political impact of the Organisation existed already; what was required, as his German colleague had already pointed out, was a greater measure of political will. The Representative of the United Kingdom wondered if there would be sufficient time to prepare a draft Resolution for adoption by Ministers at their 75th Session. The Chairman, supported by the Representatives of Switzerland and Austria, said that every effort should be made to comply with the instructions already given to the Deputies. The Chairman asked delegations to comment on the various chapters and paragraphs of the report. Chapter I - Introduction No comments were made. Chapter II - Council of Europe - Characteristics and tasks II.4 The Representative of Belgium suggested that this paragraph could be reworded as follows: "Ten members of the Council of Europe constitute the European Community. It is therefore most important that political and practical co-operation and co-ordination between the two institutions be undertaken." He explained that co-operation depended on the willingness of both parties to co-operate. Chapter III - The Council of Europe in the 1980s III.1 The Representative of France, referring to the statement made by the Minister for European Affairs, Mr. Roland Dumas, at the Deputies' 372nd meeting (May 1984, item 2), said that another danger threatening society was drug abuse. Action to combat this scourge was a priority in the 1980s and should be reflected in the concrete proposals to be made.

CONFIDENTIAL - a69 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX XXII (item *37) RESOLUTION (84)7 ON THE AWARD OF THE EUROPEAN DIPLOMA TO THE PURBECK HERITAGE COAST (UNITED KINGDOM) (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 21 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15 (a) of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Having regard to Resolution (65) 6 instituting the European Diploma; Having regard to the proposals of the European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN); Having recorded the agreement of the Government of the United Kingdom; After deliberation, Solemnly awards the European Diploma, Category C, in accordance with the regulations for the European Diploma, to the Purbeck Heritage Coast (United Kingdom); Places the aforesaid coast under the partronage of the Council of Europe until 20 June 1989; Attaches to the award the following conditions, failure to comply with which will result in withdrawal of the Diploma: 1. Oil extraction must be prohibited in the national nature reserves and in the RSPB reserve at Arne; 2. The discharge of drilling waste which might damage the natural environment of the Heritage Coast must be forbidden; 3. Stringent measures must be taken to eliminate the risk of accidental pollution. Outside the reserve, the impact of oil installations, including pipelines and access roads, on the landscape and natural environment must be kept to a minimum; Invites the authorities responsible for the area to implement the following recommendations: 1. The inventory of natural areas meriting protection should be completed by the Heritage Coast staff as rapidly as possible and efforts should be made to reach agreement with the owners of these biotopes in order to safeguard them against agricultural development. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(84)374 - a70 - Appendix XXII

2. Agreements should be negotiated with the Army and the National Trust whereby they ensure that their own tenant farmers do not damage or destroy important natural environments. 3. Greater account should be taken of the ecological aspects; in this connection, an ecologist should be recruited whose job it would be to liaise with the Nature Conservancy Council and co-operate closely with landowners in updating the inventories of natural environments, examine ecological management methods for them, continuously monitor their state of conservation and advise owners on the best ways of conserving them. 4. Except where absolutely necessary for reasons of road safety, roadside verges should be left unmown in spring in order to preserve the rare species found in them and the diversity of their flora. 5. The old stone workings and the old buildings in which bats nest should be protected, if necessary by fencing. 6. The protection of the voluntary marine reserve should be improved and the possibility examined of transforming it into an official reserve, governed by binding regulations and managed by the NCC. The area of the present reserve should be increased in length and out to sea, so as to include the area most frequented by sub-aqua divers. 7. The Studland Heath dunes, which are at risk from walkers, should be protected by fencing. 8. Pollution in Poole Harbour and the resultant danger of euthrophication should be monitored. Ways of reducing pollution should already be under consideration. 9. The process water discharged at Kimmeridge by the nuclear power station should be analysed and its effect, especially on flora, carefully monitored. If the proliferation of Ulva lactuca is indeed caused by the effluent, consideration should be given to resiting the outfall or else treating the effluent first. 10. Greater attention should be paid to the style of permitted buildings, to ensure that they do not detract from the harmony of the landscape. 11. The large caravan site between Durdle Door and West Lulworth should be reduced in size and better integrated into the landscape. 12. The parking area at Lulworth Cove should be camouflaged by a screen of trees. 13. The bathing huts on Studland beach should be removed. 14. Steps should be taken to protect the stands of the wild variety of the cultivated cabbage (Brassica oleracea) in view of the importance of this vanishing genetic resource. CONFIDENTIAL - a71 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XXIII (item *40)

DECISION NO. CM/339/210684

Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: STEERING COMMITTEE FOR URBAN POLICIES AND THE ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE (CDUP) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: March 1985 4. Terms of reference: To study the question of simplification of the rules for technical assistance relating to the integrated conservation of the cultural heritage of monuments and sites, and in particular its Rule 3 - "Procedure". 5. Other committee(s) to be informed of terms of reference: -

CONFIDENTIAL - a73 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374

APPENDIX XXIV (item 42) RESOLUTION (84)5 AMENDING ARTICLE 6 OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATIONS (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 June 1984 at the 374th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 16 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, Having regard to Article 6 of the Financial Regulations; Having regard to the Secretariat's proposals set out in document CM(84)97; Having regard to the opinions of the Board of Auditors and the Budget Committee (P-VER(84)1 and CM(84)96), Resolves as follows: Article 1 Paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the Financial Regulations is amended as follows: "Appropriations relating to expenditure incurred before 31 December in respect of goods delivered, services rendered and liabilities arising before that date shall remain available for payment purposes for a complementary period of one month ending on 31 January of the following year." Article 2 The above arrangements shall apply as from the financial year 1984.

CONFIDENTIAL - a75 - CM/Del/Concl(84)374 APPENDIX XXV (item 49b) DECISION NO. CM/341/220684 Specific terms of reference 1. Name of committee: AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS TO EXCHANGE VIEWS ON THE DRAFT CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (CAHDE) 2. Type of committee: Ad hoc Committee of Experts 3. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 4. Duration of terms of reference: 31 December 1984 5. Terms of reference: To hold a two-day meeting to discuss the draft Convention on the rights of the child submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights 6. Steering committees engaged in Steering Committee for Human related work Rights (CDDH) Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) 7. Terms of reference based on the annual programme of activities: See Activity 2.1.1 8. Terms of reference derived from a convention: - 9. Membership of the committee: a. States whose governments may appoint members: all the States of the Council of Europe. b. Number of members which each government is recommended not to exceed: 2 c. Number of members per State whose expenses will be borne by the Council of Europe budget: - d. Qualifications desirable in committee members: Senior officials in charge of the work of the United Nations in the field of human rights in the various countries 10. Observers: Holy See, Finland, Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand 11. Transitional notes: -