COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl (85) 386
CONCLUSIONS
OF THE 386th MEETING
OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES
HELD IN STRASBOURG
FROM 29 TO 31 MAY 1985
STRASBOURG
CONFIDENTIAL - i - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
SUMMARY
Page 1. Adoption of the Agenda 7 Political and General Policy Questions 2. Committee of Ministers - Follow-up to the 76th Session 9 3. Consultative Assembly - 1st part of the 37th Ordinary Session (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) a. Texts adopted 13 b. Parliamentary questions for oral reply by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers 15 c. Exchange of views with the President of the Assembly 17 4. Conferences of Specialised Ministers 23 5. Situation in Cyprus 25 6. Situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria 27 Human Rights 7. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of X and Y - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 37 8. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Marckx case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 39 9. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Cosans case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 41 10. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the McGoff case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 43 CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - ii -
11. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Skoogström case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 45 12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 47 13. Biondo against Italy - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 49 14. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) 51 15. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Le Compte, van Leuven and De Meyere case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 53 16. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Albert and Le Compte case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 55 17. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Piersack case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 57 18. T. against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 59 19. Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM) - Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 26 February - 1 March 1985) 61 Legal Questions 20. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Final activity report adopted at the 6th meeting (Strasbourg, 25 February - 1 March 1985) 67 21. "Opting out" Procedure - Proposal by the Swiss delegation to give a mandate to the Committee of Experts on Public International Law (CJ-DI) 69 22. Recommendation No R(85)... on legal duties of doctors vis-à-vis their patients 73 CONFIDENTIAL - iii - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
23. Ad hoc Committee of experts on the legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) - 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 5-8 March 1985) - Meeting report 77 24. Draft Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental or other scientific purposes 79 25. Convention on offences relating to cultural property - Date for the opening for signature 81 26. Penalisation of torture as such - Consideration of the ad hoc terms of refer nce to be given to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) 83 Social and Economic Questions 27. 3rd Conference of European Ministers of Labour - Report of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Senior Official responsible for the preparation of the Conference (Strasbourg, 25-27 March 1985) 85 28. Liaison Committee between the Council of Europe and Management and Labour (LCML) - Second meeting (Strasbourg, 18-19 February 1985) - Meeting report 87 29. European Social Charter a. Preliminary draft Protocol to the Charter 89 b. Improvement of the control mechanism of the Charter 91 c. Article 22 of the Charter - Opinion of the Governmental Committee of the Charter on the implementation of the procedure 93 30. Conference of European Ministers responsible for Family Affairs (Malta, 18-20 June 1985) - Written Question No. 282 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg 95 Education and Culture and Sport 31. Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research (Paris, 17 September 1984) a. Consideration of the reports on the follow'-up to the Conference 97 b. Hearings with Representatives of the European Science Foundation and the Commission of the European Communities 99 CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - iv -
32. European Cultural Convention - Request from the Republic of San Marino to ~e invited to accede to the Convention 103 33. Council of Europe action in the cultural field - Report pf the Ministers' Deputies' working party on cultural co-operation - Procedure 105 Environment and Local Authorities 34. 7th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) - Hearing of the Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials 107 35. Organisation of an International Colloquy on Acid Rain and the European Economy (Strasbourg, 28-31 October 1985) 111 36. Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government (Rome, 6-8 November 1984) - Follow-up 113 Administrative Questions 37. Council of Europe budgets a. 1985 budgetary situation 115 b. General outline of prospects for the 1986 budget and other budgetary matters 117 38. Partial Agreement on the Co-operation Group to combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs (Pompidou Group) - Accession of Switzerland (contribution to the 1985 budget of the Partial Agreement) 119 Press and Information 39. Stimulating Committee on Information - Oral report by the Chairman 121 40. Preparation of forthcoming meetings 125 41. Other business a. Dialogue with the Secretary General 127 b. Convention for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe - Date for opening for signature 129 c. United Nations Convention of 10 December 1984 against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatment 131 CONFIDENTIAL - v - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
d. Secretariat structures 133 APPENDIX 1 386th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A level) (Strasbourg, 29-31 May 1985) - Agenda al APPENDIX 2 387th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A and B levels) (Strasbourg, 20-21 June 1985, B level, 24-28 June 1985, A level) - Draft agenda a7 APPENDIX 3 Resolution DH(85)10 concerning the judgment of (item 10) the European Court of Human Rights of 26 October 1984 in the McGoff case a15 APPENDIX 4 Resolution DH(85)11 concerning the judgment of (item 12) the European Court of Human Rights of 22 May 1984 in the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case a17 APPENDIX 5 Resolution DH(85)12 concerning the judgments of (item 17) the European Court of Human Rights of 1 October 1982 and 26 October 1984 in the Piersack case a21 APPENDIX 6 Decision No. CM/359/310585 - Ad hoc terms of (item 26) reference (CDPC-BU) a23 APPENDIX 7 Decision No. CM/360/310585 - Ad hoc terms of (item 36) reference (CDRM) a25 APPENDIX 8 Corrigendum to previous Conclusions a27
CONFIDENTIAL - i - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
The 386th meeting of the Deputies was opened on 29 May 1985 at 10 am, under the Chairmanship of Mr N. Diamantopoulos, Deputy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Greece.
PRESENT AUSTRIA Mr. H.G. Knitel Miss E. Slavkoff BELGIUM Mr. J.R. Vanden Bloock Mr. P. Jottard Mr. J. Aelvoet CYPRUS Mr. A. Pouyouros Mr. N. Yiannakis DENMARK Mr. E.V. Quaade Mrs. J. Rechnagel FRANCE Mr. H. Ourmet Mr. B. Widemann Mr. D. Labrosse FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. G. Knackstedt Mr. H. Weisel Mr. H.C. Herwarth von Bittenfeld GREECE Mr. N. Diamantopoulos, Chairman Mr. D. Constantinou Mrs. D. Mavroskelidi Mr T. Dendoulis ICELAND IRELAND Mr. M. Flynn, Vice-Chairman ITALY Mr. P.M. Antici Mr. A. Grafini Mr. L. Pivano LIECHTENSTEIN HSH Prince Nicholas of Liechtenstein Mr. D. Ospelt LUXEMBOURG Mr. J. Hostert MALTA NETHERLANDS Mr. C. Schneider Mr. P.H. Le Clercq NORWAY Mr. L.A. Ulland PORTUGAL Mr. J. Pereira Bastos Mr. F.J. Ramos Machado Mr. C. Pais CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 2 -
SPAIN Mr. F. Baeza Mr. M. Viturro de la Torre Mr. N. Ferrer Colom SWEDEN Mr. B. Arvidson Mr. F. Svedäng SWITZERLAND Mr. T. Raeber Mrs. R. Ledergerber TURKEY Mr. S. Özsoy Mr. K. Gür Mr. H. Diriöz UNITED KINGDOM Mr. C.D. Lush Miss A. Stoddart Mr. S.E. Tomlinson CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
At the opening of the meeting, the Secretary to the Committee said that the Secretariat regretted the considerable delay in the issue of certain documents, particularly Notes on the agenda. The Secretariat was aware of the problems this caused and would make every effort to avoid a recurrence in the future. The Representative of the United Kingdom, supported by the Representative of the Netherlands, said that several papers were indeed very late, particularly Notes on the agenda containing proposals for important decisions on which the national authorities had not been able to be consulted. According to the rules governing the Ministers' Deputies working methods, "basic documents relating to an item on the agenda ... should reach all member governments at least four weeks before the beginning of the meeting at which the subject is to be discussed ... Unless otherwise decided for reasons of urgency, discussion of an item on the agenda should be deferred if the four weeks rule for the despatch of documents has not been observed". He accordingly proposed checking for each item for which documents had come out late whether the urgency warranted their being discussed. The Representative of Denmark agreed with the Representative of the United Kingdom. He thanked the Secretary to the Committee for his remarks. He appreciated the Secretariat's workload but was bound to say that it was not possible to work in these conditions. He also asked that it be made sure that documents came out in both languages at the same time. The Representative of Spain agreed with the previous speakers. The Representative of Turkey shared the views of the previous speakers, but pointed out that the Committee of Ministers' Secretariat did not have sufficient staff to deal with the constantly growing workload and proposed that this question be examined. The Representative of Austria agreed with the previous remarks, particularly those made by Denmark. To be able to work properly, delegations had to have instructions. The Representative of Norway also agreed with the previous speakers. The situation had worsened because of the shorter intervals between meetings and the growing number of items on the agenda. A solution had to be found. The Representative of France endorsed the remarks already made. The Representative of Sweden pointed out that one of the proposals of the working party on working methods was to combine B level with A level meetings. However, this had not been the case for the last three meetings. The Secretary General shared the concern expressed by several delegations. The problem was not new and had been considered by the working party on working methods. The methods advocated should be applied, distinguishing between what was essential and what was less important. This entailed having recourse to the tacit approval procedure so that discussion could concentrate on essentials. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 4 -
The Chairman proposed that as a compromise solution for the present meeting, all the items on the agenda be considered unless there were objections to individual items. The Chairman announced that a date had to be proposed for the next exchange of views on the United Nations. The Secretary to the Committee proposed 27 June 1985. The Representative of Belgium thought that the themes so far proposed for the exchange of views, namely preparation for the 40th General Assembly and the commemoration of the 40th Anniversary of the UN, did not sufficiently warrant a meeting with experts so early in the year. To prepare for the General Assembly, it would be better to meet in September when the main items on the agenda would be better known. The Representatives of Italy, Switzerland and Austria agreed with these remarks. The Secretary General pointed out that the UN General Assembly began on 18 September 1985 and that if the exchange of views were to be held in September, it would have to be at the very beginning of the month. The Representative of Portugal pointed out that the question of whether there ought to be two exchanges of views per year had already been raised. It seemed difficult to prepare a meeting within such a short time, at the beginning of September. On the other hand, it would be as well to know the outcome of the CSCE meeting in Ottawa. Also, if extraordinary meetings were held too frequently, that made the task of the Committee of Ministers all the more difficult. The Chairman pointed out that the Governing Body of the Resettlement Fund was to meet on 9-13 September. The Representative of the Netherlands said that the experts did not generally favour meetings in September. The Representative of Ireland, supported by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, pointed out that the experts themselves had agreed that a meeting before the end of 1985 was justified and he proposed suggesting two possible dates. The Representative of Belgium suggested as an alternative that the meeting be held in New York in September with only the experts if that period did not suit the Deputies. Discussion on this item continued later in the meeting under item 40 of the agenda: Preparation of forthcoming meetings. CONFIDENTIAL - 5 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
The Chairman conveyed apologies from the Permanent Representative of Iceland, who was unable to attend the meeting.
In the course of the meeting (1), the Chairman, referring to the previous day's tragic events at a Brussels football ground, expressed everyone's shock and horror. He expressed the Committee's deepest sympathy to the victims and their families from several European countries. That such events should be able to occur was intolerable. Immediate and effective measures must be taken to prevent them ever recurring. He added that the President of the Assembly, the Secretary General and he himself proposed issuing a joint statement on the subject. The Representative of Belgium, as representative of the country where these tragic events had taken place, concurred with the Chairman. The Council of Europe had taken greater interest than any other organisation in the phenomena of spectator violence at sports events and must continue to develop its action in that field. He took this opportunity of paying tribute to the victims of the events in Brussels, which particularly affected one of the Council of Europe's member countries, and shared the families' grief. The Representative of Italy thanked the two speakers for their condolences with the Italian families and would not fail to convey them to his authorities. He agreed that the Council of Europe was the place to examine the problem of violence at sports events and thanked the United Kingdom delegation for raising the question at the 76th Session of the Committee of Ministers. It was important that the Council of Europe should speak out at this time and the Committee for the Development of Sport (CDDS) should be recommended to give the highest priority to the question of the prevention of violence. The Representative of the United Kingdom joined with the previous speakers in their condolences. He supported the idea of the joint statement mentioned by the Chairman. The Council of Europe must react, since it was the Organisation which had dealt with this problem. The British Prime Minister had made a public statement and had convened an extraordinary meeting to take the necessary measures. He fully supported the proposal to ask the CDDS to give priority to this problem.
(1) See also under item 2 of the agenda: Committee of Ministers - Follow-up to the 76th Session. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 6 -
The Representative of Portugal wished to be associated with everything that had been said by the previous speakers. The problem of spectator violence had been mentioned in the final communiqué of the 76th Session of the Committee of Ministers and at the meeting which the Ministers of Sport had held in Lisbon. He thought it would be appropriate to raise the level of the meeting of the working party on spectator violence at sports events, which was due to be held at the end of June, bearing in mind the responsibility of the international organisation dealing with the question. It would be useful to inform public opinion about that meeting in the joint statement that was to be issued. The Secretary General said that in addition to the joint statement that was to be issued, he had sent the following telegram to all the European Ministers responsible for Sport: "Following the tragic events in Brussels which have shocked and horrified us all, I would ask you to examine as a matter of the utmost urgency, together with the appropriate non-governmental organisations, ways of implementing the ideas expressed at the recent informal meeting of European Ministers responsible for Sport in Lisbon to stamp out the violence which threatens the very existence of certain major sporting events. For my part, I will work within the Council of Europe to speed up the review of safety measures in sports grounds and the revision of current guidelines for dealing with violence at sporting events with a view to strengthening them as appropriate." The President of the Assembly thought that preventing such events from occurring was not simply a matter of security and police measures, but that governments must shoulder their responsibilities towards young people. CONFIDENTIAL - 7 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 1
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The Representative of Turkey said that as far as item 5 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 386th meeting (29-31 May 1985 - A level) as it appears at Appendix 1 to these Conclusions, subject to the postponement of item 31a to their 387th meeting (June 1985, for consideration at A level).
CONFIDENTIAL - 9 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 2 2. COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS Follow-up to the 76th Session (Concl(85)384/2, CM(85)PV 1 and 2 prov.)
Co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Community The Chairman said that the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Greece, Mr T. Pangalos, had informed his colleagues, at the previous meeting of the Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the European Communities, of the adoption, by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, of Resolution (85)5 on co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Community. East-West relations: exchanges of views with the participation of experts In reply to a question from the Representative of Belgium, the Representative of Switzerland, as Chairman of the Deputies' working party on cultural co-operation, confirmed that the working party's opinion on fields in which closer co-operation was possible with European states which were neither in the Council of Europe nor parties to the European Cultural Convention (paragraph 7 of Committee of Ministers Resolution (85)6 on European cultural identity) would be given in good time for the next meeting, on 17 September 1985, in which experts would take part and which would deal with the CSCE process, particularly preparations for the Budapest Cultural Forum. His authorities felt that the meeting on 17 September 1985 could also discuss prospects for other meetings that would be taking place in the CSCE framework before Vienna (1986). North-South relations In the light of the exchange of views, in which experts had taken part, on 23 May 1985, the Representative of Portugal said he wanted to return to the subject of follow-up to the Ministers' discussions at the 76th Session on North-South matters (paragraph 6 of the final communiqué). He disagreed with some of the policy preferences the experts had expressed at their exchange of views and which were inconsistent with policy guidelines on Council of Europe North-South action as laid down whether by the Ministers themselves or the Deputies at previous discussions. The experts had given political priority to action on Africa although the Committee of Ministers had said clearly that it favoured strengthening relations with Latin America generally and the Contadora Group in particular. Nor had the experts complied with the priorities laid down in the Lisbon Declaration (appended to Assembly Recommendation 992), of which the Committee of Ministers had several times expressed wholehearted approval. Arrangements for a public European campaign on North-South CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 10 - Item 2 interdependence had also become a subject for discussion by the experts despite the fact that several of the Deputies had stressed at the 384th meeting (2-6 May 1985, item 3) that arrangements for the campaign were the Deputies' political responsibility. Lastly, it was a pity the experts had been allowed to discuss the highly delicate matter of human rights in relation to development co-operation. In future, experts should strictly confine themselves to their particular province and political considerations be left entirely to the Deputies. The Representative of Spain agreed and stressed the importance of the Lisbon Declaration. The Representative of Switzerland thought the exchange of views with experts' participation on 23 May 1985 had been most valuable, clarifying many matters and contributing further information which would help the Deputies eventually to take their decisions. The experts had expressed opinions, such as that no future public campaign on North-South interdependence should neglect the question of Europe's specific responsibility towards Africa, but the political decisions lay with the Deputies. Though the Lisbon Declaration was undoubtedly a most valuable document to which heed must be paid, the Committee of Ministers was nevertheless not bound to agree with everything it contained, and was at liberty not to take up certain of the priorities defined in it or to add other priorities which arose in emergencies or in the course of events. Spectator violence in sport On 30 May 1985 the Deputies sent their deepest sympathy to families bereaved and persons injured in the tragic events at the European Cup Final in Brussels on 29 May. In a press communiqué that same day, the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General expressed horror and dismay at the unpardonable violence which had brought football into disrepute. The Council of Europe had drawn up a number of measures to reduce spectator violence, which unfortunately had become a European phenomenon, but the measures would not be fully effective without concerted action by public authorities and sports' governing bodies, and further vigorous action was necessary to deal with the roots of violence in modern society. The same day the Secretary General sent a message to the European Ministers of Sport, asking them to consider with the relevant non-governmental organisations, as a matter of the greatest urgency and priority, ways of carrying out the intentions expressed at the informal meeting of European Ministers responsible for Sport in Lisbon on 16 and 17 May 1985. He had said he would himself speed up Council of Europe preparations for a review of security measures in sports premises and expedite the revision, and appropriate tightening, of present guidelines on dealing with violence in stadiums. CONFIDENTIAL - 11 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 2
Decision The Deputies took note of a statement of the Secretary General on the efforts to accelerate activities on combatting terrorism in Europe, and in particular of the intention of the European Ministers of Justice to discuss this matter at their informal meeting in Edinburgh on 14 June 1985.
CONFIDENTIAL - 13 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 3a 3. CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY 1st part of the 37th Ordinary Session (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) a. Texts adopted
Opinion No. 123 on the draft European Convention on recognition of the legal personality of international non-governmental organisations The Representative of Belgium said that the Opinion of the Assembly on this matter was drafted in too vague and general terms to fully reflect the Assembly's position; it would have been more useful if the Opinion had taken up the more concrete considerations developed in the report of the Legal Affairs Committee. The Director of Legal Affairs agreed with the Representative of Belgium. The Secretariat intended to prepare a document on this matter taking into account Assembly Opinion No. 123 and submit it to the Deputies for examination at one of their future meetings when they considered the draft Convention. The Clerk of the Assembly said that he would not fail to transmit the view expressed by the Representative of Belgium to the Chairman of the Assembly's Legal Affairs Committee. Decision The Deputies agreed to examine this Opinion at one of their forthcoming meetings together with the draft European Convention on recognition of the legal personality of international non-governmental organisations. Recommendation 1007(1985) on the return of migrant workers and Recommendation 1008(1985) on women in politics Decision The Deputies agreed to examine these Recommendations at B level at their 388th meeting (September 1985). CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 14 - Item 3a
Resolution 839(1985) on European air transport policies The Representative of Switzerland said that his authorities, whilst they recognised that there existed international and European organisations that had full competence with regard to the question of air transport policies, welcomed the initiative taken and the interest shown by the Assembly in this matter. Decision The Deputies took note of this Resolution. Resolution 840(1985) on the situation in Turkey Decision The Deputies took note of this Resolution. Resolution 841(1985) on the Foreign Interference Act and other issues affecting the relations between Malta and the Council of Europe The Representative of Austria wondered what follow-up action, if any, would be given to this Resolution. The Clerk of the Assembly said that Mr Amadei, Rapporteur for opinion of the Political Affairs Committee of the Assembly, would be going to Malta together with other members of the Socialist group of the European Parliament. On that occasion, Mr Amadei would no doubt explore the possibilities with the Maltese authorities of carrying out a fact-finding mission to Malta in accordance with paragraph 11 of Resolution 841. In reply to the Representative of the United Kingdom, the Clerk of the Assembly said that the Assembly's Political Affairs, Legal Affairs and Economic Affairs and Development Committees had been seized of the question of the New Ireland Forum and had had a preliminary examination of the matter following the three rapporteurs' visits to London, Dublin and Belfast. Those committees might be ready to report to the second part-session of the Assembly in September 1985 or else in January 1986. It was expected that there would be a clearer picture after the Assembly's mini-session in Hamburg in July 1985. The Representative of Sweden, referring to the fact that the Assembly's Rules of Procedure were being revised, said that the new Rules should take into account the conclusions reached by the Deputies on the Written Questions to be addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers by individual members of the Assembly (see Addendum CM(85)100, paragraph 45). Decision The Deputies took note of this Resolution. CONFIDENTIAL - 15 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 3b b. Parliamentary questions for oral reply by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers
Question No.7 on the fight against terrorism The Secretary to the Committee recalled that the question of the fight against terrorism would be dealt with at the informal meeting of European Ministers of Justice to be held in Edinburgh on 14 June 1985 and asked delegations to draw the attention of their authorities to this matter. Question No 9 on relations between Malta and the Council of Europe The Representative of the United Kingdom said that it would have been preferable if the Deputies had considered the draft reply to Written Question No 282 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg concerning the venue of the 19th Session of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Family Affairs (see item 30 on the agenda of the present meeting) at the same time as they considered the Chairman's reply to Question No. 9. Question No. 11 on the visa requirement for Turkish nationals The Representative of Turkey said that his delegation interpreted the Chairman's answer to Mr Ozaslan's question in the same sense as the decision taken by the Deputies at their 379th meeting (January 1985, item 26).
CONFIDENTIAL - 17 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 3c c. Exchange of views with the President of the Assembly
Mr Ahrens, the President of the Assembly, thanked the Deputies for inviting him to attend the present meeting for an exchange of views which he considered an excellent means of improving relations between the two Organs of the Council of Europe. a. Meeting of the Joint Committee in Hamburg on 2 July 1985 on the occasion of the Assembly's mini-session Mr Ahrens recalled that a meeting of the Joint Committee would be held in Hamburg on 2 July 1985 at 4.30 pm during the mini-session of the Assembly. He extended an invitation on behalf of the Assembly to all Ministers and Ministers' Deputies and expressed the hope to see them in Hamburg. Mr Ahrens said that the meeting of the Joint Committee would be devoted mainly to a discussion of the report of the Colombo Commission which would be presented officially to the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies, the Secretary General and to himself on 12 June 1985. The Assembly would welcome hearing the views of the Ministers and Deputies present at the meeting of the Joint Committee. He drew the Deputies' attention to the fact that the meeting of the Joint Committee would be taking place immediately after the meeting of the European Council due to be held on 29-30 June in Milan. Mr Ahrens said that part of the meeting of the Joint Committee could also be devoted to the examination of the conclusions adopted by the Ministers' Deputies on the working methods in the Council of Europe (Add. to CM(85)100), in particular to those concerning relations between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. The Representative of Switzerland, supported by the Representative of Austria, expressed his gratitude to Mr Ahrens for the invitation extended to Ministers and Ministers" Deputies to attend the mini-session in Hamburg. His authorities were pleased to hold an exchange of views on the report of the Colombo Commission with parliamentarians in particular after the summit: meeting in Milan. His delegation would also welcome the discussion on the Deputies' conclusions on the working methods in the Council of Europe because this was an important matter which concerned both Organs of the Organisation. b. Projects for the enlargement of the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg Mr Ahrens said that he had been informed that the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg would be enlarged in order to accommodate the Spanish and Portuguese delegations as from January 1986. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 18 - Item 3c
There would be three phases in the enlargement of the buildings: the first phase was a relatively small undertaking and concerned the present building on the bank of the River Ill; the second phase would constitute an extension towards the west side; the third phase constituted the construction of new buildings in the place of the present C and P buildings, which would be back to back with the Palais de l'Europe. The Bureau of the Assembly, which had been informed in particular of the third phase of enlargement, had unanimously considered this project unacceptable both for aesthetic reasons and because of the over-concentration of communications and office facilities within a small area. In the view of the Bureau of the Assembly, the new building should be constructed elsewhere and this should be clearly explained to the Strasbourg municipal authorities. The Representative of Sweden welcomed the stand taken by the Bureau of the Assembly on this matter. The Deputies would no doubt require more information on the projects to enlarge the European Parliament buildings before taking a final stand. The Representative of Austria also expressed satisfaction with the stand taken by the Bureau of the Assembly and that Mr Ahrens had brought it to the Deputies' attention. Supported by the Representative of Switzerland, he wondered who had the final say on decisions regarding the proposed projects to enlarge the European Parliament buildings. The Secretary General said that he had been to see the Mayor of Strasbourg. In his view the project was already under way and it was difficult to intervene. That was the reason why he had immediately contacted the President of the Assembly. He thought that a démarche could be made by the Committee of Ministers, the Assembly and the Secretary General to express a common viewpoint on the project. He himself had the impression that the local authorities of Strasbourg were aware of the fact that the project was not going in the right direction. In reply to the Representative of Switzerland, the Secretary General added that it would not be advisable to consider the proposed new human rights building in the same package as the projects to enlarge the European Parliament buildings. The Representative of Denmark wondered if there were alternative sites for the proposed buildings which would be back to back with the Palais de l'Europe. The Secretary General said that the architect of the Palais de l'Europe would prefer to have two buildings constructed behind the restaurant rather than in place of C and P buildings. The Representative of Austria wondered if the European Parliament had been informed of the reaction of the Bureau of the Assembly. CONFIDENTIAL - 19 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 3c
Mr Ahrens said that the European Parliament had not been officially informed of the reaction of the Bureau of the Assembly. When the Secretary General took this matter up with the City, the European Parliament would be informed. Furthermore, Mr Ahrens intended to raise it with Mr Pflimlin, the President of the European Parliament, when he met him. The Representative of Portugal wondered if the European Parliament would continue to occupy the offices in the Palais de l'Europe during its sessions after the completion of the proposed buildings. The Secretary General said that the European Parliament would not occupy the offices in the Palais de l'Europe after the construction of the proposed buildings, but they would continue to make use of the meeting rooms in the Palais. The Representative of Cyprus said that if there was a need, a covered bridge could be built across the River Ill in order to enable the Council of Europe to make use of the facilities on the other side of the river. The Secretary General confirmed that the architect of the Palais had already envisaged such an extension. The Chairman summed up discussion on this matter by saying that the Committee of Ministers would ask the Secretary General to take steps in connection with the proposed projects taking into account the aesthetic aspects and the Council of Europe's requirements for space along the lines of the information given by Mr Ahrens and the Secretary General at the present meeting. c. Consulting the Assembly on the draft budget of the Organisation as a whole Mr Ahrens said that he had received a letter from Mr Beix, the Chairman of the Assembly's Committee on the Budget and the Intergovernmental Work Programme, informing him that the Assembly committee in question wished to examine the whole of the budget of the Organisation and not only that part of the budget concerning the Assembly. Mr Ahrens recalled that following the examination of the report of the working party on the working methods in the Council of Europe (CM(84)55), the Deputies had concluded that "for the purpose of its general Opinion on the budget, the Assembly shall be informed of the budgetary prospects for the year to come so that it will be in a position to express a more informed view in full knowledge of the facts on the appropriations to be included in the budget and on the programme of intergovernmental activities for the following year" (Add. to CM(85)100, para 51). Mr Beix had in fact confirmed this viewpoint and had said that the Assembly would do a better job if they could examine the whole of the budget of the Organisation. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 20 - Item 3c
The Representative of Switzerland expressed his agreement with the request emanating from the Assembly Committee on the Budget and the Intergovernmental Work Programme. However, he thought that it would be difficult to consult the Assembly this year on the whole of the budget for 1986. The Deputies should consider this matter further and explore the possibilities for consulting the Assembly on the whole of the budget of the Organisation as from 1986 onwards. The Representative of Sweden recalled that the working party on the working methods in the Council of Europe, of which he had been the chairman, had given the fullest possible consideration to this matter. Mr Beix and his committee should be aware of the fact that efforts were being made to improve the situation. The Chairman of the Assembly committee concerned could be kept informed of all budgetary developments and considerations during the course of the year and the Deputies should subsequently inform the Assembly committee, say in October every year, of the plans for the following year. To consult the Assembly on the budget of the Organisation as a whole would no doubt enable parliamentarians to get more support for the Council of Europe in their national parliaments. Mr Ahrens welcomed the support given by the Representatives of Switzerland and Sweden to Mr Beix's proposal. He agreed with the Representative of Sweden that the Assembly representatives had a double mandate, ie in the Assembly of the Council of Europe and in their national parliaments; they could voice the views of, and the stand taken by, the Council of Europe. d. Information concerning intergovernmental activities of the Council of Europe Mr Ahrens asked the Deputies to consider whether it might be possible for the Council of Europe to make more information available to Assembly representatives upon request on intergovernmental work undertaken. He had heard complaints, at least from the members of the German parliamentary delegation, that such information was not given and that they had to seek the assistance of their governments to obtain the information required. This was something to which the Committee of Ministers might wish to give further consideration. e. Issuing of press communiqués by the Council of Europe The Representative of Portugal welcomed the press communiqué which had been issued by Mr Ahrens, the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies and the Secretary General following the tragic events that had taken place immediately before the UEFA cup final football match in Brussels. The loss of lives had saddened the whole of Europe. He endorsed the views expressed in the press communiqué. However, he pointed out that tragic events had unfortunately become a part of daily life in several parts of the world; the war between Iran and Iraq went on, the previous week thousands of people had lost their lives following the cyclone in Bangladesh, and it had struck him that on such matters the Council of Europe remained completely silent. CONFIDENTIAL - 21 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 3c
Consideration should be given to the Council of Europe's contribution to studying, and if possible to avoiding, the effects of such catastrophes, of which Bangladesh had been a victim, rather than launching "empty slogans". Europe had excellent scientists who could study such phenomena - which would be in accordance with the spirit of the Lisbon Declaration on North/South. The Representative of Turkey said that the Council of Europe should avoid applying double standards in issuing press communiqués. f. Attendance of the Permanent Representatives or their deputies at meetings of the Assembly's committees The Representative of Austria, recalling that the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly were being revised, wondered if Mr Ahrens and the Assembly committee concerned would give further consideration to the attendance of Permanent Representatives or their Deputies at meetings of the Assembly committees. Permanent Representatives were not always able to attend the meetings of Assembly committees, they therefore wished to be able to ask their deputies to attend them. The Representatives of Spain, Portugal and Switzerland agreed with the Representative of Austria. Mr Ahrens said that the participation of Permanent Representatives in meetings of Assembly committees was generally most welcome, it being understood that the provisions of Rule 49(2) remained in force. What the Assembly committees did not wish to see was the institution of a practice of admitting "diplomatic observers" from embassies in Paris or elsewhere. He said that he would bring this matter to the attention of the Assembly once again, while observing that the present drafting of Rule 49(2) already made it possible for a deputy Permanent Representative to attend a particular meeting on request. Furthermore, it should be remembered that there were two organs under the Statute, and the notion of reciprocity could not be disregarded entirely. The Representative of the United Kingdom said that the Assembly committees should endeavour to hold their meetings in Strasbourg rather than in Paris - a solution which would no doubt resolve the question of "diplomatic observers". In conclusion, the Chairman expressed his gratitude to Mr Ahrens for coming to Strasbourg for the exchange of information and views with the Deputies. He recalled that a preparatory meeting of the Ministers and Ministers' Deputies participating in the meeting of the Joint Committee would be held in Hamburg on 2 July 1985 at 3 pm. The Representative of Sweden recalled that the Assembly's Political Affairs Committee would hold its next meeting on 24 June 1985 primarily to discuss the report of the Colombo Commission and said that the Deputies should be informed of the outcome of its discussions on this matter. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 22 - Item 3c
Decisions The Deputies 1. agreed to the agenda items proposed by the President of the Assembly for the meeting of the Joint Committee to be held on 2 July 1985 at 4.30 pm in Hamburg; 2. agreed that a preparatory meeting of the Ministers and Ministers' Deputies participating in the meeting of the Joint Committee will be held in Hamburg on 2 July 1985 at 3 pm. 3. asked the Secretary General to undertake an immediate démarche with the City of Strasbourg in connection with the construction plans which the City intends to implement in the near future for the European Parliament, having regard to the concerns expressed on this question by the Bureau of the Council of Europe Assembly and taking into account both the aesthetic aspects of the Palais de l'Europe and the Council of Europe's own requirements for space. CONFIDENTIAL - 23 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 4 4. CONFERENCES OF SPECIALISED MINISTERS (Concl(85)394/5, CM(78)62, CM(84)248 and CM(85)13)
1. 3rd Conference of European Ministers responsible for Social Security (Athens) The Secretary General announced that the Report (CM(85)129) of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 18-19 March 1985) of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the preparation of the Conference had been sent to the delegations for information. 2. 15th Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education (Helsinki, 4-8 May 1987) The Secretary General reported that at the 14th Session of the Conference (Brussels, 7-9 May 1985) the Ministers had approved the invitation by Finland to hold the 15th Session of the Conference in Helsinki from 4 to 8 May 1987 on: "New challenges for teachers and teacher education". On that occasion the Ministers had held a first exchange of views on this subject at their informal meeting in Brussels on 8 May 1985. The discussion had been continued by the Senior Officials on the following day. The Senior Officials had agreed to ask member States to produce short information documents (2-3 pages) on teacher training systems, their problems and trends. 3. 2nd European Conference of Ministers responsible for the conservation of the Architectural Heritage (Granada, 3-5 October 1985) The Secretary General reported that the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for preparing the Conference would be meeting Strasbourg on 30 and 31 May 1985. Furthermore, the draft agenda and an account of the state of preparation of the Conference (CM(85)137) would be submitted to the Ministers' Deputies at their 387th meeting (June 1985). CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 24 - Item 4
The Representative of Portugal said that three Conferences were due to be held in Portugal in 1987: the 3rd Conference of European Ministers responsible for Migration Questions (May 1987), the 5th Ministerial Conference on the Environment (24-25 June 1987) and the 5th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs. The last of these might possibly be held in the autumn of 1987 so that there would not be too many Conferences in the spring of 1987. In reply to a question from the Representative of Norway, the Director of Legal Affairs said that the 15th Conference of European Ministers of Justice would be held in Oslo on 17-19 June 1986. The Representative of Liechtenstein thought that the usual interval of three years between the sessions of a Conference ought to be reduced to two years. He wished the Committee of Ministers to convey this suggestion to the committees responsible for preparing the Conferences. The Representative of Belgium recognised the need for uniform spacing of Conferences of Specialised Ministers, but wondered whether in the Council of Europe's major fields of activities (education, for example) it might not be accepted that Ministers could usefully meet every two years. Moreover, the frequency of Conferences fell within the context of the Committee of Ministers' relations with the Conferences of Specialised Ministers. The Deputies should discuss the matter thoroughly at a future meeting. The Secretary to the Committee said that the general idea behind the interval between Conferences was to allow sufficient time for preparation. Furthermore, it would certainly be rather difficult to impose a particular interval on the committees responsible for preparing the Conferences. The Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers regularly received fresh information regarding inter alia the dates and themes of Conferences. In view of the Deputies' concern, he proposed that the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers compile an information document in the form of a schedule of future Conferences, showing the titles, dates, places and themes of the Conferences and the bodies responsible for preparing them. The document, put on computer, would regularly be up-dated and circulated to the Deputies at each of their meetings. CONFIDENTIAL - 25 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 5
5. SITUATION IN CYPRUS (Concl(85)384/6)
No delegation wished to make a statement under this item.
CONFIDENTIAL - 27 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 6
6. SITUATION OF THE TURKISH MINORITY IN BULGARIA
The Representative of Turkey made the following statement: "In my statements to the 76th Session of the Committee of Ministers and the 384th meeting of the Deputies, I drew your attention to the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. At that time I described the nation-wide campaign undertaken by the Bulgarian authorities to deprive that minority of its elementary rights, so as to assimilate it completely. I also stated that this inhuman oppression was contrary to the treaties and agreements, both bilateral and international, to which Bulgaria is a signatory. Under the Protocol to the Treaty of Friendship signed between Turkey and Bulgaria in 1925, the two Parties agreed fully to apply the clauses of the Treaty of Neuilly of 1919 concerning protection of the Muslim minority in Bulgaria. The Peace Treaty signed in Paris in 1947 also requires Bulgaria to observe human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination. And, most important, in 1975, Bulgaria like all of us signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Since the First World War, the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria has been a question of great importance in relations between Turkey and Bulgaria. Apart from individual cases, three major waves of immigration to Turkey have taken place since that date. Under the 1925 Convention on Establishment, the two parties agreed not to hinder voluntary migration by "Turks of Bulgaria" and "Bulgarians of Turkey". In this context, over 100,000 Turks belonging to the minority in Bulgaria have moved to Turkey. After the change in régime at the end of the Second World War, pressure exerted on the Turkish minority by the Bulgarian authorities to create a "homogeneous Bulgarian nation" increased. It is in this context that in 1950, the Bulgarian authorities, after expropriating their land, compelled 250,000 members of that minority, dispossessed of all their property, to emigrate to Turkey within three months. At the time, the Council of Europe, particularly the Committee of Ministers, reacted by adopting Resolution (50)46 on the Turkish minorities in Bulgaria. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 28 - Item 6
In fact, what Bulgaria wanted was not emigration proper but rather abrupt expulsion, not to say deportation. In 1950 and 1951, Turkey received 152,000 migrants as a result. When in 1951 the Bulgarian authorities changed their emigration policy this "Bulgarian connection" of another kind was abruptly broken off. Seventeen years later, in 1966, the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs visiting Ankara, signed a Protocol whereby close relatives of Turks who had emigrated from Bulgaria would in turn be allowed to emigrate to Turkey. Under this Protocol, between 1958 and 1978, 130,000 Bulgarian Turks have been able to emigrate to Turkey. According to Bulgarian statistics for 1910, 1920, 1926, 1934 and 1946, the percentage of the Muslim population in Bulgaria has varied between 13.3 and 14.4%. Since 1946, statistics have been kept on the basis of ethnic origin instead of religion. No information on the Turkish minority has been published since that date. However, taking into account the rate of population growth, the Turkish minority is estimated at over one million. In answer to protests from the international community against the 1950 repressive campaign, the Bulgarian authorities, through their Press Directorate, published a brochure entitled 'The Turkish Minority in the People's Republic of Bulgaria'. This 72-page publication states, and I quote, that in the People's Republic of Bulgaria there are several national minorities and ethnic groups: Turks, Gypsies, Armenians, Jews and others. (...) The Turks prefer to live in the country and are engaged in farming. (...) The Bulgarian government does not compel the Turks to emigrate. It abides by the 1925 Convention and assists all persons who so wish to leave for Turkey. (...) Whereas in Turkey, whose population numbers 19 million, the circulation of the main Turkish newspapers does not exceed 30,000 (...), the newspapers of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria have the following circulations: Yesil Isik: 13,000; Halk Gençligi: 10,000; Eylülcü Cocuk: 30,000; Troudovo Delo: 30,000 and there is one two-monthly journal with a circulation of 30,000. These newspapers are published in Turkish. Some Bulgarian provincial newspapers have special pages in Turkish. In the school year 1949-50 there were 1,199 Turkish schools with 3037 Turkish teachers and 100,376 Turkish pupils. End of quotation. I do not wish to take up your time with more quotations from this publication. Along similar lines, I should like also to refer to an interview given in 1981 by the President of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to the chairman of Pergamon Press on the occasion of the publication of the book entitled, 'Statesman and Founder of the New Bulgaria: Todor Jivkov'. In that interview, President Jivkov describes the rights granted to the minority living in his country and quotes the rights of the "Bulgarians of Turkish origin". He also says that there were still two Turkish publications with circulations of 30,000. CONFIDENTIAL - 29 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 6
The figures given in the 1950 propaganda publication mention a Turkish-language circulation in excess of 120,000. In 1981 Mr Jivkov speaks of 30,000. Today the figure is zero. No commentary is necessary, the figures speak for themselves. The campaign against the Turkish minority in Bulgaria which had gathered momentum in recent years has been in full swing since the end of 1984. Now, suddenly, over one million people have disappeared from Bulgarian territory. There Is no longer any Turkish minority, there is no longer any Muslim community. There are no longer any publications in Turkish. Turkish is no longer spoken. There is no one who bears a Turkish or Muslim name. Religious ceremonies, including funerals, are prohibited. It is not possible to move within Bulgaria, still less to leave the country. The few Muftis - the equivalent of Bishops - who are tolerated by the authorities for propaganda reasons have names like Hristo. I do not know if I ought to speak of irony of fate. It is more serious. A commmunity, a minority with all its rights, culture, language, religion, traditions and history, has abruptly disappeared. Today we assume responsibility for over one million human beings. As access to the regions where the Turkish communities live has been restricted by the authorities and rigid censorship has been imposed, it is very difficult to keep a close watch on the development of the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. But all national and international information confirms the implacable oppression and repression of this minority. In my previous statements I reported several examples of the sometimes bloody methods of which the members of the Turkish minority are victims. I shall now give some examples of administrative harassment. A document some two months old proves that a child was punished by the police for speaking Turkish with his parents on a bus. Another example: the Director General of the Assenova Krepost factory, the engineer Basamakov, in a circular of 16 January 1985, ordered the application as from January 1985 "for the purpose of effective Bulgarisation of Muslims" measures such as: - compulsory use of Bulgarian names: - in all administrative departments; - in medical consultations and certificates; - in certificates of authorisation to travel and holiday certificates; - prohibition from entering workplaces for anyone bearing a Turkish name, unless producing an official document certifying their change of name; - prohibition of speaking Turkish in workplaces and public places. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 30 - Item 6
Recently, a wrestler in the Bulgarian national team, at a tournament in Budapest, loudly and fully described for Turkish television the serious violation of rights and liberties of the Turkish minority to which he belonged. The wrestler, Büyamin Macef, reported deaths which had occurred during this inhumane assimilation campaign. Unfortunately, we do not know what happened to him on his return to Bulgaria and we fear for him. The Council of Europe today is the only political, international organisation in Europe whose main concern is with the defence of human rights. To such a flagrant and serious situation as that of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria we, the member governments of the Council of Europe, must act vigorously vis-à-vis the Bulgarian authorities, both bilaterally and in concert. For this purpose, the meeting of experts in Ottawa on human rights under the aegis of the CSCE appeared as an appropriate forum for our countries to express to the Bulgarian delegation their concern and their reprobation. Several delegations of Council of Europe member countries have acted to this effect. To varying extents, they have criticised the campaign conducted by the Bulgarian authorities and their policy of assimilation denying all the rights of the Turkish minority. We believe that such action is a duty for each of us and a collective responsibility for the Council of Europe. It should be noted that in Ottawa, the Hungarian delegation took a similar line. Interestingly, no Eastern European delegation sought to justify the Bulgarian policy. The aim of the Government of the Republic of Turkey is not to conduct a propaganda campaign against anyone. After learning of the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, the Turkish Government sought, through discreet diplomacy and bilateral approaches, to improve that minority's situation by opening the way to friendly bilateral negotiations, not excluding - as I have already said - the possibility of immigration. Unfortunately, all our efforts so far have failed. But our position remains unchanged and the channel we have opened remains so. We still have hopes of achieving a solution which would enable the Turkish minority to escape from the unendurable situation in which it finds itself. The problem is still there and must not be forgotten. Along these lines, we believe that it is the duty and the responsibility of the Members of the Council of Europe to undertake action in the three directions proposed in Notes No. 5431." The Representative of Switzerland, without being able to judge all the details of the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, was none the less convinced that that situation was disturbing. It was accordingly appropriate that the member States of the Council of Europe, by virtue and on the basis of the nature of the Organisation and the objectives it had set itself, should contribute to the improvement of that situation. CONFIDENTIAL - 31 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 6
He agreed with the action proposals suggested in Notes No. 5431, particularly that concerning a public declaration accompanied by an appeal to the Bulgarian Government. This proposal should be given priority examination, which would not prevent it from being combined with the other two proposals made in the same document, viz: - a request to member governments to raise the question in the context of the CSCE during the present Ottawa meeting, and, - a diplomatic démarche to the Bulgarian authorities. With this in mind, he would wish that the Secretary General submit to the Deputies at their 387th meeting (June 1985) a draft public declaration and possibly a draft Recommendation to member States with a view to diplomatic démarches to the Bulgarian authorities. Lastly, the question should be raised in the CSCE framework at the Ottawa meeting on human rights. The Representative of Sweden said that the question of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria had been discussed in the Swedish parliament where the Swedish Foreign Minister had reported that he had taken the matter up during a recent visit to Bulgaria. He saw the Ottawa meeting as the multilateral framework in which this question should be raised, and hoped that progress would be made through bilateral channels between Turkey and Bulgaria. Referring to the recent preliminary draft Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly concerning the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, he wished concrete collaboration to be arranged between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers on this subject. In this connection, the Hamburg mini-session (July 1985) could provide the first opportunity for practical implementation of such co-operation. The Representative of Belgium said that the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria principally raised the issue of the Bulgarian Government's international obligations with regard to the respect of the human rights of national minorities. Accordingly, the question ought to be discussed in a multilateral framework, particularly at Ottawa at the meeting of experts on the respect by the signatories to the Helsinki Final Act of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Recalling that some European countries had already acted along these lines in the course of the present Ottawa meeting, he thought, supported by the Representatives of Italy, Greece and Austria, that the end of that meeting should be awaited so as to find out what the Bulgarian Government's reactions were and to enable the Council of Europe member States to consider any further steps they might take. The Representative of the United Kingdom recalled that his Foreign Minister had raised the question of the Turkish minority with the Bulgarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and had asked for foreign journalists to be able to enjoy greater freedom in Bulgaria for the purpose of making a better assessment of the situation. The Bulgarian Government denied the existence of the Turkish minority; the United Kingdom representative at the Ottawa meeting had expressed his disquiet regarding that denial. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 32 - Item 6
He could go along with the suggestion of the Representative of Switzerland with regard to the Committee of Ministers taking a joint stand, and supported the Swedish proposal concerning joint action by the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. In this context, the Parliamentary Assembly should be given sufficient time to publish a Resolution on the subject, which could be followed by a joint statement by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General. The Representative of Italy agreed with the Representative of Belgium that the question should be dealt with in international fora, particularly in Ottawa. The Italian Government was not able at the present stage to act on the suggestion for bilateral diplomatic démarches to the Bulgarian authorities. The Representative of Greece said that his country had always shown the greatest sympathy towards all national minorities; such minorities also existed on the territory of certain Council of Europe member States. He had some doubts about the Information supplied by the Representative of Turkey regarding the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, particularly concerning the figure of one million people. He had just received a telegram from the Greek Consul General in Istanbul, reporting the destruction of an 18th-century Orthodox church in a village near Istanbul. His government had made representations to the Turkish authorities and Unesco to avoid this destruction and he reserved the possibility of raising this question at a forthcoming meeting of the Ministers' Deputies. The Representative of Portugal said that the recent Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in Vienna had adopted a Resolution on the observance of human rights in the world; the Resolution was not in any way restricted geographically and hence also applied to the respect of human rights in the countries of Eastern Europe. The action suggested on Notes No. 5431 was neither very up-to-date nor very realistic. The suggestion that the governments of Council of Europe member States raise the question of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria at the Ottawa meeting had come too late insofar as some States had already done so. Furthermore, making a public declaration entailed first achieving unanimity in the Committee of Ministers, of which there seemed to be little likelihood, especially remembering that at the 76th Session of the Committee of Ministers (25 April 1985) the Turkish delegation's proposal to include a paragraph on the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria in the final communiqué had been rejected. Regarding the statement by the Representative of Greece concerning the non-observance of human rights in Council of Europe member countries, if this was in fact the case, the question should be examined, but not in connection with the problem at present before the Ministers' Deputies. CONFIDENTIAL - 33 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 6
The Representative of France pointed out that the Helsinki Final Act contained a passage concerning national or regional cultural minorities and thought that the Ottawa meeting was consequently the most appropriate place in which to raise the question. Moreover, the French representative at the Ottawa meeting had done so. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that the leader of his country's delegation to the Ottawa meeting had also raised the question most forcefully. He agreed that the Ottawa meeting was the most appropriate forum in which to raise the problem, but could agree to any action (public declaration, diplomatic démarche, etc.) favoured by a majority of Deputies. The Federal Republic of Germany had already taken bilateral steps: the Foreign Minister, Mr H-D. Genscher, had raised the matter during his visit to Sofia on 7 March 1985 with Foreign Minister Mladenow and with Politburo member Balew during the latter's visit to Bonn on 10 May 1985. Lastly, he was in favour of joint action between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers. The Representative of Cyprus stated that Turkey still occupied 37% of the territory of Cyprus, consequently violating the rights of the island's inhabitants. For this reason his delegation could not agree to any of the action proposed as long as the situation in Cyprus had not been definitely resolved. The Representative of Switzerland pointed out that the Ottawa meeting was due to end on 15 June 1985; should the results achieved not be satisfactory the Council of Europe would have to act quickly, as the Ministers' Deputies would not be meeting; again until September 1985. The Representative of Turkey, after expressing his thanks for the constructive contributions that had been made, said he was prepared to accept the various possibilities suggested and that he expected a responsible attitude on the part of the Council of Europe, which had various ways and means at its disposal. The Ottawa meeting, although still continuing, had reached the final report stage; it would soon be over, so intervention by delegations which had not yet done so would be useful. As the Representative of the United Kingdom had suggested, a joint declaration signed by the Secretary General and the President of the Assembly could also be considered. In any case, it was clear that one form of action did not preclude another. Thus a decision could accordingly be taken along the lines suggested by the Secretariat. He agreed with the point of view expressed by the Representative of Greece concerning minorities, and his country was closely observing the situation of a minority living in one member country of the Council of Europe, deeply feeling and sharing its tribulations. The situation in Bulgaria was different; the figure put forward was a conservative estimate based on Bulgarian and international sources. Regarding the church which was said to have been destroyed in Istanbul, he had no precise information; in the newspaper which had mentioned the subject, he had seen no reference to destruction. He could give numerous examples of mosques in Istanbul which had unfortunately had to be destroyed for town-planning reasons. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 34 - Item 6
Furthermore, although he had no precise figures to hand, he could supply numerous examples of mosques destroyed in Greece for various reasons. However, this was not the place to discuss that and to confuse different subjects for polemical reasons. Cyprus was quite a different matter: the rights of one of the country's two communities had been violated in the past, a subject on which there was a great deal to be said, but there was no need to try to make connections with quite separate subjects. Lastly, he asked for the situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria to be placed on the agenda for the 387th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (June 1985). The Chairman, summing up, noted that several initiatives had been taken through bilateral channels, and also in the multilateral framework during the ongoing Ottawa meeting. With regard to action by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the general impression was that the outcome of the Ottawa meeting should be awaited before taking any further steps. A decision could then be taken as to whether the Committee of Ministers should take action, whether or not it should be taken in concert with the Parliamentary Assembly and what form it might take. During the present discussion, some had thought that a public declaration would be a futile exercise. However, this possibility should be considered after the Ottawa meeting, as could the possibility of combining several types of action.
Later in the meeting, the Representative of Turkey said that, having in the meantime received information from his authorities, he wished to add to the statement he had made in reply to another delegation concerning a church which had allegedly been demolished in Istanbul. In the old suburb of Bakirkö'y, expropriations had been in progress for some ten years in the framework of town planning, in order to build a main road, compulsory purchase orders had been made for a large number of public and private buildings, including mosques and hospitals. St George's Church, which was in the path of the new road, had not been demolished, but one of the walls was to be moved back some metres, without altering its appearance or impairing the building's aesthetic or historical value. He had also received from his authorities a list of mosques and monuments demolished in Greece, the most important being the Tabakhane Mosque at Xanti. He stressed that his delegation had always refrained from using this forum for propaganda, or polemical purposes and would continue to do so, as far as possible, also in future. The Representative of Greece took note of the statement of the Representative of Turkey, but was surprised to learn that it was architecturally possible for a wall to be moved back without the building collapsing. CONFIDENTIAL- 35 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 6
The Secretary to the Committee recalled in this connection the existence in Venice, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, of a Centre for Training Craftsmen in the Conservation of the Architectural Heritage whose aim was precisely to provide technical solutions to problems of this sort. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item, in the light of the results on this matter of the CSCE meeting currently going on in Ottawa on human rights, at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 37 - 3M/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 7
7. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF X AND Y Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C39 of 2.4.85)
The Representative of the Netherlands said that he was not in a position to furnish at the present meeting any information on the measures taken in execution of the judgment of the Court. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 388th meeting (September 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 39 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 8
8. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE MARCKX CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)376/17, Letter HD/C26 of 15.6.79)
The Representative of Belgium recalled that several years had already passed since his Government had introduced a draft Bill reforming the filiation and adoption legislation in execution of the judgment of the Court of 13 June 1979. While parliamentary work on this matter had made little progress until the previous year, it now seemed to be moving ahead and it could be expected that the Senate would be completing its consideration of the Bill before the summer recess. The procedure before the House of Representatives should then be put in hand. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at one of their forthcoming meetings.
CONFIDENTIAL - 41 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 9 9. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CAMPBELL AND COSANS CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)379/14, Letters HD/C22 of 15.3.82 and HD/C21 of 29.3.83)
The Representative of the United Kingdom said that draft legislation concerning corporal punishment in schools had been introduced by his Government and that it was presently under consideration in the House of Lords. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 389th meeting (October 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 43 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 10
10. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE MCQOFF CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)382/15, Letter HD/C88 of 7.11.84)
A vote on the text of the Resolution as it appears at Appendix 3 to these Conclusions produced the following result: 17 for, 0 against, no abstentions. Decision The Deputies adopted Resolution DH(85)10 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human rights of 26 October 1984 in the McGoff case, as it appears at Appendix 3 to these Conclusions.
CONFIDENTIAL - 45 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 11
11. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE S KOOGSTROM CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)382/13, Letters HD/C83 of 25.11.84)
The Representative of Sweden said that he had transmitted to the Secretariat the receipt for the payment by the Swedish Government of the sum of 5,000 Swedish Crowns in accordance with the friendly settlement in this case. He recalled that at the 382nd meeting the Deputies had examined this case on the basis of a draft Resolution prepared by the Secretariat which had again been reproduced at the Appendix to the Notes on the agenda for the present meeting. He also recalled that the Representative of the United Kingdom and the Representative of Ireland had suggested modifications to the draft Resolution. The Representative of Switzerland said that his authorities could accept the draft Resolution prepared by the Secretariat and reproduced at the Appendix to the Notes. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that the Notes on this item had appeared very late and therefore he asked for postponement of the consideration of this item. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 47 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 12
12. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)382/17, Letter HD/C47 of 21.6.84)
A vote on the text of the Resolution as it appears at Appendix 4 to these Conclusions produced the following result: 18 for, 0 against, no abstentions. Decision The Deputies adopted Resolution DH(85)11 concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human rights of 22 May 1984 in the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case, as it appears at Appendix 4 to these Conclusions.
NFLDENTIAL - 49 - CM/Del/Conel(85)386 Item 13
13. BIONDO AGAINST ITALY Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)381/15, Letter HD/C34 of 18.4.84)
The Representative of Italy recalled that at the 381st meeting he had informed the Committee that he would supply the Secretariat with a summary of the information he had received from his authorities in this case. The information had been transmitted to the Secretariat a few days prior to the present discussion. The representative of the Secretariat said that the information transmitted by the Italian Government concerning the reform of domestic legislation on the point which had been raised in the Opinion of the European Commission of Human Rights would be included in a Committee of Ministers document which the Deputies could consider at one of their forthcoming meetings. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 51 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 14
14. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH) Report of the 17th Meeting (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) (CM(85)123, Add. I, II and III)
The Representative of the United Kingdom, seconded by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, requested the postponement of this item for three reasons: the documents had been late, two important decisions were being put to the Deputies for adoption, namely a draft Recommendation and a draft Resolution which he personally would prefer to be considered separately, and these were matters which might have budget implications. The Representative of France read out the following extract from a communiqué of the French Council of Ministers of 29 May 1985: "The Minister for External Relations has submitted to the Council of Ministers a bill authorising ratification of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning abolition of the death penalty. The President of the Republic having referred the matter to it under Article 54 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Council has decided that the Protocol does not contain any clause contrary to the Constitution. In proposing that the Protocol be ratified, in accordance with the Act of 9 October 1981, the Government confirms its resolve to accede to all international conventions embodying and safeguarding human rights. The Minister for External Relations has submitted to the Council of Ministers a bill authorising ratification of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatement or Punishment. The Convention, opened for signature in New York on 4 February 1985, has already been signed by twenty countries. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 52 - Item 14
It sets up a dual system of combating torture: - first, it makes torture a criminal offence and authorises the prosecution of torturers, whatever their place of residence, once they are in the territory of a state party to the Convention; - second, in common with other human rights agreements, it provides for a supervisory body to which states are answerable for acts of torture committed on their territory. Ratification of the Convention will strengthen and extend protection of the rights secured to the individual by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which France has been party since 1974 and 1981 respectively." The Representative of Austria welcomed this statement, and hoped to see France shortly accede to the Protocol. Decision The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item to their 387th meeting (June 1985, for consideration at A level). CONFIDENTIAL - 53 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 15
15. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN AND DE MEYERE CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)378/15, Letters HD/C38 of 1.7.81 and HD/C83 of 28.10.82)
The Representative of Belgium said he had transmitted to the Secretariat the text of the Act of 13 March 1985 concerning public conduct of disciplinary proceedings before the Appeals Boards of the Order of Physicians and the Order of Pharmacists which in the view of his government gave full satisfaction to the requirements set out by the European Court in its judgment of 23 June 1981. He added that the Secretariat had also been provided with proof of the payment to the applicants' lawyer of the damages due to them. The representative of the Secretariat paid tribute to the Belgian Government for the measures taken and said that the Secretariat would prepare a draft Resolution under Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights to be considered at the June meeting of the Deputies. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985) on the basis of a draft Resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat.
CONFIDENTIAL - 55 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 16
16. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE ALBERT AND LE COMPTE CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights Concl(84)378/18, Letters HD/C12 of 1.3.83 and HD/C88 of 16.11.83)
The Representative of Belgium said that he had transmitted to the Secretariat the text of the Act of 13 March 1985 concerning public conduct of disciplinary proceedings before the Appeals Boards of the Order of Physicians and the Order of Pharmacists which in the view of his government gave full satisfaction to the requirements set out by the European court in its judgment of 10 February 1983. He added that the Secretariat had also been provided with proof of the payment to Dr Le Compte's lawyer of the damages due to the former. The representative of the Secretariat paid tribute to the Belgian Government for the measures taken and said that the Secretariat would prepare a draft Resolution under Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights to be considered at the June meeting of the Deputies. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985) on the basis of a draft Resolution to be prepared by the Secretariat.
CONFIDENTIAL - 57 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 17
17. JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE PIERSACK CASE Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)379/20 and 384/7, Letters HD/C81 of 25.10.82 and HD/C87 of 6.11.84)
A vote on the text of the Resolution as it appears at Appendix 5 to these Conclusions produced the following result: 18 for, 0 against, no abstentions. Decision The Deputies adopted Resolution DH(85)12 concerning the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights of 1 October 1982 and 26 October 1984 in the Piersack case, as it appears at Appendix 5 to these Conclusions.
CONFIDENTIAL - 59 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 18
18. T. AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(85)381/14 and 384/9, Letter HD/C14 of 7.2.84)
The Representative of the United Kingdom asked for a further adjournment of this case. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 390th meeting (November 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 61 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 19
19. STEERING COMMITTEE ON THE MASS MEDIA (CDMM) Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 26 February - 1 March 1985) (Concl(85)384/10, CM(85)84)
CDMM's message concerning the Green Paper "Television without frontiers" (Appendix IV to CM(85)84) The Representative of the Netherlands said that since the CDMM's message contained some rather far-reaching implications, his authorities were still studying it. Accordingly he would appreciate postponement of any decision on this aspect until the following meeting. The Representative of Norway said that his authorities felt that despite its title, "Television without frontiers" could in fact give rise to television with frontiers. Accordingly they felt that the Committee of Ministers should act rapidly and forward the content of the CDMM's message to the Commission of the European Communities. His delegation was flexible with regard to the manner in which the content of the message might be forwarded, although it had a preference for a message from the Committee of Ministers itself. The essential point was that a message should be sent without delay, as the matter was already at present being studied within the Commission of the Communities. The Representative of Sweden supported the proposal to send a message to those concerned within the European Community. The role of the Council of Europe in the media field was of great importance. He recalled that during the work which had led up to the adoption in December 1984 of Recommendation No. R(84)22 on the use of satellite capacity for television and sound radio, there had been some attempt on the part of the Commission of the Communities to delay the text or have it amended. He was glad that in the event the Deputies had adopted the Recommendation unanimously. With regard to the message concerning the Greeai Paper, he pointed out that it reflected the unanimous view of the CDMM experts. He therefore felt that there was no need to await: further reactions from capitals; the content of the message should be forwarded as soon as possible in whatever form was considered appropriate. The Representative of Austria said that like the Norwegian authorities his authorities also saw a danger that the ideas advanced in the Green Paper could lead to the establishment of frontiers in television. He therefore agreed with the two previous speakers on the need for forwarding the content of the message as a matter of urgency. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 62 - Item 19
The Representative of Denmark said that the position of his authorities was similar to that expressed by his colleagues from Norway, Sweden and Austria. Certain aspects of the Green Paper had aroused considerable concern with his authorities, and they too felt that it could lead to the creation of frontiers that did not at present exist. On the question of the manner of forwarding the message, his delegation suggested that the CDMM might itself send it to the Commission of the Communities, but the essential point was that the message must get through to the Commission. The Representatives of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Spain and Switzerland were also in favour of the content of the message being communicated to the European Communities. The Representative of Belgium said that the field of television was one that merited the widest possible European co-operation, but one could not disregard the particular fields of responsibility which lay on either side. The European Community had responsibility for economic and market aspects, while the Council of Europe was involved more with the content of television programmes and their impact on society. This being so, he said that while he could accept the principle of a message being sent to the Commission, he was not happy with the somewhat alarmist language of the text drawn up by the CDMM. A message could say, for example, that the Committee of Ministers felt that there was a need among the 21 to complement the economic and market aspects covered by the Green Paper with certain value considerations, and that therefore a way should be found to enable the Council of Europe and the Community to discuss the various aspects of media policy together. The Representative of Austria pointed out that the CDMM did not contest the competence of the Commission of the European Communities to address the economic and market aspects of television, indeed it had specifically spelled this out in the fifth paragraph of the message. The CDMM had nevertheless expressed a certain apprehension, regarding in particular the manner in which the Commission of the Communities had dealt with the matter. The Committee of Ministers should adopt a message along the lines of the advice given by the CDMM. The Representative of Italy warned the Deputies against getting lost in a consideration of the respective competence of the two institutions to address the economic, market, aesthetic, etc aspects of television. What was clear was that certain work had been carried out in the Council of Europe which should be taken into account by the Commission of the European Communities. The only question that remained therefore was how to input the Council of Europe work into the Commission's ongoing consideration of the matter. CONFIDENTIAL - 63 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 19
The Representative of Luxembourg said that his authorities could well understand the preoccupations of States that were not members of the European Community. That said, however, he wondered whether the authors of the message had really understood the Green Paper. The CDMM had expressed the fear that the provisions envisaged by the Green Paper would not favour the development of autonomous European productions, but he himself doubted whether that was what the Green Paper actually implied in its provisions. In conclusion he said that any message to the Commission of the Communities would have to be considerably more nuanced than the text adopted by the CDMM. Following further discussion on the content of a possible message and the form it might take, the Chairman concluded that there were three major aspects. First there was the question of the principle of sending a message to the Commission of the European Communities, secondly there was the question of its content (and here he pointed out that if the Deputies modified in any way, however slightly, the text adopted by the CDMM it would no longer be a CDMM message but a message from the Committee of Ministers), and thirdly there was the question of the manner in which it might be communicated to the Commission. He called for an indicative vote on the principle of sending a message, the result of which was as follows: 15 in favour, 3 against, 1 abstention (carried). He later ascertained that there was no objection to converting the indicative vote into a final vote. He concluded that there would be no point in discussing the content of the message, what would be forwarded would be the text as adopted by the CDMM as it appears at Appendix IV to CM(85)84. The Representative of Belgium wondered whether this would not be the first time that the Committee of Ministers had forwarded a message from a committee of experts. He pointed out that the message in question had political aspects, and there was a risk that it might be inferred that the Committee of Ministers endorsed the content of the message it had decided to forward. The Chairman replied that that aspect could be dealt with in the covering letter. The Representative of Italy, in an explanation of vote, said that while his delegation was in favour of the principle of forwarding a message, it shared the doubts of the Belgian delegation about forwarding to the Commission of the European Communities a message that reflected only the views of the experts who had drafted it. In particular, his delegation objected to the words "in conformity with the particular objectives of the European Community" in the fifth paragraph of the message; there was the question of the competence of the Community in cultural matters, as well as its competence to address the economic and market aspects of television. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 64 - Item 19
The Representative of Luxembourg said that as far as his authorities were concerned the message did not correctly reflect the content of the Green Paper, which was understandable, as there were few who could grasp the import of that document. This being so, it should be made clear that the message in no way reflected the position of his government. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to prepare for consideration the draft of a covering letter to accompany the message when it was forwarded to the Commission of the European Communities.
At a later stage of the meeting, the Secretary to the Committee distributed the text of the following draft covering letter, which he had prepared in consultation with certain of the delegations more directly interested: "At the request of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, I have the honour to forward to you herewith the text of a message which the Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM) adopted at its 9th meeting (26 February - 1 March 1985) on the Green Paper "Television without frontiers" and addressed to the Committee of Ministers for transmission to the Commission of the European Communities. In forwarding the text, I wish to inform you that the Committee of Ministers has not taken a stand regarding the content of this message." The Representative of Austria, supported by the Representatives of Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, proposed that the second paragraph of the draft letter be deleted, since the first paragraph contained all that needed to be said. The Representative of Luxembourg was not bothered about the second paragraph, as it reflected reality, but felt that the letter should make it clearer that the message was the statement of a position adopted by a committee of experts. The Representative of Denmark, who could fully agree to the deletion of the second paragraph, suggested that the first paragraph should be rewritten in a lighter form. The Secretary to the Committee read a redraft of the first paragraph, which is reflected in decision 1 below. The result of a vote on deletion of the second paragraph of the draft letter gave the following result: 11 in favour, 1 against, 5 abstentions (carried). The Representative of Luxembourg pointed out for the record that in its terms the letter was in no way binding on delegations to the Committee of Ministers with regard to the text of the message. CONFIDENTIAL - 65 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 19
Status of the Committee of Legal Experts in the Media Field (MM-JU) The Chairman pointed out that, as stated in the Notes on the agenda for this item, the Deputies were invited to take a stand, in the light of the opinion given by the CDMM (see item 5b in CM(85)84) following the request of the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) that the matter be studied (see CM(85)4, page 21), on the possibility of transforming the MM-JU into a joint committee under the authority of both the CDMM and the CDCJ. In paragraph 32 of CM(85)84 it was stated that "the CDMM was not in favour of the structural reform suggested by the CDCJ and reaffirmed that the CDMM and its subordinate committees were at all times ready to employ all possible forms of co-operation, both at committee and Secretariat level, to ensure the necessary cohesion of the work". The Representatives of Austria and Sweden fully supported the views of the CDMM. The Representative of Norway felt that the problem of ensuring the necessary cohesion of the work could be solved at the level of the Secretariat. The Representative of the Netherlands said that his authorities felt that the quality of the advice given by the MM-JU would be enhanced if it were made answerable to both the CDMM and the CDCJ. The Representatives of France and Switzerland were in favour of maintaining the status quo. The result of a vote in favour of maintaining the status quo was as follows: 11 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions (carried). Decisions The Deputies 1. decided to transmit to the Commission of the European Communities the text of the CDMM's message concerning the Green Paper "Television without frontiers" (Appendix IV to CM(85)84), and accordingly asked the Secretary General to send the following letter to the President of the Commission: "Dear Sir, At the request of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, I have the honour to forward to you herewith the text of a message which the Steering Committee on the Mass Media. (CDMM) adopted at its 9th meeting (26 February - 1 March 1985) on the Green Paper "Television without frontiers" of the Commission of the European Communities. This message was addressed to the Committee of Ministers by the CDMM with the wish that it be transmitted as a matter of urgency to the Commission.
Yours sincerely,"; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 66 - Item 19
2. noted that the CDMM has executed the ad hoc terms of reference assigned to it (and to the CDCC) by Decision No. CM/342/250984 to formulate opinions on Resolutions No. I, on culture and communications technology, and on Resolution No. V, on the distribution of video cassettes portraying violence and brutality, adopted by the 4th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs; 3. agreed to revert to their consideration of the follow-up to be given to Resolutions No. I and V (see decision 2 above) of the 4th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs once they have received the opinions of the CDCC thereon; 4. took note of the CDMM's decisions (see item 7 in CM(85)84) with regard to the following three activities appearing in the 1985 work programme of the Committee of Experts on Media Policy (MM-PO): - promotion of audiovisual programmes in Europe - videograms having a violent and brutal content - local and regional broadcasting; 5. took note of the CDMM's analysis of the replies given by member States to Resolution (74)43 on press concentrations (see item 8 in CM(85)84); 6. noted the activities proposed by the CDMM for the draft work programme for 1986 and the order of priorities established by the CDMM (Appendix VII to CM(85)84 and item 10 in that document), and agreed to consider those proposals when discussing the draft Intergovermental Programme of Activities for 1986; 7. having regard to decisions 1 to 6 above, took note of the report of the 9th meeting of the CDMM (CM(85)84) as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL - 67 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 20
20. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE (CAHAQ) Final activity report (CM(85)78)
Decision The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item to their 387th meeting (June 1985, for consideration at A level).
CONFIDENTIAL - 69 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 21
21. "OPTING OUT" PROCEDURE Proposal by the Swiss delegation to give a mandate to the Committee of Experts on Public International Law (CJ-DI) (CM(85)77)
The Representative of Greece supported the Swiss proposal for terms of reference to be given on this question to the CJ-DI as outlined in document CM(85)77. The Director of Legal Affairs recalled that the opting out procedure had been applied for the first time in the Council of Europe in 1983 on the occasion of accession of the EEC to three Protocols in the public health sector, and that the CJ-DI would examine it as an element of a general study already entrusted to it by a decision of the CDCJ subsequently approved by the Committee of Ministers. The Representative of Luxembourg recalled that his country was the one which had ratified the greatest number of Council of Europe Conventions. He asked whether there were precedents of similar procedures in other organisations. He also noted that most Council of Europe Conventions were law-making ones and therefore needed parliamentary approval prior to ratification in most member States. The Director of Legal Affairs explained that the opting out procedure was not really appropriate for treaties requiring profound modifications of domestic law in which case it would result in an unwanted interference with parliamentary prerogatives. In fact, it had been used so far only for the EEC accession to the three Protocols mentioned above concerning matters now falling exclusively within the EEC competence. It was therefore necessary to ensure a speedy entry into force of those Protocols. Though there were not, to his knowledge, other precedents for the use of the opting out procedure as envisaged by Switzerland, the principle of opting out was quite commonly foreseen for modification or updating of existing treaties. In any case, the CJ-DI would not be called upon to discuss the political aspects of this matter, but only its legal and technical aspects. The Representative of Luxembourg considered that the wording of Article 11 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: "by any other means if so agreed" referred only to means of explicit expression. He also thought that the opting out procedure could be seen as a way to force the consent of parliaments, and this was counterproductive. The Representative of France said that his authorities were not in favour of having final clauses of the opting out type studied by the CD-DI. They felt that such a system, which could dangerously impair the freedom of States with regard to international commitments, seemed hardly compatible with the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 70 - Item 21
The Representative of the Netherlands said that the cause of faster ratification of Council of Europe treaties would be better served by a more thorough preparation of them. The Representative of Portugal drew attention to the fact that not only parliament, but also several Ministries might be involved in ratification procedures and that no time pressure should be put on them. He was also opposed to the enquiry into the reasons for delays in ratification which the Director of Legal Affairs had proposed to the working party on working methods, because the reasons were often of a delicate political nature. On these various grounds he was against the proposed terms of reference to the CJ-DI. The Representative of Belgium, supported by the Representative of Cyprus, proposed enlarging the mandate to the CJ-DI, to embrace the study of all possible means of speeding up the entry into force of Conventions, taking possible constitutional implications into account. The Representative of Switzerland agreed to this proposal. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany was in favour of the study being entrusted to the CJ-DI. He made it nevertheless clear that taking into account constitutional law and practice the opting out procedure was questionable if one thought only of the time pressure under which parliaments might come. The Representative of Austria, though his country had not been in favour of the opting out clause for Protocol No. 8 to the Human Rights Convention, was able to support this Swiss proposal that the matter be studied. The Representatives of Denmark and Norway considered that the CJ-DI should study the matter in the general context of ratification procedures, but saw difficulties in giving it a priority mandate, since the CJ-DI was due to meet only in January 1986. Replying to the Representatives of the United Kingdom and France, the Director of Legal Affairs stated that the Secretariat had recently raised this question at the 43rd meeting of the CDCJ and the CDCJ had confirmed that it was advisable that the CJ-DI study the opting out procedure within the framework of its comparative study on the means by which member States expressed their consent to be bound by a treaty. Concerning priority, the CJ-DI meeting in January 1986 would have to be devoted to the study of the draft UN Convention on treaties concluded between States and international organisations, which was the subject of a UN diplomatic conference to be convened early 1986. A decision on a second meeting needed in 1986 would be taken by the Deputies during their budget discussions. If a second meeting was not approved there would be no possibility of starting the study until 1987. Concluding, he stressed that although the CJ-DI was entrusted with such a study, the concrete application of the opting out procedure would, in any event, be left to the Committee of Ministers to decide on a case by case basis, according to the subject matter of the individual treaties in question and to more political considerations. This meant that each delegation would be able to take account of its own constitutional requirements. CONFIDENTIAL - 71 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 21
The Representative of Luxembourg reiterated that the value of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties lay in its universality, and that there should not be a sort of "regional" international law. The Representative of Portugal urged the CJ-DI, should it be entrusted with the proposed study, to confine itself to the essential aspects of the matter. The Representative of the Netherlands feared that should a State be obliged to oppose the entry into force of a treaty under the opting out procedure, just for reasons of time, public opinion might receive an unjustified bad impression. The Representative of Portugal proposed consulting the Legal Affairs Committee of the Assembly during the mini-session in Hamburg. An enlarged mandate for the CJ-DI was approved by 12 votes in favour, 3 against and 3 abstentions. However, the Chairman noted that no decision was in reality necessary since the CJ-DI would be considering in the framework of its comparative study of the means by which member States expressed their consent to be bound by a treaty, the various procedures of entry into force of a treaty, including the "opting out" procedure.
CONFIDENTIAL - 73 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 22
22. RECOMMENDATION NO R(85).. ON LEGAL DUTIES OF DOCTORS VIS-A-VIS THEIR PATIENTS (Concl(85)383/16d)
The Representatives of Cyprus, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal and Italy supported the Liechtenstein proposal to delete Article 3.2 from the Rules appended to the Recommendation and paragraph 19 from the explanatory memorandum thereto. The Representative of Switzerland, supported by the Representatives of Belgium and Cyprus, proposed seeking the opinion of the European Health Committee (CDSP) first. The Representatives of the Netherlands and Greece wondered whether this was feasible under the rules in force, or whether it would necessitate a prior revocation of the Recommendation. The Representative of Austria said his authorities were happy with the text as it stood but, as they had not opposed the reopening of the debate, they would not oppose sending the text back to the CDSP if this was the wish of the majority. The Representative of the United Kingdom considered that, since the Committee of Ministers had adopted the Recommendation in its original text, it was competent to modify it itself. The Representative of Norway recalled that he had entered reservations in respect of Article 3.2 at the time of adoption; he thought therefore that it was appropriate to study the matter once again. Replying to the Representatives of Liechtenstein and Sweden, the Deputy Director of Legal Affairs said that the text of the Recommendation had been drafted by a committee of experts, which had inserted Article 3.2 after modifying a proposal of an observer. The text had then been submitted to the CDSP and the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ); a proposal to delete Article 3.2 had been put to both Committees, but had not been adopted. In reply to a question put by the Chairman, the Deputy Director of Legal Affairs explained that at their 383rd meeting, the Deputies had decided under an exceptional procedure not provided by the regulations to reopen the debate on the question of whether one particular paragraph should be deleted or amended. The text of the Recommendation was therefore an adopted text under the suspensive condition of a new examination of Article 3, paragraph 2. It followed that a new vote on the Recommendation as a whole would not be taken. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 74 - Item 22
The Representative of Liechtenstein pointed out that while he had questioned the merits of one aspect of the Recommendation, it might well be that amendments would be proposed to other Articles as well. The Representative of the Netherlands said that in that case there was all the more reason for sending back to the CDSP this matter which was becoming quite complicated. The Representative of Portugal saw no real difference between taking a decision at Deputy level or consulting the CDSP; he also pointed to the political and juridical nature of a Recommendation, which was quite different from that of a Convention. Replying to the Representatives of Ireland and Greece, the Deputy Director of Legal Affairs confirmed that the Recommendation had not yet been formally notified by the Secretary General to the member States. However, this did not change anything in the legal nature of the text, which was a legally valid and applicable text from the moment of adoption. The Deputy Director of Legal Affairs also warned the Committee of the risk of endangering further the legal certainty of Council of Europe instruments, should the discussion go beyond the limits of the precise question raised in respect of Article 3.2. In view of this, terms of reference to the CDSP, if any, should clearly be confined to the study of Article 3.2. The Representative of Norway recalled that any decision concerning the text of a Recommendation must be taken by consensus. An indicative vote on the Swiss proposal to refer Article 3.2 of the Recommendation back to the CDSP for opinion gave the following result: 15 in favour, none against, and 3 abstentions. The Representative of Switzerland added that she did not propose also consulting the CDCJ in order not to delay the matter unduly. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that he had to make the following reservations on two Articles of the Recommendation: "The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declares its reservation against Article 3, paragraph 1, and against Article 5, paragraph 2. In the Federal Republic of Germany more precisely differentiating rules have been developed concerning the need for consent of the patient with respect to a medical intervention". The Director of Legal Affairs said that under the Rules of Procedure of the Deputies, reservations must be formulated at the time of adoption. Since the Recommendation had been adopted at the 382nd meeting, it was too late to enter new reservations at the present stage. The only way to make it possible would be by reopening the debate also on the provisions to which the reservations would be made; in this respect he launched an appeal to the Deputies not to do so, in order not to hamper again the fundamental principle of legal certainty of the Council of Europe instruments. CONFIDENTIAL - 75 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 22
Following a suggestion by the Deputy Director of Legal Affairs the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that he would be satisfied if his declarations were recorded in the Conclusions of the present meeting. The Chairman proceeded to the formalisation of the indicative vote above, whose result was confirmed. Decisions The Deputies 1. instructed the Secretariat to ask the European Health Committee (CDSP) to give its opinion on the amendment proposed by the Liechtenstein delegation at their 383rd meeting (April 1985, item 16d) and relating to Article 3.2 of the Rules appended to Recommendation No R(85)3 on the legal duties of doctors vis-à-vis their patients; 2. agreed to resume consideration of this question in the light of the CDSP's opinion, at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 77 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 23
23. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF TERRITORIAL ASYLUM, REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS (CAHAR) Report of the 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 5-8 March 1985) (CM(85)116)
Decision The Deputies took note of the report of the 17th meeting of the CAHAR (Strasbourg, 5-8 March 1985) (CM(85)116) as a whole.
CONFIDENTIAL - 79 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 24
24. DRAFT CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF VERTEBRATE ANIMALS USED FOR EXPERIMENTAL OR OTHER SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES (Concl(85)382/18 and 384/12, CM(83)100, Add. II and III, CM(85)54, 76, 105, 106 and 107)
Following a proposal by the Representative of the United Kingdom, the Deputies proceeded to an indicative vote on the adoption of the draft Convention, which gave the following result: 16 votes in favour, 2 votes against, 1 abstention. This indicative vote was converted into a formal vote. The Representative of Austria said that in the opinion of his authorities, the Convention represented a minimum solution, which did not exclude stricter national regulations. This minimum solution should be implemented as soon as possible, but at the same time and on the basis of the Convention, experts should continue discussions in order to achieve a higher level of protection of laboratory animals. The Representative of Italy said that his authorities did not think the draft Convention, as it stood, provided adequate safeguards for the protection of animals used for experimental purposes and did not therefore seem to live up to the expectations of the public. The Italian delegation regretted the fact that the other delegations had not seen fit to accept certain amendments which Italy had suggested precisely with a view to strengthening the protection afforded by the convention. Accordingly, the Italian delegation could not in any way prejudge its government's position as regards Italy's accession to the Convention. No objection having been raised to the proposal to open the Convention for signature, the Chairman concluded that the Deputies authorised that the Convention be opened for signature and, on a proposal by the Director of Legal Affairs, agreed that this be done on 20 September 1905. A vote on the proposal to authorise publication of the explanatory report gave the following result: 16 votes in favour, no votes against and 3 abstentions. On instructions from the Deputies and for their information the Secretariat distributed later in the meeting a press communiqué on the adoption of the Convention. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 80 - Item 24
Decisions The Deputies 1. adopted the European Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (CM(85)107 and 76), including its Appendices A and B (Add. II to CM(83)100 and pages 47-54 of CM(85)54 and Add. III to CM(83)100) and decided to open it for signature on 20 September 1985 on the occasion of their 388th meeting; 2. authorised publication of the explanatory report to the Convention (CM(85)106). CONFIDENTIAL - 81 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 25
25. CONVENTION ON OFFENCES RELATING TO CULTURAL PROPERTY Date for the opening for signature (Concl(85)379/29, 382/3 and 384/13)
The Representative of Greece said that soundings he had made had shown that on the occasion of the Delphi Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs several States would be able to sign the Convention on offences relating to cultural property. Signature might take place on 23 June 1985. The Chairman asked each State in turn for its position. It emerged that the following would very probably sign the Convention at Delphi: Cyprus, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy and Portugal. The Representative of Liechtenstein considered signature by his authorities very likely. The Director of Legal Affairs said that, if the Ministers signing the Convention were not Ministers of Foreign Affairs, they would need plenary powers. These could either be sent to the Secretariat in Strasbourg before 23 June 1985 or handed over in Delphi at the signing. Decision The Deputies decided to open the Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property for signature at Delphi on 23 June 1985 on the occasion of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs.
CONFIDENTIAL - 83 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 26 26. PENALISATION OF TORTURE AS SUCH Consideration of the ad hoc terms of reference to be given to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC)
The Director of Legal Affairs presented draft terms of reference to be given to the CDPC Bureau and amended with the Greek delegation's agreement. The Representative of Cyprus said that his delegation in supporting the Greek proposal wished to congratulate the Government of the Republic of Greece for having pioneered in this field by already enacting legislation penalising torture as such. His delegation believed that in view of the frequent use of torture it should be defined as an offence attracting special punishment, and agreed to the terms of reference. The Representative of Switzerland approved the proposed version but suggested that before its Bureau's meeting the Secretariat should send heads of CDPC delegations the following questions: - Is torture, as defined in the draft Council of Europe Convention against torture, a criminal offence under your country's criminal code? If not, what provisions of the criminal code would apply to acts of torture? On the basis of the replies received, the Secretariat could prepare a consolidated report to be sent to members of the CDPC. The Representative of Greece agreed with this proposal. The Director of Legal Affairs said he would implement the proposal as soon as possible. In reply to the Representative of Luxembourg, the Director of Legal Affairs said the Swiss proposal would indeed entail considering the possibility of incorporating into national legislation the principle of universality in this matter. While approving the Greek proposal, the Representatives of Belgium, Sweden and Portugal wondered whether the Committee of Ministers ought not to be given time to study it. The Representative of Sweden said that other work on torture was being done, particularly in the United Nations, and that it was possible the information referred to by the Swiss delegation had already been compiled. A vote was taken on whether to postpone a decision. Four delegations were for, four against, and six abstained. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 84 - Item 26
Noting that there was not the majority necessary for a postponement, the Chairman put to the vote the proposed terms of reference, which were adopted as set out at Appendix 6 below. Decision The Deputies adopted Decision No. CM/359/310585 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Bureau of the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC-BU), as it appears at Appendix 6 to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL - 85 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 27
27. 3RD CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN MINISTERS OF LABOUR Report of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the preparation of the Conference (Strasbourg, 25-27 March 1985) (CM(85)101)
Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the modalities for the preparation of the 3rd Conference, as set out in CM(85)101; 2. noted that the Assembly will be invited to be represented by a delegation at the 3rd Conference (CM(85)101, paragraph 15); 3. took note of the conclusions of the Committee of Senior Officials concerning the association of management and labour organisations (European Trade Union Confederation and the Union of Industries of the European Community) with the work of the Conference, in the form of hearings or a joint hearing, before the opening of the 3rd Conference; 4. took note of the report of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of senior officials (CM(85)101) as a whole.
CONFIDENTIAL - 87 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 28
28. LIAISON COMMITTEE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR (LCML) Second meeting (Strasbourg, 18-19 February 1985) Meeting report (CM(85)113 and Corr.)
Following a suggestion by the Representative of Austria, the Chairman noted that the arrangements made for the second meeting of the Liaison Committee to permit Permanent Representatives other than members of the Bureau of the Deputies to participate in its work (Concl(85)379, item 30) had proved satisfactory and would be continued until further notice. In reply to a question from the Representative of Sweden, the Head of Plan and Programme Division confirmed that arrangements had been made to allow all the steering committees concerned by the Liaison Committee's discussions to be informed of them. Dec!sions The Deputies 1. took cognisance of the views and wishes of management and labour concerning the future activities of the Council of Europe (CM(85)113, under item IV of the agenda); 2. took note of the views expressed by management and labour on the preliminary draft Protocol to the European Social Charter (CM(85)133, under item VI); 3. noted that the Liaison Committee proposes holding its next meeting in the second half of February 1986 (see CM(85)113, under item VIII); 4. in the light of decisions 1-3 above, took note of the report of the Liaison Committee (CM(85)113 and Corr.) as a whole.
CONFIDENTIAL - 89 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 29 a
29. EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER a. preliminary draft Protocol to the Charter (Concl(84)377/11, CM(84)231 Add. I and Corr., CM(85)113 and Corr.)
The Representative of Sweden thought that, if the Assembly were consulted on the preliminary draft Protocol (Addendum I to CM(84)231 and Corr.), this would make any far-reaching discussion of the text by the Deputies superfluous for the time being. He also inquired what was to be done about the comments made by the International Labour Office (ILO), included in the final activity report of the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO). He regretted that the Council of Europe seemed to be moving towards the establishment of new international social standards lower than those fixed in certain international labour Conventions. The Director of Social and Economic Affairs said that the CDSO had been made fully aware of the ILO's observations, but had not taken any stand on the matter, since the questions raised by the ILO were of outstanding political importance which it was for the Committee of Ministers to assess with a view to a final decision. If the Deputies decided to consult the Assembly at this juncture, he felt that they might defer their examination of the substance of the preliminary draft Protocol. The Representative of the United Kingdom thought that the text prepared by the CDSO was not yet "tidy" enough to be submitted to the Assembly for an opinion. Only a text which had attracted a very wide consensus among all delegations should be referred to that body. The CDSO should therefore endeavour to produce a more finalised text. The Director of Social and Economic Affairs thought that the CDSO had fully carried out the terms of reference assigned to it; he reiterated that the questions raised in the presence of the Committee of Ministers by the CDSO Chairman called for a political response on the part of the Deputies (see Concl(84)378/51c). The Representative of Norway thought that the Assembly should be consulted at this stage and should also express its opinion on the basic problems left open by the CDSO. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 90 - Item 29a
The opinion of the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, shared by the Representatives of Switzerland and Denmark, was that the CDSO should be asked to revise the preliminary draft in the light of the observations made by European trade unions and employers' associations in the context of the Liaison Committee between the Council of Europe and Management and Labour (see CM(85)113 and Corr.). The Representative of Austria, supported by the Representative of France, concurred with this proposal, provided it was agreed that the Assembly would be consulted immediately after the CDSO, in other words before the Committee of Ministers had decided on the definitive text of the Protocol. The Director of Social and Economic Affairs wondered whether the CDSO should not undertake, where necessary, to prepare variants of the text reflecting the majority and minority points of view among its members. In reply to a question, he thought that, unless any serious obstacles arose, the new preliminary draft should be available before the end of 1985. He recalled that appropriations were entered in the budget for experts to carry out further drafting work. The Chairman thought that, once the text of the draft Protocol had been revised by the CDSO, it could be communicated, under cover of the chairmanship, to the Assembly for an opinion before the end of the year. Decisions The Deputies 1. agreed - to refer back to the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) the preliminary draft Protocol to the European Social Charter (CM(84)231, Add. I and Corr.) and to inform that Committee of the views expressed on this matter by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the Union of Industries of the European Community (UNICE) (CM(85)113 and Corr.); - to ask the CDSO to re-examine the preliminary draft Protocol taking into account the views expressed by the ETUC and the UNICE, and to submit to the Committee of Ministers a revised text before 31 December 1985; 2. agreed to resume consideration of this item when they have received the revised text referred to under decision 1 above. CONFIDENTIAL - 91 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 29b b. Improvement of the control mechanism of the Charter (Concl(85)381/21, T-SG(85)5 prov.)
The Representative of the United Kingdom, supported by the Representatives of the Netherlands, Denmark and Cyprus, asked for this item to be postponed to a later meeting of the Deputies, as the Notes on the Agenda had been issued late. Moreover, there was an inadequate supply of copies of document T-SG(85)5 prov., to which reference was made in the Notes. The Director of Social and Economic Affairs apologised for the incovenience caused, but reminded the Deputies that they themselves had decided to wait until the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter had completed its examination of certain proposals designed to improve its working methods, while it should also be borne in mind that the whole question had originated in a proposal by the French delegation. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 388th meeting (September 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 93 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 29c c. Article 22 of the Charter - Opinion of the Governmental Committee of the Charter on implementation of the procedure (T-SG(85)5 prov.)
The Representative of the United Kingdom proposed, for the same reasons as those given in connection with item 29(b), that this item should be postponed to a future meeting. He deplored the fact that the rule laying down a minimum period of four weeks between the issue of CM documents and the inclusion of the relevant questions in the agenda of the Deputies had not been respected in this case. The Secretary to the Committee pointed out that the document under consideration was not a Committee of Ministers document nor had it been issued by a body subordinate to it. It emanated in fact from a committee set up by virtue of a Convention, namely the European Social Charter. The Director of Social and Economic Affairs said that all the available information could be compiled by the Secretariat in one single document. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 388th meeting (September 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 95 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 30
30. CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR FAMILY AFFAIRS (Malta, 18-20 June 1985) Written Question No. 282 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (CM(85)121 and Add.)
After a discussion on the draft reply prepared by the Secretariat (see Addendum to CM(85)121) to Written Question No. 282 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg set out in CM(85)121, the Chairman noted that the reply set out below was acceptable to all delegations. Decision The Deputies adopted the following reply to Written Question No 282 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: "The Committee of Ministers wishes to inform Sir Geoffrey Finsberg that it does not intend to request the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Family Affairs to change the venue of its 19th Session which will take place in Valetta (Malta) on 18-20 June 1985."
CONFIDENTIAL - 97 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 31a
31. EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR RESEARCH (Concl(84)376/31 and 378739l a. Consideration of the reports on the follow-up to the Conference (CM(85)99 and Add.)
Decision The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item to their 387th meeting (June 1985, for consideration at A level) (see item 1 above).
CONFIDENTIAL - 99 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 31b b. Exchange of views with Representatives of the European Science Foundation and the Commission of the European Communities
Professor E Seibold, President of the European Science Foundation (ESF), briefly described the objectives and mode of operation of the ESF, which was a non-governmental body representing national scientific research councils. The European Ministers of Research had asked the ESF to report on the establishment of European scientific and technical co-operation networks. It was proposed to set up 25 networks; some were already in existence, the others had yet to be created. The Proposal to set up an open "research" group to gather and select proposals from the networks was perhaps not the best arrangement. Each of the bodies involved, ie ESF, the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of Europe, had to take separate responsibility for the adoption of new networks according to its own evaluation criteria. The present contact group representing the 3 partners would maintain liaison between them. He wished a decision to be taken by the Committee of Ministers before the next meeting of the ESF's Executive Committee at the end of June 1985. Mr J P Contzen, representing the Commission of the European Communities, thanked the Committee of Ministers for the opportunity to state his point of view on the implementation of the decisions taken by the Conference of European Ministers of Research (September 1984). The Commission had been actively involved in both the preparation of and follow-up to the Conference. The Commission had made an important contribution to the establishment of a European research community. The co-operation being established between the Commission and the Council of Europe in the scientific and technical field was entirely in keeping with Committee of Ministers Resolution (85)5 of 25 April 1985 on co-operation between the Council of Europe and the European Communities. The Commission had been working on the implementation of the European Research Ministers' decisions concerning both networks and mobility among researchers. On 12 March 1985 the Council of Ministers of the Communities had adopted a budget of 60M Ecus to promote mobility among researchers in Europe. The Research Stimulation Plan would be open, as proposed by the Commission, to non-member countries of the Communities. The Commission would contribute to establishing networks on the basis of Community sector programmes. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 100 - Item 31b
The Community was giving very favourable consideration to the implementation of the proposals in the mobility resolution, viz the European researcher's card, the European doctorate, circulation and management of scientific information, free movement of scientific material in Europe (accordingly, the possibility would have to be provided for of involving non-European countries in this proposed agreement) and in research-industry liaison. The COST co-operation machinery which had been in existence since 1971 included virtually all the member States of the Council of Europe. A review of the COST machinery was in progress and the fresh impetus given by the European Ministers of Research would be taken into account. In the scientific and technical sector, the Commission wished to involve all the countries of Europe. To that effect, closer co-operation was desirable between the Community states and all the other European countries, particularly the European members of EFTA. The Representative of Belgium noted that in its report the ESF regretted that it had had insufficient time to complete its consultations with the scientific community. He wondered whether this might not have had an effect on the validity of the proposals made by the ESF. The President of ESF thought that the time allowed was indeed too short, but contacts with European researchers were continuing. He wished the Committee of Ministers to take a policy decision as to the establishment of the European networks. The ESF would then be reassured as to the continuation of its contacts with researchers throughout Europe. The Representative of Cyprus referred to the network on water management in the Mediterranean islands. His government supported the establishment of this network, on which a European workshop had been held in October 1984. A final high-level decision would be taken in Cyprus concerning support for the establishment of this network. The Representative of Sweden thanked the French government for its initiative which had led to the holding of the Conference of European Ministers of Research the previous September. He was able to give his support to the ESF report and the establishment of 25 networks. Similarly, he supported all the mobility proposals. He welcomed the co-operation established between the Commission of the European Communities, the ESF and the Council of Europe. The Representative of Austria thought there was a problem that required clarification. Mention had been made, for the establishment of the networks, of a central fund of IM Ecus. At the same time, in the policy statement adopted by the Research Ministers' Conference in September 1984, paragraph 18 indicated that the budgetary resources would be found by reallocating existing funds. How were those two approaches to be reconciled? She could agree to COST being used as a joint intergovernmental agency between Brussels and Strasbourg, but wondered whether COST had been consulted on this proposal. The President of ESF said that the Foundation's budgets were funded by the various National Research Councils; for the development of the networks, it was important to have a central fund. CONFIDENTIAL - 101 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 31b
The Representative of the Commission said that the Committee of Senior Officials of COST would be meeting in Copenhagen on 6-7 June 1985 to discuss its future and the proposals made by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The Representative of Norway thanked the Commission of the European Communities and the ESF for their interesting statements. The instructions he had received from his government were generally very positive. He would like to know how co-operation worked between the Commission, the Foundation and the Council of Europe and what feelings were about its continuation. The President of ESF thought that co-operation between the Commission of the European Communities, the ESF and the Council of Europe had been very effective and had always been conducted in an atmosphere of practical collaboration. Joint meetings had been held regularly since September 1984 on the basis of the contact group set up between the 3 bodies. It would be important to have a high-level meeting to discuss the division of labour between the Commission, the Foundation and the Council of Europe; it was necessary to share out and concentrate on particular responsibilities, eg the Commission on the applied sciences, the Foundation on pure science and the Council on specialist training. He hoped this effective co-operation might continue in future.
CONFIDENTIAL - 103 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 32
32. EUROPEAN CULTURAL CONVENTION Request from the Republic of San Marino to be invited to accede to the Convention (CM(85)74)
The Representative of Italy hoped that the Deputies would take a decision without delay on the request from the Republic of San Marino to be invited to accede to the European Cultural Convention. The Representative of France asked that consideration of this question be deferred to the 378th meeting (June 1985) of the Deputies. The Representative of Austria thought that such a postponement should be the last one. Indeed, San Marino's request had been presented six months earlier and a reply was now urgently required. Decision The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item to their 387th meeting (June 1985, for consideration at A level).
CONFIDENTIAL - 105 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 33
33. COUNCIL OF EUROPE ACTION IN THE CULTURAL FIELD Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party on cultural co-operation Procedure (CM(85)134)
The Representative of Switzerland, in his capacity as Chairman of the Working Party, explained that the Working Party had decided to submit its report to the Committee of Ministers despite its late appearance, in order that certain decisions of a purely procedural nature might be taken. Although discussion by the Deputies on the substance of the report could not under any circumstances take place before June, the Working Party thought that it would be expedient in the meantime to sumbit its report to the CDCC and the Assembly Committee on Culture and Education for information without, of course, the Committee being in any way bound. The Working Party had in fact already consulted those two bodies during the drafting stages of its report and it: seemed advisable that they should learn as soon as possible what it contained, since the CDCC would be commencing its preparations for the third Medium-Term Plan at its June 1985 meeting (18-21 June). The Working Party therefore proposed that the Committee of Ministers should send the report forthwith to the CDCC and the Committee on Culture and Education, specifying that the Committee of Ministers itself had not yet examined it and that for the time being the Working Party alone assumed responsibility for it. The Representatives of Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom thought that it was not advisable to communicate a report, even if only for information, before the text had been studied by the Committee. The Director of Education, Culture and Sport explained that the CDCC had already delayed its discussions on its future programme pending the arrival of the Working Party's report. It was therefore in the general interest for the CDCC to have knowledge of the text for its next meeting in order to be guided in its choice of future activities. The Representatives of Sweden, Portugal, Norway, Austria, Cyprus and Belgium felt that the Committee should take a pragmatic approach and that it was important for the CDCC and the relevant Assembly committee to have access to the Working Party's report. To take into account the reservations that had been expressed by certain delegations, the Representative of Belgium proposed that it should be specified that the report was being sent for "advance information". CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 106 - Item 33
A vote on the expediency of sending the report, for advance information, to the CDCC and the Committee on Culture and Education produced the following result: 11 for, nil against, 8 abstentions. Decisions The Deputies agreed 1. to proceed to a first discussion on the report of their working party on cultural co-operation in the later part of their 387th meeting (June 1985); 2. to communicate the report of the working party, for advance information, to the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) and to the Assembly's Committee on Culture and Education. CONFIDENTIAL - 107 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 34
34. 7th EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGIONAL PLANNING (CEMAT) Hearing of the Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials (CM(85)112)
Mr Al, Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for preparing the 7th CEMAT, made the following statement: "I am glad to have the opportunity to address you on the subject of the 7th Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT), which will take place on 22 and 23 October 1985 in The Hague. I shall be glad to.answer any questions which you may have on the organisation of the Conference. I should also like to refer to the exhibition which has been put up in the Ante-Room on the Council of Europe's regional planning activities. The main theme of the Conference will be the development of decision-making in regional planning, illustrated by two concrete examples: decentralisation and transfrontier co-operation. In past conferences the regional planning ministers have treated many aspects of regional planning: coastal areas, mountain areas, urban areas, agricultural rural areas, etc. and they have agreed on the principles of regional planning in their regional planning charter. In the course of the years great changes in the decision-making process in regional planning at all levels have taken place in the European countries. The general trend is towards decentralisation, and, for countries with decentralised systems such as Switzerland, to keep this decentralised system at all cost, because it enhances efficiency and democratic decision-making. Secondly country planning and especially regional planning is not sufficiently adjusted between Council of Europe countries. To give an example, citizens in one country can participate in the national debate on the location of nuclear power plants 100km away but cannot participate in decision- making on the power plant which is being built in their immediate neighbourhood on the other side of the border. Most nuclear power plants and other power stations are in fact situated in frontier areas. The Conference will discuss, therefore, the exercise of traditional exclusive authority of national government with regard to questions of transfrontier co-operation. The second item in the programme, regional planning in a European context, will be discussed in a closed session. This theme was proposed by the Netherlands Minister Winsemius himself having regard to a diminishing interest in the Council of Europe and its member countries for regional planning. This decline of interest seems to be based on the assumption that decentralisation entails diminishing of national policy interest. This is an error, however. Broadly speaking, national policies have consequences for people, in terms of money, and terms of space. These three fields are the main areas of co-ordination in most European countries. At the international level the first element, i.e. people, human rights, is clearly one of the CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 108 - Item 34 main interests of the Council of Europe. The second element, i.e. finance, is within the field of interest of OECD and the European Communities. The third element, space, is more difficult to deal with not only because it is a long-term matter, but also because in most European countries, planning covers the whole of the national territory. The main functions of different areas are determined and there is little room for an essential change of functions of areas. At the local and regional level, practically any one space available can be used only for one function. This may give rise to conflicts such as between environment and industrial development, or between agricultural development and urban expansion. The Council of Europe is the only international organisation which has occupied itself structurally with the integration of all these differences in regional planning. This is a matter of international interest. For example expansion of industry on one side of the border may conflict with the creation of natural parks on the other side. On the larger scale there is not enough common effort to support strong functions of regions and to develop the traditionally weaker ones. One of the main concepts of the Council of Europe in this connection is that of the balanced development. ... Regional planning on a European scale can serve to implement this concept. Regional planning is only at the beginning of international co-operation, although the Ministers' Conference as such has already been functioning for more than ten years. In 1983 a first major step towards international consultation was the adoption during the Torremolinos Conference of the Regional Planning Charter, which has in the meantime been translated into 9 or 10 languages. Further work is needed in the form of a regional planning strategy. Already in 1980 during the London Conference of Ministers for Regional Planning the predecessor of Mr Oreja proposed amplifying this Charter by a regional planning strategy. This suggestion was taken up by the Ministers for Regional Planning during the Torremolinos Conference and reflected in a Resolution, and in 1984 the work began. However, it was decided that in 1985 the budgetary provision for this activity would be cut. So this work stops. The dilemma which the Committee of Senior Officials now face is that the work had not yet sufficiently advanced to give the Ministers what they asked for, namely a first draft of the Regional Planning strategy, and on the other hand, there are not enough funds to continue the work. This is the problem of the chicken and the egg. One of the problems before the forthcoming Hague Conference will be how to get out of the dilemma. To sum up, the main theme of the Ministers' discussion is that of regional planning as a subject of European importance which might remain a topic of structural interest for the Council of Europe. At the same time, the example of the European strategy illustrates that although the Ministers' Conference in itself is essential, it is just as important to have a good preparation and a good follow-up. For this political, technical and financial support are necessary. I have the pleasure to invite you in the name of Minister Winsemius, the Chairman of the Conference to be held in the Hague, to attend the second CEMAT." CONFIDENTIAL - 109 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 34
The Chairman warmly thanked Mr Al for his statement and wished the Conference every success.
The Chairman observed that as usual all Permanent Representatives would be free to attend the Conference if they so wished. Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the draft programme for the 7th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) (Appendix to CM(85)112); 2. ascertained that there was general consent within the Committee of Ministers as to the advisability of inviting Finland and Yugoslavia to attend the 7th Conference as observers; 3. ascertained that there was general consent within the Committee of Ministers as to the advisability of inviting the following to attend this Conference as observers, it being understood that this decision does not prejudge the question of the participation of observers in future sessions of the Conference: - Commission of the European Communities - European Parliament - European Conference of Ministers of Transport - United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - International Labour Office (ILO) - World Health Organisation (WHO) - Food and Agriculture Ogranisation (FAO); 4. noted that the Parliamentary Assembly and Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) will be invited to send representatives to the Conference.
CONFIDENTIAL - III - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 35
35. ORGANISATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL COLLOQUY ON ACID RAIN AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMY (Strasbourg, 28-31 October 1985) (Concl(85)384/18d)
The Representative of France expressed his appreciation of the way in which this question had been presented in agenda Notes No. 5437. He warmly thanked the Secretary General for having allowed the organisers free use of Council of Europe premises (Assembly Chamber and committee rooms). In view of the theme of the Colloquy the organisers would like to be granted the Council of Europe's patronage. The Secretary to the Committee pointed out that there was a difference between the patronage of the Council of Europe as such (which required a decision by the Committee of Ministers and was generally restricted to major events) and the patronage of the Secretary General granted by the Secretary General himself. The Secretary General said that he was very happy to place the International Colloquy on acid rain and the European economy under his personal patronage.
CONFIDENTIAL - 113 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 36
36. CONFERENCE OF EUROPEAN MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Rome, 6-8 November 1984) Follow-up (Concl(85)382/29, 384/16, CM(85)39)
An indicative vote on the adoption of the draft European Charter of Local Self-Government as a Convention showed 13 for 5 against 1 abstention and on its adoption as a Recommendation showed 5 for 12 against 2 abstentions The vote on adoption as a Convention was then formalised. The Representative of the United Kingdom said he had no instructions on the question of the opening of the Convention for signature and therefore proposed postponement of the examination of this aspect to the 387th meeting (June 1985). The Representatives of Luxembourg and the Netherlands said that in consequence it would be logical to postpone likewise the discussion on authorising publication of the Explanatory Report. With regard to the 2nd Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government, the Representative of Austria drew the Committee's attention to the fact that her authorities had now fixed 8-10 October 1986 as the dates for the Conference. The Reprsentative of Portugal said that this was the second recent example of a Conference of Ministers maintaining a two-yearly frequency of meetings in spite of the fact that the Deputies' working party on Council of Europe working methods had proposed that a three year interval should become the general rule. He recalled that this was necessary in order to allow more time for giving effect to the results of one conference and preparing the next. He asked that the Working Party's recommendation be brought to the attention of all steering and other committees responsible for preparing Ministerial Conferences. The Representatives of Sweden, Belgium and Spain supported this proposal. Decisions The Deputies 1. adopted the Convention on the European Charter of Local Self-Government (pages 18-23 of Appendix IV to CM(85)39) and agreed to examine the question of the opening for signature of this Convention at their 387th meeting (June 1985); CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 114 - Item 36
2. instructed the Secretary General to transmit the conclusions of the 6th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government to: - the Assembly - the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) - the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) - OECD - the Commission of the European Communities 3. adopted Decision No. CM/360/310585 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM), as it appears at Appendix 7 to these Conclusions; 4. instructed the Steering Committee for Regional and Municipal Matters (CDRM) to prepare the 7th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government (Salzburg (Austria), 6-8 October 1986); 5. instructed the Secretary General to bring to the attention of all steering committees and the committees of senior officials responsible for the preparation of Conferences of Specialised Ministers their conclusions (Add. to CM(85)100 paras 53-68) concerning the organisation of such Conferences, in particular their frequency. CONFIDENTIAL
- 115 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 37
37. COUNCIL OF EUROPE BUDGETS a. 1985 budgetary situation (CM(85)79, 118, Part I (para. 4) and CM(85)136)
In introducing this item, the Director of Administration and Finance pointed out that a significant development had occurred since the meeting of the Budget Committee, in that the Appeals Board had declared the appeals founded in the case concerning the temporary levy on salaries of staff memebers in categories A and L (as detailed in CM(85)136). This decision had two financial consequences. First, a sum of 1.7 million francs would have to be reimbursed to staff (from the 1985 budget) in respect of the financial years 1983 and 1984. Secondly, there would be a shortfall of receipts in 1985 of almost 1.2 million francs. Although it was unlikely that it would be possible to cover these amounts in the 1985 budgets, it would be possible to meet them from the unexpended balances of the 1984 budgets. The Budget Committee would be consulted on this question at its next meeting.
The Representative of Sweden noted that in order to cover at least part of the additional expenditure, it would be necessary to make all possible transfers from Vote to Vote at the end of the year.
The Representative of the united Kingdom observed that the Appeals Board of NATO had arrived at the contrary conclusion when it considered the same question in respect of NATO staff.
The Secretary General recalled that under the terms of Article 60(b) of the Staff Regulations, decisions of the Appeals Board were binding on him and he was required to inform the Board of the execution of its decisions within 30 days from the date on which they were delivered. In the case in point concerning the temporary levy, the Board had delivered its decision on 15 May 1985, and he was therefore obliged to report its execution by 15 June 1985. As the next meeting of the Deputies was not due to open until 20 June 1985, he appealed to them to take a decision at the present meeting to release the funds necessary for the reimbursement of the temporary levy as detailed in CM(85)136.
The Director of Legal Affairs explained that it was only for budgetary reasons that the Deputies were being asked to take any decision. The substance of the Appeals Board's decision was not in question; it had been the Committee of Ministers itself that had laid down the obligatory provisions of the Staff Regulations to which the Secretary General had referred.
After a procedural discussion, the Chairman noted that there was agreement on decisions 2 and 3 below. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 116 - Item 37a
Decisions The Deputies 1. took note of the 1985 budgetary situation as set out in CM(85)79 and of the Budget Committee's opinions (CM(85)118, paragraph 4); 2. authorised the Secretary General to procède to the reimbursement to all staff members of categories A and L of the amounts deducted since 1.7.83 in application of the temporary levy on their salaries; 3. noted that the decision taken at their 357th meeting (March 1983, item 9a) approving the recommendation contained in paragraph 34 of the 191st report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Budget Experts (CM(85)36, Appendix II), which instituted a levy on the salaries of staff members in categories A and L, is no longer applicable. CONFIDENTIAL - 117 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 37b b. General outline of prospects for the 1986 budget and other budgetary matters (CM(85)80 and 118, Parts II to VI)
The Director of Administration and Finance gave brief details of some further items that had arisen since the meeting of the Budget Committee and which would have financial consequences in 1986. These included an additional meeting of the European Commission of Human Rights in January 1986 and a sizeable requirement for equipment for the secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights. Mention should also be made of certain other questions on which discussions seemed to be accelerating: the North/South campaign, the appointment of a press officer in the Brussels Office and the follow-up to the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research. These items were over and above those already included in the Secretary General's original proposals amounting to 1.73% real growth. Reviewing the main areas of increase, he said, inter alia, that it was necessary to continue with the modest modernisation programme and to ensure adequate maintenance of buildings and equipment to avoid expensive and disruptive repairs later on. There were also small increases in the human rights sectors, the Assembly, information and the Intergovernmental Programme of Activities. On the other hand, there would be a saving of FF 750,000 on completion of European Music Year and a substantial saving of FF 2,400,000 in the Extraordinary Budget (repayment of loans for the construction of the Palais de l'Europe). The Budget Committee had recommended that zero growth in real terms should be seen as a maximum for 1986. The Representative of Switzerland did not fully agree with the Budget Committee's recommendation of zero growth for the 1986 budget. She shared the Secretary General's point of view expressed in CM(85)80 concerning the need to allocate additional resources to the maintenance of buildings. She supported the proposal to delegate to the Secretary General the power to make limited Vote to Vote transfers and was in favour of maintaining the Paris Office. The Representative of Ireland stated that his authorities supported the concentration of activities in the Council of Europe and did not consequently wish to see an arbitrary rate of growth adopted for the 1986 budget. Real growth of 1% or higher would be acceptable if necessary to achieve concentration and more practical results over a shorter timescale. He agreed that adequate provision must be made for the maintenance of buildings. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 118 - Item 37b
The Representative of Norway also did not wish that a definite level of growth be imposed on the 1986 budget at that stage. His authorities agreed with the Budget Committee's view that zero growth did not imply stagnation. However, when all the facts were available, an increase similar to that in previous years would probably be acceptable. He agreed with a comment made by the Representative of Denmark that it was expensive to maintain the Paris Office and that savings would be made if meetings in Paris were to be held in Strasbourg instead. The Representative of the Netherlands stated that his government was in favour of zero growth. He could not agree with the creation of new posts as personnel requirements in priority sectors should be met by transfer. In addition, he considered that the transfer of resources from temporary staff to create permanent posts reduced flexibility. The Representative of Cyprus concluded that as zero growth would mean that some promising proposals could not be implemented, he could agree to growth of around 1%. The Representative of the United Kingdom supported the recommendation of the Budget Committee that zero growth in real terms should be seen as a maximum. This was more generous than in his national budget. However, it could not be applied to the Court and Commission of Human Rights where the volume of work was determined by external factors. To permit the allocation of necessary extra resources to the Court and Commission, he would favour a change in the presentation of the budget, whereby all directly identifiable expenditure was shown under Vote IV of the budget. The Representative of Austria was able to support the Secretary General's proposals for real growth in the 1986 budget. He considered that concentration of activities and the setting of priorities would lead to greater efficiency, and that the budgetary aspects should be considered in the light of the chosen priorities, and not vice versa. The Representative of Spain recognised the efforts being made by the Secretary General and was in favour of real growth of around 1% or marginally more. The Representative of Sweden supported the views of the Representative of Ireland, and said that his country had always been ready to contribute to a reasonable increase in the budget. In reply to the points raised during the discussion, the Director of Administration and Finance pointed out that the possibilities for the transfer of staff were kept continuously under review. However, as the Brussels Office, the computer unit and the Social Charter Division had already been set up without the creation of new posts, the opportunities at present were severely limited. With regard to the presentation of the budget, additional information on the allocation of expenditure over the activities of the Council of Europe would be given in the draft budget document for 1986. CONFIDENTIAL - 119 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 38
38. PARTIAL AGREEMENT ON THE CO-OPERATION GROUP TO COMBAT DRUG ABUSE AND ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN DRUGS (POMPIDOU GROUP) Accession of Switzerland (Contribution to the 1985 budget of the Partial Agreement) (CM(85)97)
Decision The Representatives on the Committee of Ministers of the States members of the Co-operation Group to combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs (Pompidou Group) (*) and the Representative of Switzerland agreed to fix the amount of the contribution of Switzerland to the budget of the Group at FF 23,960 for the period running from 1 July 1985 until the end of the 1985 financial year; this amount will be credited to the 1985 budget in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Financial Regulations.
(*) Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
CONFIDENTIAL - 121 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 39 39. STIMULATING COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION Oral report by the Chairman (CM(85)138)
The Representative of Austria recalled that he had been entrusted by the Deputies with chairing the Stimulating Committee at B level since May 1984, succeeding Ambassador Doise in that capacity. At the Stimulating Committee's last A level meeting, which he had attended, Ambassador Doise had taken stock of activities under his chairmanship: the results achieved had included (a) publication of a booklet on relations between France and the Council of Europe, to mark the French chairmanship - this booklet could serve as a model for other countries taking over the Chair, and he hoped that Austria would follow this example to mark the 30th anniversary of its joining the Council; (b) a first media-awareness course for the staff; (c) an effort to heighten journalists' interest by producing dossiers for visits by heads of state or of government; (d) interviews with the Secretary General; and (e) the appointment of DPI liaison officers in each directorate. Information policy was being hampered by problems of staff and resources as well as administrative and technical obstacles. As a result, a number of problems remained in abeyance, such as the provision of a kiosk for the sale of publications and the purchase of telephone-answering machines for DPI staff. Since the Representative of Austria had taken over the B level chairmanship, the Stimulating Committee had held 7 meetings a B level and 3 at A level. In the meantime, the question of answering machines had been satisfactorily resolved and a partly satisfactory solution - of which delegations had been informed - had been found to the sales kiosk question. Some matters had still not been resolved, such as the question of improving publications marketing policy. Two problems of paramount importance were visits to the building, both during sessions of the European Parliament, and while alterations were in progress in the Assembly Chamber. Visits during European Parliament sessions were virtually impossible. For the time being, makeshift solutions had been found which would have to be improved in the future. During the alterations to the Assembly Chamber, visitors were being offered alternatives such as film shows, photographs of debates in the Chamber, and so on. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 122 - Item 39
Lastly, the Chairman of the Stimulating Committee introduced CM(85)138 on the establishment of a press service at the Brussels Office. The aim of this was to improve the Council of Europe's image by taking advantage of the large numbers of journalists accredited in Brussels. It would not entail any increase in staff, who would have to be found among those already on the strength in Strasbourg. At a cost of some FF 110,000 initially and an operational expenditure of some FF 100,000 a year, the Council of Europe could enjoy much Improved press coverage. In conclusion, he proposed that a press service be set up at the Brussels Office for a trial period. This proposal was being put to the Deputies now so that it could be included in the draft budget. The Representative of Norway said that the proposal would be examined by his authorities in a positive spirit, particularly as there were no Scandinavian press correspondents in Strasbourg. The Representative of Ireland thanked the Representative of Austria for his report, which he had listened to with great interest. He thought the proposal for a press service at the Brussels Office was a good one. The Representative of Portugal congratulated the Representative of Austria; he was sympathetic to the idea of a press office at the Brussels Office - which the Secretary General had suggested soon after he took office. The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany thought it was an excellent idea in view of the large number of journalists in Brussels specialised in questions of the European Community but also more generally in the West European unification process, and should be put into effect promptly. The Representative of Spain, supported by the Representative of Liechtenstein, also congratulated the Representative of Austria and supported the idea of a press service. The financial implications would be virtually negligible by comparison with the results that could be expected. The Representative of Belgium joined in the support for this excellent idea. The increase in staff could also make it possible to reinforce the public relations effort which the Council of Europe needed to develop in Brussels. The Representative of Denmark supported this excellent proposal. The Representative of France wondered whether the proposed press service would have sufficient information to communicate. The Representative of Italy, while congratulating the Representative of Austria on the proposal, shared the doubts expressed by the Representative of France. There should be a trial period of one year only. CONFIDENTIAL - 123 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 39
He pointed out that the Budget Committee had recommended giving consideration to closing down the Brussels Office; he hoped the Deputies would not act on that recommendation. Lastly, he had received a document from the European Parliamentary Journalists' Association in Strasbourg which contained a number of proposals that warranted consideration, such as the one to have a Council of Europe spokesman. The Chairman said he had received the same document and had passed it on to the Stimulating Committee. The Representative of Austria said that the document would be examined at the Stimulating Committee's next meeting. The Representative of Greece joined with previous speakers in congratulating the Representative of Austria and proposed that the Stimulating Committee look into ways of improving the system of national correspondents. The Secretary General thought that it would be a wise decision to have someone responsible for the press at the Brussels Office. He had had some misgivings, for the same reasons as the Representative of France, but was now convinced that the idea was worthwhile. He accordingly proposed a one-year trial period. He proposed to look into the question raised by the Representative of Italy of having a spokesman or person to deal particularly with journalists. In reply to a question from the Representative of Sweden, he confirmed that the two posts required for the press service in Brussels would be filled by transfers within the Secretariat. The Chairman, summing up, noted that there was no objection in principle to setting up a press service at the Brussels Office for a one-year trial period and proposed that a decision be taken during the discussion on the budget.
CONFIDENTIAL - 125 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 40
40. PREPARATION OF FORTHCOMING MEETINGS
In reply to the Representative of Sweden, the Secretary to the Committee said that most of the reference documents (CMs) for the 387th meeting (20-21 June 1985 - B Level and 24-28 June - A Level) were already available and the Secretariat would endeavour to produce the Notes on the agenda for the 387th meeting in accordance with the 2 weeks rule. The Chairman announced that Mr Noël, Secretary General of the Commission of the European Communities, had suggested that the time for him to address the Committee of Ministers be set for 11 am on Friday 20 September 1985, at the Deputies 388th meeting. The date of Thursday 27 June 1985 was provisionally agreed for the next exchange of views on the United Nations, with the participation of experts, subject to any further suggestions that delegations might make by Friday 7 June 1985. Decisions The Deputies 1. approved the draft agenda for their 387th meeting (20-21 June 1985 - B level, and 24-28 June 1985 - A level), as it appears at Appendix 2 to these Conclusions; 2. provisionally agreed on 27 June 1985 as the date for their forthcoming exchange of views on tie United Nations with the participation of national experts.
CONFIDENTIAL - 127 - CM/Del/Concl(85 )386 Item 4la
41. OTHER BUSINESS a. Dialogue with the Secretary General
The Secretary General held a confidential exchange of views with the Deputies on developments since their previous meeting. Among the points raised were the following: - Co-operation with the European Community; - Colombo Commission; - "Eureka" (European technology project proposed by France) - Informal meeting of European Ministers of Culture (23 June 1985); - Relations with Latin America (the Ibero/American Institute in Madrid); - The decision taken by the Appeals Board on the temporary levy on staff salaries; - Secretariat structures; - Document security. Speaking about visitors to the Council of Europe, he mentioned the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe, Mr Sahlgren, who had taken part in an inter-Secretariat meeting, and the Canadian Minister for Youth, Mme Champagne. Referring to his visits outside Strasbourg, the Secretary General spoke of his official visit to Switzerland, his meeting with the President of the International Olympic Committee, the 14th Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education in Brussels, the 5th Congress of the European Trade Union Confederation and the 30th anniversary of the Austrian State Treaty in Vienna. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - 128 - Item 41a
The Deputy Secretary General referred to his recent visits to Seville for the 5th European Symposium of Historic Towns and to Lisbon for the informal meeting of European Ministers of Sport. The outcome of the discussions on Secretariat structures are reflected under item 41d of the agenda of the present meeting. The decisions concerning the temporary levy on staff salaries appear under item 37a of the agenda of the present meeting. CONFIDENTIAL - 129 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 41b b. Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe Date for opening for signature (Concl(85)385/13, Add I to CM(85)61, CM(85)135)
The Representative of Austria stated that her authorities were not opposed o the Convention's being opened for signature. However, they continued to consider that the text of the Convention did not sufficiently take into account the historical structures of national legislation. Furthermore, in her authorities' opinion, there was too litte scope for Contracting States to formulate reservations on provisions of the Convention. In reply to a question by the United Kingdom delegation, the Secretary to the Committee stated that the finalised internal version of the text of the Convention was already available to any delegation wishing to have it. The printed edition of the text of the Convention would become available in mid-June 1985. Decisions The Deputies 1. agreed to open the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe fo r signature on 3 October 1985 in Granada on the occasion of the 2nd European Conference of Ministers responsible for the Architectural Heritage; 2. authorised publication of the explanatory report to the Convention (CM(85)135).
CONFIDENTIAL - 131 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 41c c. United Nations Convention of 10 December 1984 against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatment
The Representative of Switerland drew attention to the memorandum submitted by her delegation on two problems which the member States of the Council of Europe might face in ratifying the United Nations Convention of 10 December 1984 against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The memorandum had been distributed to all delegations and required an urgent response. She was aware of the problems this was likely to pose for national departments. Nevertheless, the governments of member States which were preparing to ratify the Convention and were drafting messages to their respective parliaments doubtless had the information required. The Swiss delegation had taken the liberty of describing the problems it faced because it thought that the member States of the Council of Europe should show that they were united in their views by giving the same type of explanation to the United Nations when they deposited their instruments of ratification. The Chairman urged the delegations concerned to respond quickly to the appeal by the Swiss authorities. The Representative of Greece thought it would be useful to transmit the Swiss delegation's memorandum to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC), which was to examine the question of torture. Decision The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 387th meeting (June 1985).
CONFIDENTIAL - 133 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Item 41d d. Secretaria t Structures
The Secretary General informed the Deputies that he had decided to place the Political Study and Research Unit under the direct authority of the Director of Political Affairs. Furthermore, the "Head of the Private Office" would henceforth be styled "Director of the Private Office". In addition, he proposed that the Deputies agree to the structural modlfications reflected in the decisions below. In pursuance of Article 5.4 and Article 25 of the Regulations on Appointments, he made known his intention during an informal exchange of views to maintain its present holder, Mr Hans Wiebringhaus, on the grade A6 post transferred from the Partial Agreement (Social and Public Health) Division to the Social Charter Division. Finally, he confirmed that he would reflect further on the Directorate in which the secretariat services for the Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM) should be situated. Decisions The Deputies 1. approved with immediate effect the following exchange of posts within the Directorate of Social and Economic Affairs: - grade A6 post No 57.11 (A6 - 17.00.01) is transferred from the Partial Agreement (Social and Public Health) Division to the Social Charter Division, - grade A5 post No 52.22 (A5 - 03.03.01) is transferred from the Social Charter Division to the Partial Agreement (Social and Public Health) Division; 2. decided to convert the A2 specific temporary post in the Directorate of Environment and Local Authorities (cf. Sub-head 5 of the 1985 ordinary budget) into a permanent post of grade A2/A3 and to assign it to the Private Office of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General; 3. approved the modified establishment table resulting from decisions 1 and 2 above; 4. agreed to consider at their 391st meeting (November/December 1985) in the framework of their consideration of the budgetary situation regarding the current financial year and in the light of the Budget Committee's opinion, proposals to be made by the Secretariat for the budgetary regularisation of decisions 1 and 2 above.
CONFIDENTIAL - al - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 1 386TH MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (Strasbourg, Wednesday 29 May (10 am) - Friday 31 May 1985 - A level) AGENDA
1. Adoption of the Agenda (Notes No. 5402 of 28.5.85) Political and General Policy Questions 2. Committee of Ministers - Follow-up to the 76th Session - (Concl(85)384/2, CM(85)PV 1 and 2 prov.) (Notes No. 5403 of 24.5.85) 3. Consultative Assembly - 1st part of the 37th Ordinary Session (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) a. Texts adopted (Notes No. 5404 of 21.5.85) b. Parliamentary questions for oral reply by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers (Notes No. 5405 of 28.5.85) c. Exchange of views with the President of the Assembly (Notes No. 5406 of 28.5.85) 4. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - (Concl(85)384/5, CM(78)62, CM(84)248 and CM(85)13) (Notes No. 5407 of 10.5.85) 5. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(85 )384/6 ) (Notes No. 5408 of 10.5.85) 6. Situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria (Notes No. 5431 of 24.5.85) CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a2 - Appendix 1
Human Rights 7. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of X and Y - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C39 of 2.4.85) (Notes No. 5398 of 9.5.85) 8. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Marckx case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)376/l7, Letter HD/C26 of 15.6.79) (Notes No. 5409 of 10.5.85) 9. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Co sans case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85 )379/14, Letters HD/C22 of 15.3.82 and HD/C21 of 29.3.83) (Notes No. 5410 of 10.5.85) 10. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the McGoff case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)382/15, Letter HD/C88 of 7.11.84) (Notes No. 5399 of 9.5.85) 11. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Skoogström case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)382/13, Letter HD/C83 of 25.10.84) (Notes No. 5411 of 24.5.85) 12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)382/17, Letter HD/C47 of 21.6.84) (Notes No. 5397 of 9.5.85 and revised of 29.5.85) 13. Biondo against Italy - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)381/15, Letter HD/C34 of 18.4.84) (Notes No. 5412 of 10.5.85) 14.(1) Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) - (CM(85)123 of 10.5.85, Add. I of 10.5.85, Add. II of 10.5.85 and Add. III of 10.5.85) (Notes No. 5413 of 24.5.85)
(1) Including a draft Recommendation on the institution of an Ombudsman and a draft Resolution on co-operation between the Ombudsmen of member States and between them and the Council of Europe. CONFIDENTIAL - a3 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Appendix 1
15. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Le Compte, van Leuven and De Meyere case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(84)378/15, Letters HD/C38 of 1.7.81 and HD/C83 of 28.10.82) (Notes No. 5414 of 24.5.85) 16. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Albert and Le Compte case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)378/18, Letters HD/C12 of 1.3.83 and HD/C88 of 16.11.83) (Notes No. 5415 of 24.5.85) 17. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Piersack case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85 )379/20, 384/7, Letters HD/C81 of 25.10.82 and HD/C87 of 6.11.84) (Notes No. 5440 of 14.5.85) 18. T. against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)381/14, 384/9, Letter HD/C14 of 7.2.84) (Notes No. 5366 of 15.4.85) 19. Steering Committee on the Mass Media (CDMM) - Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 26 February - 1 March 1985) - (Concl(85)384/10, CM(85)84) (Notes No. 5432 of 13.5.85) Legal Questions 20. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Final activity report adopted at the 6th meeting (Strasbourg, 25 February— 1 March 1985) - (CM(85)78) (Notes No. 5416 of 28.5.85) 21. "Opting out" Procedure - Proposal by the Swiss delegation to give a mandate to the Committee of Experts on Public International Law (CJ-DI) - (CM(85)77) (Notes No. 5417 of 24.5.85) 22. Recommendation No R(85)... on legal duties of doctors vis-à-vis their patients - (Concl(85)383/16d) (Notes No. 5418 of 24.5.85) 23. Ad hoc Committee of experts on the legal aspects of territorial asylum, refugees and stateless persons (CAHAR) - 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 5-8 March 1985) - Meeting report - (CM(85)116) (Notes No. 5419 of 24.5.85) 24. Draft Convention for the protection of vertebrate animals used for experimental or other scientific purposes - (Concl(85)382/18, 384/12, CM(83)100, Add. II and III, CM(85)54, CM(85)76, CM(85)105, CM(85)106 and CM(85)107) (Notes No. 5434 of 24.5.85) CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a4 - Appendix 1
25. Convention on offences relating to cultural property - Date for the opening for signature - (Concl(65)379/29, 382/3 and 384/13) (Notes No. 5433 of 24.5.85) 26. Penalisation of torture as such - Consideration of the ad hoc terms of reference to be given to the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - (Concl(85 )384/2 ) (Notes No. 5435 of 28.5.85) Social and Economic Questions 27. 3rd Conference of European Ministers of Labour - Report of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Senior Official responsible for the preparation of the Conference (Strasbourg, 25-27 March 1985) - (CM(85)101) (Notes No. 5392 of 9.5.85) 28. Liaison Committee between the Council of Europe and Management and Labour (LCML) - Second meeting (Strasbourg, 18-19 February 1985) - Meeting report - (CM(85)113 and Corr.) (Notes No. 5400 of 13.5.85) 29. European Social Charter a. Preliminary draft Protocol to the Charter - (Concl(84)377/11, CM(84)231 Add. I and Corr., CM(85)113 and Corr.) (Notes No. 5393 of 9.5.85) b. Improvement of the control mechanism of the Charter - (Concl(85)381/21, T-SG(85)5 prov.) (Notes No. 5421 of 24.5.85) c. Article 22 of the Charter - Opinion of the Governmental Committee of the Charter on the implementation of the procedure - (T-SG(85)5 Prov.) (Notes No. 5422 of 24.5.85) 30. Conference of European Ministers responsible for Family Affairs (Malta, 18-20 June 1985) - Written Question No. 282 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg - (CM(85)121 of 6.5.85 and Add. of 23.5.85) (Notes No. 5420 of 24.5.85) Education and Culture and Sport 31. Conference of European Ministers responsible for Research (Paris, 17 September 1984) - (Concl(84)376/31 and 378/39) a. Consideration of the reports on the follow-up to the Conference - (CM(85)99 of 7.5.85 and Add.) (Notes No. 5423 of 28.5.85) b. Hearing with Representatives of the European Science Foundation and the Commission of the European Communities (Notes No. 5424 of 28.5.85) CONFIDENTIAL - a5 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Appendix 1
32. European Cultural Convention - Request from the Republic of San Marino to be invited to accede to the Convention - (CM(85)74) (Notes No. 5425 of 24.5.85) 33. Council of Europe action in the cultural field - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party on cultural co-operation - Procedure - (CM(85)134 of 28.5.85) (Notes No. 5436 of 24.5.85) Environment and Local Authorities 34. 7th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) - Hearing of the Chairman of the Committee of Senior Officials - (CM(85)112) (Notes No. 5426 of 28.5.85) 35. Organisation of an International Colloquy on Acid Rain and the European Economy (Strasbourg, 28-31 October 1985) - (Concl(85)384/18d) (Notes No. 5437 of 29.5.85) 36. Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government (Rome, 6-8 November 1984) - Follow-up (Concl(85)382/29, 384/16, CM(85)39) (Notes No. 5438 of 24.5.85) Administrative Questions 37. Council of Europe budgets a. 1985 budgetary situation - (CM(85)79, 118, Part I, and CM(85)136 of 28.5.85) (Notes No. 5427 of 13.5.85) b. General outline of prospects for the 1986 budget and other budgetary matters - (CM(85)80 and 118, Parts II to VI) (Notes No. 5428 of 13.5.85) 38. Partial Agreement on the Co-operation Group to combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs (Pompidou Group) - Accession of Switzerland (contribution to the 1985 budget of the Partial Agreement) - (CM(85)97) (Notes No. 5429 of 13.5.85) Press and Information 39. Stimulating Committee on Information - Oral report by the Chairman - (CM(85)138 of 29.5.85) (Notes No. 5439 of 24.5.85) 40. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 5430 of ...) 41. Other business a. Dialogue with the Secretary General CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a6 - Appendix 1
b. Convention for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe - Date for opening for signature (Concl(85)385/13, Add. I to CM(85)61, CM(85)135) (Notes No. 5444 of 28.5.85) c. United Nations Convention of 10 December 1984 against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treataient d. Secretariat structures CONFIDENTIAL - a7 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 2
387TH MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (Strasbourg, 20 (3 pm) - 21 June - B level, 24 ( 3 pm) - 28 June 1985 - A level) DRAFT AGENDA
1. Adoption of the Agenda (Notes No. 5455 of ...) Political and General Policy Questions 2. Preparation and Organisation of the Political Dialogue (Concl(85)384/2, CM(85)96) (Notes No. 5456 of ...) 3. Colombo Commission - Report (Notes No. 5457 of ...) 4. North/South- (Concl(85)384/3, CM(85)95, 130 and ...) a. Development co-operation and Human Rights - Assembly Recommendation 962 (Notes No. 5458 of ...) b. Organisation of a European public campaign on North/South interdependence - Assembly Recommendation 992 (Notes No. 5459 of ...) 5. Relations with Latin America - (Concl(85)383/4, CM(85)94) (Notes No. 5460 of ...) 6. United Nations. - Exchange of views - (CM(85)...) (Notes No. 5461 of ...) 7. Situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria (Concl(85)386/6) (Notes No. 5462 of ...) 8. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(85)386/5) (Notes No. 5463 of ...) 9. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - (Concl(85)386/4, and ...) (Notes No. 5464 of ...)
NB In accordance with the deadline rules for the dispatch of reference documents and Notes on the Agenda the date limits are 23 May and 31 May for B level and 28 May and 7 June for A level. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a8 - Appendix 2
10. Intergovernmental Programme of Activities - Main lines for 1986 (Notes No. 5465 of ...) 11. Working Methods in the Council of Europe - Setting up of Rapporteur Groups - (Addendum to CM(85)100) (Notes No. 5466 of ...) 12. Committee for Equality between Women and Men (CAHFM) (Meeting on 23-24 May 1985) a. Preparation of the Ministerial Conference on Equality between Women and Men - (CM{85)140 of ...) (Notes No. 5467 of ...) b. Preparation of the United Nations World Conference for the purpose of assessing the results of the United Nations Decade for Women (Nairobi, 15-26 July 1985) (CM(85)141 of ...) (Notes No. 5468 of ...) *13. European Music Year 1985 - European Organising Committee - 5th Bi-annual Report to the 'Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe - (CM(85)126) (Notes No. 5451 of 31.5.85) Human Rights 14. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Le Compte, van Leuven and De Meyere case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)386/15, Letters HD/C38 of 1.7.81 and HD/C83 of 28.10.82) (Notes No. 5469 of ...) 15. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Van Droogenbroeck case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(84)378/17, Letters HD/C54 of 30.6.82 and HD/C26 of 4.5.83) (Notes No. 5470 of ...) 16. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sporrong and Lonnroth case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)382/16, Letters HD/C79 of 14.10.82 and HD/C3 of 10.1.85). (Notes No. 5471 of ...) 17. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Albert and Le Compte case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)386/l6, Letters HD/C12 of 1.3.83 and HD/C88 of 16.11.83) (Notes No. 5472 of ...) 18. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Silver and others case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)381/18, Letters HD/C24 of 8.4.83 and HD/C89 of 16.11.83) (Notes No. 5446 of 3.6.85)
* B level CONFIDENTIAL - a9 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Appendix 2
19. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Oztürk case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)379/19, Letters HD/C19 of 6.3.84 and HD/C86 of 5.11.84) (Notes No. 5473 of ...) 20. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Fell case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)379/15, Letter HD/C54 of 5.7.84) (Notes No. 5474 of ...) 21. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Skoogström case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(85)386/11, Letter HD/C83 of 25.10.84) (Notes No. 5411 of 24.5.85) 22. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Colozza case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C25 of 8.3.85) (Notes No. 5448 of 3.6.85) 23. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Rubinat case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C26 of 8.3.85) (Notes No. 5447 of 3.6.85) 24. Biondo against Italy - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rigts - (Concl(85)386/13, Letter HD/C34 of 18.4.84, CM(85)142)) (Notes No. 5476 of ...) 25. European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 19-20 March 1985) - (CM(85)92) (Notes No. 5477 of ...) 26.(1) Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) - (Concl(85)386/14, CM(85)123, Add. I, II and III) (Notes No. 5478 of ...) 27. United Nations Convention of 10 December 1984 against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments or treatment (CM(85)143 of 5.6.85) (Notes No. 5479 of ...)
(1) Including a draft Recommendation on the institution of an Ombudsman and a draft Resolution on co-operation between the Ombudsmen of member States and between them and the Council of Europe. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a10 - Appendix 2
Legal Questions 28. Recommendation No. R(85).. on legal duties of doctors vis-à-vis their patients - (Concl(85)386/22) (Notes No. 5480 of ...) 29. Compulsory visas for Turkish nationals - Written Question No 283 by Sir Geoffrey Finsberg - (CM(85)124 and Add.) (Notes No. 5481 of ...) 30. Refugees "In Orbit" - Written Question No 281 by Mr Dejardin (CM(85)125 and Add.) (Notes No. 5482 of ...) *31. The Hague Conference on Private International Law - Admission as an observer to the Committee of Experts on Data Protection (CJ-PD) and to the Committee of Experts on Public International Law (CJ-DI) (Notes No. 5483 of ...) *32(2) European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) - Report of the 9th meeting (Strasbourg, 22-26 April 1985) - (CM(85)127 and Add. I to IV) (Notes No. 5484 of ...) 33.(3) Ad hoc committee of Experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Final activity report - (Concl(85)386/20, CM(85)78) (Notes No. 5416 of ...) Social and Economic Questions 34. 2nd Conference of European Health Ministers - (Stockholm, 16-18 April 1985) - Report - (CM(85)117 rev.) (Notes No. 5449 of 3.6.85) *35. The future of co-operatives in Europe - Assembly Recommendation 1004 - (Concl(85)381/2a) (Notes No 5442 of 30.5.85)
* B level (2) Including: - a draft Recommendation on the practical application of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, in respect of letters rogatory for the interception of telecommunications; - a draft Recommendation on the position of the victim in the framework of criminal law and procedure. (3) Including a draft Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. CONFIDENTIAL - a11 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Appendix 2
*36(4) Ad hoc committee of experts on the Protection of Consumers in the Socio-Economic Field (CAHCO) - Report of the 7th meeting (Strasbourg, 23-26 October 1984) - (Concl(85)385/4) (Notes No. 5441 of 30.5.85) *37. European Social Charter - 8th period of supervision - (Concl(85)385/5, T-SG(84)17, Conclusions VIII, Assembly Opinion No 121) (Notes No. 5452 of 31.5.85) *38. Steering Committee for Social Security (CDSS) - Report of the 23rd meeting (Strasbourg, 20-22 March 1985) - (CM(85)132 and Add. I and II) (Notes No. 5450 of 31.5.85) *39(5) Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) - Report of the 17th meeting (Strasbourg, 18-22 March 1985) - (CM(85)122 and Add. I to III) (Notes No. 5454 of 3.6.85) *40(6) Public Health Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-SP) - Report of the 24th Session - (Strasbourg, 23-25 April 1985) (CM(85)131 of 24.5.85) (Notes No. 5445 of 30.5.85) Education, Culture and Sport 41. Council of Europe action in the cultural field - Report of the Ministers' Deputies' working party on cultural co-operation (Concl(85)386/33, CM(85)134) (Notes No. 5486 of ...) 42. European Conference of Ministers responsible for Research - (Paris, 17 September 1984) - Consideration of the reports on the follow-up to the Conference - (Concl(84)376/31, 378/39 and (85)386/31a, CM(85)99 and Add. and Corr. of 6.5.85) (Notes No. 5487 of ...)
* B level
(4) Including a draft Recommendation on services supplied to the consumer by travel agencies and tour operators. (5) Including a draft Recommendation on voluntary work in social welfare activities. (6) Including draft Resolutions on: - wood protection products, - guidelines to reduce the risks of contamination of animal products for human consumption by residues which may result from the use of pesticides on livestock and in livestock premises, - aerial application of pesticides. CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a12 - Appendix 2
43. European Cultural Convention - Request from the Republic of San Marino to be invited to accede to the Convention - (Concl(85)386/32, CM(85)74) (Notes No. 5425 of 24.5.85) Environment and Local Authorities 44.(7) European Committee for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (CDSN) - Report of the 10th meeting (Strasbourg, 19-22 March 1985) - (CM(85)128) (Notes No. 5489 of ...) *45. Regional Planning and Protection of the Environment in European Coastal Regions - Assembly Recommendation 997 (Concl(84)378/44, CM(85)120) (Notes No 5386 of 7.5.85) 46. Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) a. Texts adopted at the 19th Session (Strasbourg, 16-18 October 1984) - Hearing of the President of the CLRAE - (Concl(85)383/2b and 385/9a, CM(84)236, Assembly Opinion No 122) (Notes No. 5383 of 6.5.85 and Addendum of ...) b. Co-operation and technical assistance in the matter of training for local and regional government staff - Details and financial implications of the proposals put forward by the CLRAE (Resolution 131) (CM(85)133) (Notes No. 5490 of ...)
* B level (7) Including: - a draft Recommendation on the introduction of the American cottontail rabbit into Europe - a draft Recommendation on the re-introduction of wildlife species - a draft Recommendation on salt marshes and coastal dunes - a draft Recommendation on the training of hunters - six draft Resolutions renewing or awarding the European Diploma (concerning Greece, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom) CONFIDENTIAL - a13 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Appendix 2
47. European Conference of Ministers responsible for the Architectural Heritage (Granada, October 1985) - State of preparations - (CM(85)137) (Notes No. 5491 of ...) 48. Convention on the European Charter of Local Self-Government - Opening for signature - (Concl(85)386/36, CM(85)39) (Notes No. 5492 of ...) Administrative Questions *49. Membership of the Budget Committee - Replacement of the alternate member in respect of France for the period ending on 31 December 1986 - (CM(85)139) (Notes No. 5453 of 31.5.85 50. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 5493 of ...) 51. Other business a. Dialogue with the Secretary General
* B level
CONFIDENTIAL - a15 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 3 (item 10)
RESOLUTION DH(85)10 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 26 OCTOBER 1984 IN THE McGOFF CASE (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 May 1985 at the 386th 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the McGoff case, delivered on 26 October 1984 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers; Recalling that the case had its origin in an application against Sweden lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights under Article 25 of the Convention by an Irish national, Mr Anthony McGoff, alleging violation of several provisions of the Convention and, in particular, of Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4; Recalling that this case had been brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights; Whereas in its judgment of 26 October 1984, the Court unanimously: Holds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as to the alleged existence of "hindrances" contrary to Article 25, paragraph 1, in fine; Holds that there has been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 3; Holds that there has been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 4; Rejecting the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction, holds that the Kingdom of Sweden is to pay to the applicant, in respect of his costs and expenses, the sum of two thousand and seventy Irish pounds (punt) and 25 pence (2,070.25); Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention"; Having invited the Government of Sweden to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by the judgment; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a16 - Appendix 3
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Sweden informed the Committee of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment; Having satisfied itself that the Government of Sweden has paid to the applicant the sum under Article 50 of the Convention provided for in the judgment of the Court of 26 October 1984, Declares that is has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH(85)10
Information provided by the Government of Sweden during the examination of the McGoff case by the Committee of Ministers
Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, the Government of Sweden has paid to the applicant, in respect of his costs and expenses, the sum of 2,070.25 Irish pounds awarded by the Court under Article 50 of the Convention. The Swedish Commission for Revision of certain parts of the Code of Judicial Procedure, established in the spring of 1983, has been informed about the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and asked to propose and work out the details for such amendments to the Code as required in order to put it beyond any doubt that it is in conformity with Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention. In the meantime, the Government has seen to it that the National Board of the Judiciary and the Chief Prosecutor publish a summary of the judgment so as to enable the judiciary and the prosecutors to avoid creating situations which had been found to constitute a violation of the said Article. The Swedish Commission has held meetings in different parts of Sweden informing the police, the prosecutors and the court of the judgment of the Court of Human Rights. The judgment has also been published in professional publications for police, prosecutors and judges. CONFIDENTIAL - a17 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 4 (item 12) RESOLUTION DH(85)11 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 22 MAY 1984 IN THE VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE CASE (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 May 1985 at the 386th 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case, delivered on 22 May 1984 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers; Recalling that this case had its origin in three applications against the Netherlands lodged in 1981 with the European Commission of Human Rights under Article 25 of the Convention by three Dutch nationals, Mr Jan Christian Martinus Van der Sluijs, Mr Harm Pieter Zuiderveld and Mr Albertus Laurentius Klappe, alleging violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention; Recalling that this case had been brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights; Whereas in its judgment of 22 May 1984 the Court unanimously: Rejects the objection that Mr Zuiderveld and Mr Klappe could not be regarded as victims within the meaning of Article 25; Takes formal note of the withdrawal by the Government of the objection pleading non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention in respect of each applicant; Holds that the respondent State is to pay each applicant the sum of three hundred (300) Dutch Guilders under Article 50; Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention"; Having invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by the judgment; CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a18 - Appendix 4
Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Committee of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears at the Appendix to this Resolution; Having taken note of this information and having satisfied itself that the Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the sum awarded by the Court under Article 50 of the Convention, Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH(85)11 Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands during the examination of the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case by the Committee of Ministers
As a consequence of, inter alia, the complaints lodged by the above-mentioned applicants the Netherlands Government has taken the following measures with respect to Article 5, paragraph 3, of the Convention. A. In March 1983 the following regulations came into force having been incorporated into the rules governing the application of military penal and disciplinary law as laid down by ministerial order. The following rules shall apply to military suspects remanded in custody, such as the conscientious objectors in question: a. the commanding officer may order a serviceman to be remanded or kept in custody only if two conditions are fulfilled: 1. a remand in custody must be admissible in the case in question 2. there must be grounds for a remand in the case in question; b. as soon as the grounds on which the remand in custody was ordered or ordered to be continued cease to be applicable the commanding officer shall order the release of the defendant; c. if the commanding officer orders the suspect to be taken into or kept in custody, where possible subsequent to having interviewed the suspect or having arranged for the suspect to be interviewed on his behalf, he shall ensure that the military prosecutor is informed of the case by telephone as soon as possible and in any event no later than two days after the warrant of arrest is executed; CONFIDENTIAL - a19 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 Appendix 4
d. if the suspect is to appear before the military prosecutor the commanding officer shall ensure in consultation with tbe military prosecutor that the time and place of the hearing are such that within four days of the execution of the warrant of arrest: 1. the military prosecutor is able to submit his recommendations to the authority to which the case is to be referred, 2. the authority to which the case is to be referred may issue a referral order (which shall include a ruling in respect of the arrest), 3. the defendant may be heard by the examining officer, 4. the defendant may appear before a court martial which shall rule at the request of the military prosecutor whether or not to uphold the order of arrest. B. Bills for the revision of the administration of military justice are currently u der consideration by the lower house of parliament. One of t he proposals is that the provisions governing remands in custody in the Dutch criminal code should also apply to military servicemen. C. The Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the sum awarded by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 50 of the Convention.
CONFIDENTIAL - a21 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386 APPENDIX 5 (item 17) RESOLUTION DH(85)12 CONCERNING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF 1 OCTOBER 1982 AND 26 OCTOBER 1984 IN THE PIERSACK CASE (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 May 1985 at the 386th 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 (herinafter referred to as "the Convention"), Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Piersack case delivered on 1 October 1982 and 26 October 1984 and transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers; Recalling that the case had its origin in an application against Belgium lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by a Belgian citizen, Mr Christian Piersack, alleging violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention because he had not received a hearing by "an independent and impartial tribunal established by law"; Recalling that the case had been brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights; Whereas in its judgment of 1 October 1982 the Court unanimously: Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; Holds that the question of the application of Article 50 is not ready for decision; Whereas in its judgment of 26 October 1984 the Court unanimously: Holds that the respondent State is to 1. refrain from recovering, out of the court costs which the Belgian Court of Cassation and the Hainaut Assize Court ordered the applicant to bear on 21 February 1979 and 17 October 1983 respectively, a sum totalling fifty-one thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight Belgian Francs (BF 51,978 = BF 2,145 + BF 49,833); 2. pay to the applicant two hundred and seventy-five thousand Belgian Francs (BF 275,000), less three thousand five hundred French Francs (FF 3,500), in respect of lawyer's costs before the Belgian Court of Cassation (BF 25,000), the Hainaut Assize Court (BF 150,000) and the Convention institutions (BF 100,000); CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(85)386 - a22 - Appendix 5
Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention"; Having invited the Government of Belgium 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 Belgium informed the Committee of Ministers of the measures taken in consequence of the judgments; Having satisfied itself that the Government of Belgium has refrained from recovering out of the court costs mentioned in the Court's judgment of 26 October 1984 and has paid to the applicant the sums in relation to Article 50 of the Convention provided for in the judgment of the Court of 26 October 1984, Declares, after taking note of the information supplied by the Government of Belgium, that it has exercised its function under Article 54 of the Convention in this case. CONFIDENTIAL - a23 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 6 (item 26) DECISION NO. CM/359/310585
Ad hoc terms of reference 1. Name of relevant committee: BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON CRIME PROBLEMS (CDPC-BU) 2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers 3. Completion date: 4. Terms of reference: In the light of the work of the European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 19-20 March 1985) to indicate to the Committee of Ministers the measures which should be envisaged, in particular with reference to the definition of torture as an offence punishable as such wherever committed 5. Other committee(s) to b: informed of terms of reference:
CONFIDENTIAL - a25 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 7 (item 36)
DECISI0N NO. CM/360/310585
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: Having regard to the conclusions of the 6th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government on the relationships between the various levels of local administration under a regional organisation, to formulate the CDRM's proposals to the Secretary General for intergovernmental activities from 1987 onwards. These proposals should include: - studies aimed not only at the development of regional institutions but also at the achievement of an appropriate apportionment of responsibilities and resources between regional and local administrations; - detailed study of the effects of empowering regional and local authorities to levy taxes, having regard to the activities already appearing in the Programme of Activities for 1985, particularly Activity 20.5.A1, element 5; - the identification and discussion of any other topics likely to provide governments and interested authorities with information about the problems raised in paragraphs 1-6 of Resolution II adopted at the 6th Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local Government. 5. Other committee(s) to be informed of the terms of reference:
CONFIDENTIAL - a27 - CM/Del/Concl(85)386
APPENDIX 8 CORRIGENDUM TO PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS
382/34: Marine polution and acid rain Assembly Recommendation 1003 Page 115 - The text from the fifth paragraph should read as follows: "In regard to specific action which the Council of Europe might take, we think it would be wise to avoid any duplication, in view of the fact that marine pollution is a subject of concern to a large number of other international organisations, eg the Paris, Oslo and Helsinki Commissions, European Communities, Bonn Agreement and Intergovernmental Maritime Organisation to mention but a few. The Representative of Belgium said his authorities had reacted favourably to the content of Recommendation 1003, but thought that the work put in hand by other international organisations was sufficient. The Reprsentative of Ireland supported the views of the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany."