COUNCIL CONSEIL

OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE

COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342

CONCLUSIONS

OF THE 342nd MEETING

OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES

HELD IN STRASBOURG

FROM 11 TO 15 JANUARY 1982

STRASBOURG

-CONFIDENTIA i L-

CM/Del/Concl(82)342

SUMMARY

Page

1. Adoption of the agenda 5

Political and General Policy Questions

2. The question of "Political discussions" 7

3. Cultural co-operation 9

4. Fight against terrorism 13

5. Balanced development in Europe 27

6. United Nations - Exchange of views 33

7. Situation in Cyprus 35

8. Afghanistan - Recommendation 922 on the situation of refugees from Afghanistan and Order No. 399 on the solution of the Afghan crisis 37

9. Resale rights for works of Art - Request from the Commission of the European Communities 39

10. Conferences of Specialised Ministers 41

Human Rights

11. McVeigh, O'Neill and Evans against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 43

12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights 45 CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - ii -

Page

13. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 10th meeting (Strasbourg, 20-27 November 198.1) 47

14. International Convention against Torture - Recommendation 909 49

15. Access by the public to government records and freedom of information - Recommendation 854 51

Legal Questions

16. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the International Transport of Animals (CAHTA) - Meeting report (9-11 December 1981) 53

17. Ill-treatment of horses during international transport - Recommendation 923 57

18. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Second meeting (Strasbourg, 6-9 October 1981) 61

19. Fight against international tax evasion and avoidance - Written Question No. 245 by Mr. Antoni 63

20. Trade mark law - Recommendation 899 65

Economic and Social Questions

21. Ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers 69

22. European Social Charter - 6th period of supervision - Assembly Opinion No. 106 71

23. Public participation in decision-making on aircraft noise matters - Recommendation 875 77

24. 7th Seminar on International Voluntary Service - Assembly - Recommendation 894 79

25. Individual social fellowships - Request from the British Council for a financial contribution 81 CONFIDENTIAL

- iii - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

Page- Youth

26. European Youth Centre - Membership of the statutory organs (Governing Board and Advisory Committee) 83

Environment and Local Authorities

27. 6th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) 85

Administrative Questions

28. Appeals board - Administrative meeting 87

29. Preparation of forthcoming meetings 89

30. Other business,

a. Dialogue with the Secretary General 91

b. Statement by the Representative of Turkey on the situation in his country 99

c. European Youth Centre - 1982 Budget 101

d. Situation in Poland 103

e. Situation of Polish refugees in Austria 105 CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - iv -

Page

APPENDIX I: Agenda of the 342nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A level) al

APPENDIX II: Draft Agenda of the 343rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A and B levels) a5

APPENDIX III: Draft schedule of meetings for the second (item 29) half of 1982 a9

APPENDIX IV: RECOMMENDATION No. R(82)1 (item 4) of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning international co- operation in the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism all

APPENDIX V: DECISION No. CM/263/130182 (CDDH) a15 (item 13)

APPENDIX VII: Letter from the Secretary General of the (item 30a, Council of Europe to the Secretary General Part 3) of the European Parliament a17

APPENDIX VIII: Statement by the Representative of Turkey (item 30b) on the situation in his country a19 CONFIDENTIAL

- 1 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

The 342nd meeting of the Deputies was opened on Monday, 11 January 1982, at 3 pm, under the Chairmanship of Mr. D. Cape, Deputy for the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

PRESENT

AUSTRIA Mr. D. Bukowski, Vice-Chairman Mr. U. Hack Mr. H. Wiesner (item 6)

BELGIUM Mr. A. Vranken Mr. P. Duqué Mr. M. van den Reeck Mr. P. de Muelenaere (item 6)

CYPRUS Mr. C. Papademas Mr. N. Yiannakis

DENMARK Mr. B. Christensen Mr. S. Haslund (item 6) Mrs. A. Moltke-Leth (item 6)

FRANCE Mr. R. Doise Mr. R. Schublin Mr. F. Erhard Mr. L. Giustetti (item 6)

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr. K.A. Hampe Mr. K. Timmermann Mrs. R. Lassing Mr. S. Böhm (item 6)

GREECE Mr. J. Grigoriadis Mr. D. Constantinou Mr. A. Mallias Mr. A. Velliadis (item 6)

ICELAND Mr. H. Gislason

IRELAND Mr. M. Flynn Mr. J. Carroll (item 6) CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 2 -

ITALY Mr. M. Pisa Miss M. Costa Mr. G. Ceruti Mr. F. Rausi (item 6) Mr. C. Zanghi (item 6)

LIECHTENSTEIN HSH Prince Nicholas of Liechtenstein

LUXEMBOURG Mr. J. Hostert

MALTA

NETHERLANDS Mr. D.T. Schuurman Volker Mr. R. van Rijssen Mr. J.H. Burgers (item 6)

NORWAY Mr. E. Winsnes Mr. E. Bjørnebye Mr. K. Mørkved (item 6)

PORTUGAL Mr. A.L. da Costa Lobo Mr. J. da Rocha Paris Mr. J. Pais Moreira (item 6)

SPAIN Mr. J.L. Messía Mr. J.A. Yáñez-Barnuevo Mr. J.P. García-Trelles Mr. A. Fernandez-Villaverde (item 6)

SWEDEN Mr. L. Westerberg Mr. S.O. Petersson Mrs. B. Andreen (item 6)

SWITZERLAND Mr. A. Wacker Mrs. I. Apelbaum Mr. R. Mayor (item 6) Mr. J. D. Vigny (item 6)

TURKEY Mr. S. Günver Mr. V. Sentürker Mr. S. Umar Mrs. R. Aygen

UNITED KINGDOM Mr. D. Cape, Chairman Miss A. Stoddart Mr. M. Corbett Miss S. Ross Viscount Colville of Culross (item 6) Mr. P. Roberts (item 6) CONFIDENTIAL

- 3 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

At the opening of the meeting, the Chairman had the pleasure of expressing a welcome to two new members of the Committee of Ministers, namely Mr. Leo Tindemans, Minister for External Relations of Belgium, and Mr. Sciberras Trigona, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malta.

He also had the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Nicos Yiannakis, Deputy Permanent Representative of Cyprus, who was attending a meeting of the Deputies for the first time.

At the close of the meeting, the Chairman bade farewell to Mrs. Rose Lässing, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, who was leaving Strasbourg. Mr. Yáñez-Barnuevo (on behalf of his B-level colleagues) and the Deputy Secretary General also offered their best wishes to Mrs. Lässing and paid tribute to the contribution she had made to the work of the Council of Europe, in particular its intergovernmental committees and notably the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC).

Mrs. Lässing thanked the previous speakers, and expressed her regret that family reasons were obliging her to leave.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 5 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 1

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The Chairman said that he had received requests for postponement of the consideration of items 9 (Resale rights for works of art) and 23 (Public participation in decision-making on aircraft noise matters) for which the basic documents had been distributed only recently.

The Secretary to the Committee said that it appeared that item 30c (European Youth Centre - 1982 Budget) was not in fact as urgent as it had seemed when the Secretariat proposed its addition under Other Business. The item could therefore be postponed.

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that he wished to request, with reluctance, postponement of item 12 (Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç) on the ground that new developments in this matter had arisen very recently.

On the same subject, the Director of Human Rights, in reply to a question, said that the Secretariat could go along with the German proposal that the item be postponed.

The Representative of Turkey said that as far as item 7 was concerned (Situation in Cyprus) the position of his delegation remained unchanged with regard to both the substance and the form.

The Representative of France, supported by the Representative of Ireland, said that he felt that there were too many items on the agenda for the present meeting. Thirty was an excessive number of items for consideration at an A-level meeting, and many of the items listed concerned points of detail which could possibly be referred to B level. This was a matter of general concern to his delegation which wished to see A-level meetings enabled to concentrate on in-depth discussion of major issues.

The Chairman replied that he would always endeavour whenever possible to refer matters to B level. However, this was not always particularly easy when B-level meetings were fairly intermittent, and also when there was a possibility of the Committee being able to adopt replies to Assembly texts prior to a forthcoming session of the Assembly when there was no further B-level meeting before that session. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 6 - Item 1

Decision

The Deputies adopted the agenda of their 342nd meeting (January 1982 - A level) as it appears at Appendix I to these Conclusions, subject to the postponement of items 9, 12, 23 and 30c to their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - A and B levels - items 9, 12 and 30c to be discussed at A level, and item 23 at B level). CONFIDENTIAL

- 7 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 2

2. THE QUESTION OF "POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS" (Concl(81)341/2b, CM(81)PV 3 prov.)

The Chairman said that the following points had been selected for the exchange of views on East/West relations:

1. Poland; 2. CSCE; 3. Afghanistan.

He then asked the delegations in turn to give a preliminary indication as to the level of participation in that exchange of views.

At the end of this procedure the Representative of Switzerland said that his authorities took it for granted that this first exercise in the framework of the "widened political discussions" should be more extensive than the traditional exchanges of views on the CSCE and comprehend all East/West relations.

Decision

The Deputies, following the conclusions of the 69th Session of the Committee of Ministers (19 November 1981) concerning the intensification of political discussions within the Committee, agreed to hold an exchange of views on East-West relations with the participation of Senior Officials from the capitals on 2 February 1982 from 10 am (1).

(1) The opening date of the 343rd meeting was consequently advanced to that date (cf. decision (ii) under item 29 below).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 9 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 3

3. CULTURAL CO-OPERATION (Concl(81)341/2a, CM(81)PV 3 prov.)

The Secretary General said that he was preparing a report on cultural co-operation to be submitted to the Deputies at their meeting in March. He had held several consultations more especially with those responsible for the sectors concerned on the intergovernmental and parliamentary sides. He had also been in contact with the Chairman of the CDCC, Mr Raymond Weber, and intended during the session of the Parliamentary Assembly to meet the Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Education. Finally, he had had detailed discussions with the members of his Private Office, the Secretary to the Committee of Ministers and the Plan and Programme Division, the Head of which would be responsible for supervising the drafting of the report.

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement:

"I would like to say, from the outset, that up to now my government has not yet instructed me to put forward ideas as to the manner in which the stock taking of cultural activities and discussion in the Committee of Ministers should take place. Nor have I received instructions regarding future initiatives about how to reinforce cultural work here in Strasbourg.

What I am submitting for your consideration now are personal views. I would like to give some indication of how our work in this field could best be done.

As you are aware, Frau Hamm-Brücher, Minister of State, had proposed during the 69th Session a stock-taking by the Deputies and furthermore a discussion at a later ministerial meeting with a view to possible future activities of the European Communities in the cultural field. You will remember that the Germano-Italian initiative for a closer so called political union of the Ten might include the cultural field and this gave rise to certain apprehensions. Details of this initiative are being worked out and therefore are not yet available. So we would have to wait for a discussion of the manner in which the Council of Europe would co-operate with the European Communities. What I can say right now is that proposals in the context of the Germano-Italian initiative will take into account the work of the council of Europe. There will be no competition with the Council of Europe. On the other hand it seems to us legitimate that the cultural dimension is being integrated into the process of European unification by the members of the Brussels community. As for the stock-taking of cultural activities in the Council of Europe it might include reviewing work fields of both in the education, culture, sport, youth and monuments protections. One should also include existing co-operation with the European Communities. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 10 - Item 3

In general, I think this balance will look quite satisfactory and favourable. One could perhaps recommend dropping certain activities and concentrate on others. But this cannot be done too hastily and must be well prepared.

What in my opinion we are not considering sufficiently in our cultural activities, for the time bieng, is a genuine common European cultural policy or at least a coordinated one. There are too few joint ventures. Even the great exhibitions, which were so successful, are more national than European. They do not lay enough emphasis on the common European element in our culture and single out the national element.

At present, I remember only the European music year, the year of the child, the European schools day as putting European identity in the foreground. A European exhibition could perhaps be a joint venture of the Twenty-one which could travel for instance to Latin America.

Finally, I think that information policy in the cultural field could be improved. Sometimes the results of very interesting committee work is known only to experts and not to the public at large. When thinking about the cultural activities of the Council of Europe one should foster those which help to build up what we could call a European identity. The feeling that we have much in common in the cultural field is the basis for our European identity, which has an important role to play in the future."

The Representative of Austria thought that the reason why there had so far been too few joint undertakings at the cultural level were essentially of a financial nature. It was in fact difficult to launch broadly-based operations of European co-operation with the limited resources available to the cultural sector.

The Representative of Portugal said that the cultural sector was one of the priority areas of the Council fo Europe's action. His authorities considered that by virtue of its composition, principles, values and structures, the Council of Europe was uniquely placed to implement a balanced and effective activity throughout Europe. Such an activity would moreover contribute to giving the Organisation the prestige it needed to carry out its various tasks. The time had come to examine the problems in depth because there was a general awareness of the importance of this sector. The action of the Council of Europe in the field of culture should not merely be the sum of its various unco-ordinated achievements, however important they were, but consitute a coherent whole designed to implement a specified policy. One should therefore begin by attempting to define a philosophy with clear objects and priorities. As an example, he said that his authorities would be particularly satisfied to see the principle established that the action of the Council of Europe should make itself felt in all the regions of the member States and that the geographical distribution of its activities should not be left to chance. CONFIDENTIAL

- 11 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 3

The Representative of Switzerland said that among the fields of activity of the Council of Europe Human Rights and Culture were of particular importance. However much though his authorities were satisfied with the way co-operation was operating in the field of human rights, they were to the same extent critical with regard to co-operation in the cultural field. If the Ministers had given the Deputies a mandate on the question of cultural co-operation, it had been a result of the initiatives taken in the framework of the European Communities by Mr Genscher and Mr Colombo with a view to cultural co-operation between the Ten. This initiative was a challenge to the Council of Europe which could increase its stature. In this connection he recalled Mr Aubert's statement at the 69th Session of the Committee of Ministers which read as follows:

"Perhaps we in the Committee of Ministers have not interested ourselves sufficiently in the cultural sector; perhaps our intergovernmental organ, the Council of Cultural Co-operation (CDCC), has become bogged down in structures, working methods and programmes which are no longer entirely in line with the requirements of the 80s? If this is the case, we should bring them up to date or replace them but not at the cost of a break in the culture of western Europe".

He had listened with interest to what had been said by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany with which he agreed to a large extent but stressed that it was dangerous - in the context of intergovernmental co-operation - to give too wide a meaning to the word "culture" so as to make it cover fields like education, youth, sport and monuments and sites. All these specific fields were operating in a satisfactory way but what required review was cultural co-operation in the strict sense. He recalled the terms of reference of the CDCC were clear: the Ministers' Deputies had entrusted it with the task of intergovernmental co-operation in the field of education and culture; that was to say to put into practice the co-operation desired by governements.

Moreover, the activities of the CDCC were too scattered and if it appeared that they were lacking in finance it was precisely because there were so very many of them. In fact, when it came to figures, Field III of the budget of the Council of Europe had more resources than any other field.

The Representative of Switzerland recalled that it had been the Deputies who had been instructed to draw up a report. The document that the Secretary General was preparing could therefore not be a "report" nor even a "draft report", but an important reference document for the preparation of the report. In concluion, he was pleased to be able to take up the "challenge" of which he had spoken at the beginning, to be able to prove that the Council of Europe was capable of noticably improving its intergovernmental action both in the specific field of culture as such and in other fields related to it. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 12 - Item 3

The Representative of Spain said that he had always stressed the importance of cultural co-operation in the Council of Europe and was for his part not of the opinion that this field showed a negative balance. He did not agree with his German colleague that the art exhibitions had not had a European dimension. On the contrary, this was one of the most practical achievements of the Council of Europe in the cultural field and the very fact that they had been resumed after being abandoned was evidence of their importance. Finally, he did not agree with his Swiss colleague about the financial resources in Field III because that field, though rich in achievements, was very poor in resources.

The Representative of France said it was not necessary to recall the interest of the French authorities in cultural co-operation. In this connection, he mentioned the visit that the Secretary General had just made to Paris, during which the specific role of the Council of Europe in the field of culture and its larger field of action were referred to. There was no question of giving the Ten privileged treatment at the expense of the Twenty-one, because in the cultural field the Council of Europe had proved itself a laboratory of ideas. It was in this context that he was looking foward to the document to be produced by the Secretary General.

The Representative of Italy agreed with what had been said by his Swiss and German colleagues, stressing that the initiative taken by Mr Genscher and Mr Colombo was, in fact, a challenge to the Council of Europe which encouraged it to review and improve its achievements in the field of cultural co-operation.

It was clear that the initiative taken by the Ten was not intended to cut Europe in two but that the work done by each body was different and should be complementary. His authorities considered that the intensification of cultural co-operation between the Ten was a necessary condition for the development of European unity but it was equally clear to the Italian authorities that it was not a question of repeating in Brussels what was already being done at Strasbourg. The means used were different and the activites should be complementary.

The Secretary General said that the question of cultural co-operation between the Ten and that between the Twenty-one should be regarded as complementary. He had not failed to raise the question during his visits to the capitals of the member States and had found that there was a wide consensus on the need for the work of the Organisations to be complementary and also on the specific role of the Council of Europe in the field of culture. It was because he attached special importance to this question that he had taken personal charge of the cultural co-operation file which came directly under his Private Office and the Plan and Programme Division.

Decision

The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 345th meeting (March 1982 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL

- 13 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 4

4. FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM (Concl(81)339/3 and 340/2, CM(81)296)

Introducing this item on the agenda, the Chairman said that only recently terrorists in Italy had kidnapped the American NATO General, J. Dozier, and in Dublin they had seriously wounded the head of the national laboratory of the Irish police, Mr J. O'Donovan. This underlined the urgency of finding a solution to the questions which had not yet been settled and were summarised by the Secretariat in CM(81)296. He suggested that the Deputies should adopt the order of discussion proposed in that document, namely first the examination of the draft Recommendation on international co-operation in the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism (Part I of CM(81)296) and then the other proposals set out in Part II, in particular those contained in the Spanish Government's memorandum (CM(81)170 rev.).

I. Draft Recommendation on international co-operation in the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism (Part I of CM(81)296 and Appendix)

The Representative of Spain agreed with the Chairman on the urgency of this question. The Spanish authorities had appreciated the efforts made by the Deputies on several occasions and in particular by the Swiss Chairman to reach an agreement on the draft Recommendation. The improvements made in the draft as the examination had progressed now made it possible for his government to accept in a spirit of compromise and constructive co-operation the text set out in the Appendix to CM(81)296 provided the preamble was completed by the list of the initiatives taken by the Council of Europe, set out in the letter from the Chairman of the Deputies, dated 10 November 1981, including in particular the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, and Resolution(74)3 on international terrorism. That list although contained in a footnote should always be reproduced in the text of the Recommendation once it had been adopted. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(81)342 - 14 - Item 4

The Representative of France made the following statement:

"We are confronted with an important problem: that of terrorism. During the discussions on this item in the preceding months my delegation has had to put forward precise requirements and sometimes to express reservations on the points in the draft Recommendation which appeared to it unacceptable. I should like to make it very clear that this attitude is not due to a lack of interest in the problem. More perhaps than anyone else, France is aware of the seriousness of the danger that terrorism represents. It has suffered and is still suffering from it. But at times there is perhaps a difference of approach as compared with our partners, that is to say the philosophic approach. Having said this, I wish to express my appreciation of the work done by the PC/AV committee, particularly last October and I thank this Committee for the work it has done under the Chairmanship of our colleague, Mr Wacker.

As regards the working method, we would have preferred that it was based on the results of the work of the PC/AV committee, ie document CM(81)250 or, if need be, 252 which set out all the proposals of the experts which were to remain between square brackets until they were finally adopted.

Having said that, in a spirit of compromise I am prepared to accept the discussion being based on document CM(81)296 with the 'square brackets' that still remain.

As you know, we accepted on 5 November last the draft Recommendation on international co-operation with regard to terrorism as set out in document CM(81)252. However, that acceptance was conditional on the retention, in the first paragraph of the operative words of the draft, of the words 'serious concerted [acts of terrorism] involving the use of violence'. I must point out that I am maintaining my attitude with regard to this phrase. I would remind you that we stressed at the time that these major concessions were the limit to what we could agree to.

Subsequently, proposals were worked out to 'strengthen' the text in order to take account of the Spanish objections. This 'strengthening' - to adopt the word used by my Spanish colleague - which has led to CM(81)296 is not acceptable to my delegation.

I repeat that this document should have continued to follow the conclusions of the PC/AV committee and should not have been constantly modified in a manner contrary to our concerns.

Having said that, we are again ready to take a flexible attitude with regard to several points which I will now mention:

1. We accept in paragraph 2 of the preamble the word 'increased' and in paragraph 5 the substition of the word 'procedures' for the word 'practices'. CONFIDENTIAL

- 15 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

2. In paragraph 6 of the operative part we accept the expression 'with all necessary expediency'.

3. Finally in the 3rd line of paragraph 7 of the operative part we accept the addition of the word 'conducted'.

On the other hand, I confirm that the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism should not be mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the preamble.

Furthermore, in the seventh paragraph of the preamble only the first version between square brackets, ie the version originally proposed in acceptable.

As regards the scope of the Recommendation, I repeat that I cannot accept that the words 'serious concerted ... involving the use of violence' be deleted from the text.

Finally, in paragraph 5 of the operative part, I can accept either of the versions between square brackets but insist on keeping one of the two phrases.

Finally, I consider that we are all here to negotiate and I am ready to listen to the reactions of my colleagues."

The Chairman considered that the comments just formulated made it possible to contemplate the forthcoming discussion with some optimism.

The Director of Legal Affairs pointed out that as stated in point 1.2 of CM(81)296 two points required clarification: the position of the Spanish delegation as regards the introduction to the operative part of the draft Recommendation and that of the French delegation as to the possibility of introducing a reference to the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism in a footnote.

The Representative of Switzerland said that the evil of terrorism was a matter of concern to all the countries of Europe and action by the Committee of Ministers was therefore fully justified. The excellent work done by the Secretariat in CM(81)296 completed the efforts so far made and constituted a new starting point for the discussion.

The Chairman proposed that the Deputies should commence the examination of the draft Recommendation reproduced in the Appendix to CM(82)296 paragraph by paragraph. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 16 - Item 4

Preamble to the draft Recommendation

The Representative of Spain again stressed the importance the Spanish authorities attached to setting out the initiatives of the Council of Europe at least in a footnote to paragraph 5 of the preamble.

The Representative of France suggested that the Deputies should leave this point open for the moment to enable him to contact his authorities on this question.

The Chairman noted that the Deputies agreed to return to this point later in the meeting. Furthermore, he observed that there were no objections to the following wording of paragraph 5 of the preamble: "Having regard to Council of Europe initiatives in the past, aimed at the suppression of terrorism which represent important contributions to the fight against this threat to society".

Similarly, he noted that there were no objections to the following wording for paragraph 8 of the preamble: "Having regard to the existing co-operation and channels of communications between the police forces of member States".

Introduction to the operative part of the draft Recommendation

The Representative of France agreed to the wording in CM(81)296 including the words "serious concerted ... involving the use of violence". He was therefore not in a position to accept the Secretariat's proposals set out in point 1.3 of CM(81)296.

The Representative of Spain could accept in that order (i) the version set out in the Appendix to CM(81)296 without the words between square brackets; (ii) the Swiss proposal (item 6 of note (1) at page 6 of CM(81)296; and (iii) the Secretariat's proposal (item 1.3 of CM(81)296).

When discussion of this item was resumed on the afternoon of 13 January 1982, the Representative of France stated that by way of concession the French authorities could accept

i. that paragraph 5 of the preable be completed by a footnote after the word "initiatives" (see above) as proposed by the Swiss Chairman on 10 November 1981 (page 6 of the Appendix to CM(81)296); CONFIDENTIAL

- 17 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 4

ii. the deletion of the words "serious concerted ... involving the use of violence" between brackets in the introdution to the operative part of the draft Recommendation as set out in the appendix to CM(81)296, provided however, that paragraph 2 of Chapter II of this draft adopted the wording set out in the version proposed after the meeting of the PC/AV committee on 20 and 21 October 1981 and set out in CM(81)250.

The Representative of Cyprus suggested that the Council of Europe initiatives which were to be set out in the footnote should be in the following order: conventions, resolutions and other texts of the Committee of Ministers, texts and other initiatives of the Assembly.

The Representative of Spain expressed his great satisfaction at the change in the French position as the standing reference to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism constituted a condition sine qua non for his acceptance of the draft Recommendation.

The Chairman noted that there was now agreement on the following version of paragraph 5 of Chapter II of the draft Recommendation (CM(81)296) ... (unchanged) ... "the competent authorities should, insofar as this is not contrary to the domestic law, ..." (rest unchanged).

II. The other proposals set out in CM(81)296

Spanish Government's memorandum (CM(81)170 rev.)

The Representative of Spain said that the memorandum submitted by his delegation and set out in CM(81)170 rev. was intended to provide the material for a discussion in the Committee of Ministers with a view to clarifying the various aspects of the continually resurgent problem of terrorism. The second half of the year just finished had in fact been marked by an upsurge of terrorist activities. Insofar as law must remain in touch with reality its preparation should be preceded by a detailed examination of both the facts and the remedies, particularly in the international field which was dependent on the development of national legislation. The Spanish proposals, therefore, constituted not so much a final and compelling plan as an outline for reflection which was intended to be both as exhaustive as possible and flexible. It was intended for the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and should therefore be completed by any observations, suggestions or proposals coming from the other delegations to which the Spanish delegation would then lend a ready ear. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 18 - Item 4

The Chairman asked the Director of Legal Affairs to introduce each paragraph of the Spanish memorandum (CM(81)170 rev.) which was summarised in CM(81)296.

1. Paragraph 7a of CM(81)170 rev.

The Director of Legal Affairs observed that the suggestion in paragraph 7a of the memorandum to assign the CDPC terms of reference requiring it to encourage the signature and ratification of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism was already covered by paragraph 11 of the general terms of reference at Appendix 1 to Resolution(76)3 on the structures, terms of reference and working methods of committees. In fact the CDPC regularly held exchanges of views on the state of the signatures of the Conventions falling under its jurisdiction. The CDPC had decided to concentrate its efforts at its next meeting in May 1982 on the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. As a general principle the Committee avoided a direct approach to the question of ratification because the decision whether or not to ratify a given Convention was a question of political expediency. However, if it thought fit, the Committee of Ministers could, if appropriate, draw the attention of the delegations represented in the CDPC to the particular importance it attached to the 1977 Convention.

The Representative of Austria expressed his agreement with the Director of Legal Affairs in particular as regards the political nature of the decision whether or not to ratify the Convention.

The Representative of Portugal stated that Portugal had ratified the 1977 Convention on 14 December 1981. Generally speaking, the Spanish memorandum had given an important stimulus to discussion in this field and he hoped that the Deputies would return to the question after a first reading.

The Representative of Switzerland stressed the interest he attached to the document presented by Spain and aptly summarised by the Secretariat. Having said this, he thought that instead of assigning a mandate the Committee of Ministers could send a message to the CDPC expressing the wish that in implementing its general terms of reference the steering committee should concern itself more especially with the question of the ratification of the 1977 Convention.

The Representative of France referring to page 9 of the memorandum said that the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism had not been ratified by several member States of the Council of Europe owing to the difficulties encountered in implementing that instrument in their national law. More especially it was difficult to contemplate an CONFIDENTIAL

- 19 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 4 extension of the CDPC's jurisdiction as regards the implementation of the Convention by means of terms of reference or a message as this jurisdiction was very precisely defined by Article 9 of the Convention and only an amendment of that text would make it possible fully to comply with the Spanish proposal. This observation applied not only to paragraph 7a of CM(81)170 rev. but also to paragraph 7c on the study of the present state of legal co-operation. However the French authorities could accept that the CDPC should draw up once a year the list of signatures and ratifications of the Convention and that on this occasion the states inform it of their intentions on this subject.

The Representative of Ireland expressed reservations as to the need to assign a mandate to the CDPC as suggested in paragraph 7a.

2. Paragraph 7b of CM(81)170 rev.

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the preparation of a model extradition treaty with clauses similar to those in the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism would encounter difficulties of an essentially political nature. The object was in fact to apply at a multilateral or bilateral level the content of the European Convention on Extradition with the provisions of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism backed by the appropriate constitutional guarantees. In the field of multilateral relations it should be mentioned that the Dublin Agreement between the Nine members of the Communities, which had been intended to achieve that object, had not been ratified and would perhaps never be ratified on the bilateral level as the difficulties remained unsolved. However, in view of the fact that the purpose of the Spanish suggestion was essentially to find alternative technical solutions for States which were not in a position to ratify the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the CDPC could of course undertake the technical legal studies, but doubts might be permitted as to the usefulness of such an exercise.

The Representative of the Netherlands thought that a model extradition treaty was not necessary seeing that there was already a multilateral convention on the subject.

The Representative of Norway agreed with the Director of Legal Affairs, moreover the attitudes of governments as regards a possible model treaty were unlikely to be more favourable than their attitude towards a Convention.

The Representative of Austria thought it preferable to concentrate on multilateral solutions rather than a model bilateral extradition treaty which could hardly lead to useful results. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Conlc(82)342 - 20 - Item 4

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany thought it desirable to improve the ratification and implementation of existing instruments before contemplating new ones.

The Representative of France said that if, as was suggested in the memorandum, bilateral extradition treaties for which the model was to be proposed by the Council of Europe repeated the essential provisions of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, States would encounter the same difficulties in their implementation as had been mentioned under 1 above.

The Representative of Sweden agreed with the Representatives of Austria and Norway.

The Representative of Belgium said that if Belgium had difficulties in ratifying the 1977 Convention, the position would be the same for a possible model extradition treaty.

The Representative of Ireland had no objection to this question being studied provided that the model treaty in question was based on the principle "aut dedere aut judicare".

On the other hand, the Representative of Italy thought that an effort should be made and that the CDPC should be instructed to undertake a study of this question. If a majority were to be in favour his delegation would support it.

The Representative of Spain said that the suggestion mentioned in paragraph 7b of the document had been made because a bilateral treaty was the best means of achieving the objects agreed on by everybody. However, the position of the Spanish delegation was far from being finally settled on this point and it was ready to consider any other solution.

3. Paragraph 7c of CM(81)170 rev.

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the idea of studying the present state of legal co-operation was interesting from an academic point of view. However, he considered that because of the complexity of this research, the CDPC was not the appropriate forum. The task would be better entrusted to a consultant. On the other hand the CDPC might benefit from the results of the study. However, this would mean supplementary appropriations being placed at the disposal of the Directorate.

The Representative of Spain said that the suggestion of entrusting the study to a consultant should be followed up. CONFIDENTIAL

- 21 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 4

The Chairman thought that the Secretariat should come back later with a more precise proposal and an estimate of the costs.

The Representative of France said that some countries (as for example was the case with the French Extradition Act of 1927) had laws which dealt with cases of extradition not covered by a treaty.

The Representative of Ireland expressed reservations as to the desirability of undertaking the study in question.

In reply to a question by the Representative of Belgium, the Director of Legal Affairs said that the study could only be assigned to the Secretariat if it was a question of listing existing multilateral and bilateral extradition conventions. But if the object was to assess the situation, it would be necessary to analyse the content of these instruments and the relevant legislation, undertake comparative studies and examine the relevant case-law. That was why the study should be entrusted to a specialist as the Secretariat was not equipped for studies of this kind. However, he proposed making contact with the Spanish delegation to get a clearer view of the problems and return later with proposals in the manner suggested by the Chairman.

4. Paragraph 8 of CM(81)170 rev.

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the Declaration on territorial asylum of 18 November 1977 had been prepared by a working party of the Deputies. The political purpose of the text was thus evident; similarly the most important feature of its possible revision was a political assessment of events occurring since 1977 and this task should once again be undertaken by the Deputies. On the other hand the ad hoc Committee of Experts on the Legal Aspects of Territorial Asylum (CAHAR) might help in the work by supplying technical opinions.

The Representative of Austria said that the right of asylum as defined in Article 5 of the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism should not be modified. The fact that that Convention reserved the right of asylum was one of the main reasons that made the Convention acceptable, especially for those countries which had already ratified it.

The Representatives of Switzerland and Italy supported the Spanish proposal in paragraph 8 of CM(81)170 rev.

The Representative of Spain said that the object in his delegation's memorandum was to draw a distinction between political offences and terrorist offences. However the criterion of that distinction was not intrinsic but depended on the nature of the system attacked. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 22 - Item 22

The Representative of France said that at least for the present it was not convincing to contemplate the amendment of one declaration by means of another declaration. Furthermore, in view of the fact that France was traditionally strongly attached to the right of asylum, he saw no possibility at the present stage of his taking part in an activity in this field.

5. Paragraph 9 of CM(81)170 rev.

The Director of Legal Affairs said that Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties imposed an obligation on a State not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty which it had signed before its entry into force until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty. The text and the relevant travaux préparatoires stated the present position of international law on the subject.

The purpose of the Spanish delegation in paragraph 9 of the memorandum seemed to be not so much to study the present position of international law as to draw certain conclusions. In any case as it was a question of international law the proper committee for a study of this question would seem to be the CDCJ. That committee also had terms of reference covering the field of public international law and had decided quite recently to set up a Committee of Experts on public international law (CJ-DI) and the Deputies had just approved that decision.

The Representative of Switzerland was able to support the Spanish delegation's proposals but wished to hear the lattar's reaction to the suggestions made by the Director of Legal Affairs.

The Representative of Spain was in principle favourable to the suggestion to assign terms of reference to the competent committee. Their scope should, however, be better defined.

The Chairman asked the Secretariat, in liaison with the Spanish delegation, to return the next time with a suggestion for terms of reference.

6. Paragraph 10 of CM(81)170 revised

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the Deputies had already taken the necessary steps as regards the ratifications and signatures of the Convention in question by adopting on 14 June 1979 Recommendation(79)12 on the application of the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters.

Since then the Convention had been ratified by Austria and signed by Greece. CONFIDENTIAL

- 23 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 4

The Representative of France argued that the European Convention for the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, to which only a few States had acceded, did not seem capable of providing for effective legal co-operation, particularly in the matter of terrorism, on account of its technical complexity.

7. Paragraph 10 of CM(81)170 rev. (Alternative or additional proposal)

The Director of Legal Affairs said that the suggestion to draw up a Protocol to the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism relating to the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters would not appear to be a useful step insofar as the member States could not become Contracting Parties to the Protocol if they were not already parties to the Convention. On the other hand, it would be possible as had been done in the case of Protocols Nos. 86, 98 and 99 to the Conventions on Extradition and Mutual Aid to contemplate a Protocol to the Convention on Transfer to overcome the obstacles in Article 11(d) of the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters. Thus, with respect to all the offences set out in such a new Protocol, and which would certainly be taken from the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, the possibility of refusing transfer provided for in the said Article 11 would no longer be allowed.

The Representative of France repeated the observation made under 6 above.

The Representative of the Netherlands was not in a position to accept the present wording of the Spanish proposal.

The Representative of Austria thought that it was better at present to make efforts to have as many States as possible sign and ratify the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism before proceeding to the drafting of an additional protocol to that Convention.

The Representative of Ireland expressed reservations on the Spanish proposal.

The Representative of Spain said that his delegation was prepared to accept either technical solution provided that the purpose of paragraph 10 of the memorandum was respected. His delegation would certainly return to this question particularly in the light of the observations made by the Directorate of Legal Affairs. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 24 - Item 4

8. Paragraph 11 of CM(81)170 rev.

The Director of Legal Affairs said Interpol was an intergovernmental organisation covering about 120 States. Some of these were particularly concerned by the concept of "political offences". It was, however, true that Article 3 of the Statute of that Organisation had always been flexibly interpreted in relations between European States in a manner amounting to a practical and tacit arrangement under which only offences so defined by the State concerned were treated as political offences. Having said this, it was difficult to conceive of a formal consecration of such arrangements in a form of a statement by the Council of Europe on Article 3 of the Statutes of Interpol. Moreover it would be discourteous and politically difficult for one organisation to interpret the Statutes of another organisation. It should be added that bilateral arrangements were often made with respect to special cases when it appeared impossible to act through Interpol. It was therefore extremely desirable to adopt a very cautious attitude in this field.

The Representative of the Netherlands said he was opposed to the Spanish delegation's proposal.

The Representative of France said that the Statute of Interpol had been adopted in 1956 by the General Assembly of that Organisation. The text laid down in its penultimate section the conditions for its application, modification and interpretation, so the member States of the Council of Europe had no jurisdiction to agree between themselves on the interpretation of the Statute of another international organisation. Paraphrasing what had been said by the Director of Legal Affairs, he thought that this was a question on which it was better to remain silent.

The Representative of Spain drew attention to the absence in the Spanish memorandum of any reference to a public and official interpretation of Article 3 of Interpol's Statute. The Spanish proposal was merely an invitation to the member States of the Council of Europe to agree among themselves on the interpretation to be given to that provision. This practice was moreover recognised by the Vienna Convention. Within these limits therefore the Spanish proposal was both realistic and useful. In fact the existence of Article 3 of Interpol's Statute was often used as a pretext and it was therefore desirable to interpret the provision exclusively within the framework of the member States of the Council of Europe. CONFIDENTIAL

- 25 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 4

When discussion of this item was resumed on Friday, 15 January 1982, after noting that there were no objections to the adoption of the text of the Recommendation as set out at Appendix IV to these Conclusions (see decision (i) below), the Chairman congratulated both the Deputies and the Secretariat for the excellent work done at this meeting which had made it possible to settle a considerable part of the file relating to the fight against terrorism. He suggested that the Deputies resume consideration of the file, including the questions set out in B-E of Secretariat document CM(81)296, at their 345th meeting.

Other Deputies expressed their agreement with the Chairman.

The Representative of Greece, whilst approving the Recommendation, declared that it would be applied by Greece only to the extent compatible with the Greek constitution and legislation.

Decisions

The Deputies i. adopted Recommendation No.R(82)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States concerning international co-operation in the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, as it appears at Appendix IV to these Conclusions; ii. agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 345th meeting (March 1982 - A level).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 27 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 5

5. BALANCED DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE (Concl(81)340/2)

The Representative of Portugal made the following statement:

"May I, before speaking of the more practical issue of the preparation of a report on balanced development in Europe, present here the broad outlines of my coutry's conception of this problem.

Council of Europe action in this field must be in accordance with certain factors, particularly the following three: i. importance given to the objective in view: ii. existing possibilities and means of action; iii. degree of determination to utilise those means;

On. the first factor - importance of the objective - I believe there is in the Council of Europe a fairly broad consensus. No one will deny, I am convinced, the relationship between the development of our countries and the stability of democracy. Progress towards greater unity in Europe also depends on the reduction of imbalances. And effective enjoyment of certain human rights, particularly socio-economic rights, presupposes a degree of development that has not yet been attained in all the regions included in the geographical area covered by the Council of Europe. For all these reasons, balanced development may be considered to be part and parcel of the Council's fundamental values and preoccupations, or even as a vital precondition for the full achievement of certain of its objectives. If one accepts this, then there is no need to look for other arguments to stress the importance of the "balanced development" objective in the context of the Council of Europe.

The questions of means is less self-evident. I believe that we are all in agreement on the fact that the Council of Europe has relatively limited material resources at its disposal. And at first sight it is not easy to see how the reduction of imbalances in Europe could be achieved without fairly substantial material means. However, the possibility is not ruled out that factors of quite a different nature, which we shall consider in a moment, might make an effective CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 28 - Item 5

contribution to the achievement of the objective in question. In our view such means do exist and they have not yet been fully exploited. Of course they need to be defined. And, naturally, the will to make use of them is needed, which leads me directly to the third factor under consideration, that is to say the degree of determination to utilise the existing means.

It is understandable that since development levels in member states are not uniform, their priorities do not coincide. At all events, if in the short term the consequences of imbalances effect certain countries and regions more profoundly than others, the effects of such imbalances cannot fail to have repercussions elsewhere and in Europe as a whole. Thus in the long-term we believe that the positions of the different countries must converge. We dare to hope that this is the case.

The Council of Europe is already engaged in various forms of action with the aim of achieving balanced development in Europe. We consider that its action includes several positive features and that through natural expansion of the procedures and machinery used it is possible to obtain even better results. Very recent moves and measures in the framework of the Resettlement Fund bear out this conviction.

The question is that the problem of balanced development is of such magnitude that if we truly wish to make substantial progress the means employed appear to us, we must admit, very inadequate. We are, to be sure, fighting against imbalances; but our weapons are no match.

Thus, while recognising the positive aspects of measures already taken, we consider that it is vital to have recourse to yet other means and make use, if necessary, of all the instruments at the Council of Europe's disposal. This approach, in fact, would appear to accord fully with the philosophy of the declaration of 16 october 1980 which refers explicity to "examination of other means".

It is generally understood that the term "other means" included the idea of creating a technical assistance fund, which could be modelled on the cooperation programme for Portugal (but not, of course, limited to a single country). We continue to give support to such a measure and we consider that even if it cannot be implemented in the immediate future it should not on any account be forgotten and abandoned. Furthermore, convinced, as I said in the first part of this statement, that the means which the Council might employ have not been fully utilised, we believe that the search for such means must go on. And it must go on, in the first instance, taking account of the Council of Europe's particular qualities, as it is evident that no action can be effective if it is not in harmony with the vocation of the Organisation and well adapted to its structure. Thus, before making certain suggestions on these lines, it may be a good thing to reflect briefly on certain hard facts which determine the Council of Europe's scope for action. CONFIDENTIAL

- 29 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 5

It is necessary to recognise, and we accept the fact, that the Council of Europe is not a wealthy organisation. On the other hand it has a structure and an operational system which, in alliance with the prestige which it enjoys, enable it to exercise considerable influence beyond its internal activity. We must therefore make use of those assets.

It is not our intention to present here a programme of action to be approved by this Committee. The intention is simply, if one accepts the postulate that, in this field, the Council of Europe has not yet exhausted its capacity for action, to stimulate discussion so as to determine and select more suitable formulae for the fight against imbalances in Europe. Thus I shall present certain possibilities of action, purely in the form of suggestions, which could be examined or which could lead to other better ideas.

1. Charter or declaration

Existing imbalances in Europe can certainly be corrected, or attenuated, if all states, organisations, firms and individuals embrace certain values and ideals, respect certain principles and adopt a certain attitude.

The majority of the principles and attitudes that would favour balanced development are no doubt well-known. In our societies I believe I can say that they are generally approved or considered to be positive.

But since in concrete cases attitudes depend on a multitude of factors, such principles are not always observed and such attitudes not constantly adopted.

But certain principles, however well-known and generally approved, need to be confirmed and publicised. Certain attitudes and actions, even though they may be accepted and valued, need stimulation and encouragement. In our opinion the Council of Europe could play an important role in publicising and providing incentive, a role fully in accordance with its vocation and possibilities, in particular by adopting a declaration on balanced development which could serve as a model and influence the conduct of all bodies concerned, whether state bodies or not, in their own particular spheres of influence and in their external relations.

I wish to add that such a text appears to us to be desirable, quite apart from its immediate results, because it would enable the Council of Europe to define here and now its position on a question which may well inevitably grow in size and importance in the years to come-

2. Special meeting

On the same grounds and assuming that certain principles can be strengthened and appropriate action stimulated through solemn proclamation, it could be well worth while holding a special session of the Ministers' Deputies on this theme. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 30 - Item 5

3. Conference or symposium

Another idea, perhaps easier to realise, would be to hold a conference or symposium with balanced development in Europe as its theme. This would make it possible to unearth new ideas, analyse and compare other paths and stimulate implementation of the ideas considered best.

4. Long-term programme and co-operation with other organisations

Coming back to an idea put forward in a report presented in 1979 to the Parliamentary Assembly by the Political Affairs Committee one might consider preparing, possibly in co-operation with other international organisations, a long-term programme to restore balance in Europe.

5. Working Party

Lastly, on the assumption that selection of the most suitable methods is a matter of lengthy and detailed analysis, it might be a good thing to create a working party to examine these questions and submit suggestions to this Committee. At the same time, the working party would demonstrate the Council of Europe's determination to pursue intensive and permanent action in this field.

All these suggestions have been presented by way of example and the aim is above all to suggest that the Council of Europe, despite its limited material resources, can do something. Provided we, the member states, want something to be done.

With regard to the report to be prepared by the Secretariat, we would simply like to suggest that it might be a good thing in the historical part, which is probably being planned, to mention not only measures that have been taken but also all the suggestions that have so far been made.

With regard to the timing of the debate on this question at ministerial level we consider at this stage that it might be best to maintain a degree of flexibility. But since next April seems to us to be too soon we might for the time being consider the possibility of holding the discussion either in the autumn session of this year or in the spring session of 1983."

The Representative of Spain said that the comments by his Portuguese colleague were a logical follow-up to the decisions taken by the Ministers at their 66th and 67th Sessions. They referred to more general elements which could be borne in mind in taking practical measures in favour of the laudable aim of balanced development in Europe. A certain amount of progress had been made on the first two parts of the Ministers' declaration on this subject (Resettlement Fund and Medium-Term Plan); now it was for the Deputies to concentrate on the "other means to be developed within the Council of Europe" referred to in the third part of that declaration. CONFIDENTIAL

- 31 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 5

The Representative of Cyprus thanked his Portuguese colleague for his interesting statement. Balanced development in Europe had become something of a slogan and it was for the Deputies to decide how the Council of Europe should adapt its activities to fit in with the purport of that slogan. Suggestions for practical action were required; if no action were taken the whole idea should be dropped.

Reference had been made to the Resettlement Fund. A certain amount of progress had been made to adapt the operations of the Fund to the requirements of balanced development but it should not be forgotten that the Fund was a banking institution whose shareholders were the 19 member governments. It would continue to operate within a clearly defined framework. Some progress had been made in the Medium-Term Plan and the Annual Programme of Activities but the extent of that progress could be seen in the limited resources made available during examination of the draft Programme of Activities for 1982.

Suggestions by his Portuguese colleague would of course be studied with care but there was a real danger that some of them would give rise to words and not to action. He could support suggestions which would involve concrete action. He was thinking in particular of a special fund which could be of a voluntary nature, or proposals for co-operation in the cultural field.

The Representative of Ireland said that much more was involved than economic convergence. In the framework of the Council there should be a willingness to explore all feasible opportunities for action consistent with the Council's vocation, structures and financial resources. The exercise of reflection proposed by the Portuguese delegation could usefully, and he hoped fruitfully, be focussed on appropriate sectors of the Medium-Term Plan. Perhaps there might be scope for enlarged membership of the Partial Agreement in the drugs field (Pompidou Group). A positive and realistic approach should inspire the forthcoming deliberations on minority languages. In order to proceed further, and to consolidate experience and results to date, he wished to support careful consideration of the Portuguese proposal.

The Representative of Switzerland said that his Government continued to attach political importance to the question of balanced development in Europe but he agreed with previous speakers that the results obtained so far had been rather meagre. He tended to agree with the analysis of his Cypriot colleague. Further consideration should be given to improving the results obtained so far in the exercise and the proposals by the Portuguese delegation should be considered carefully. As for the report to be submitted to Ministers it was too soon to take a decision either on its content or on the date when it should be submitted to Ministers. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 32 - Item 5

Decision

The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 345th meeting (March 1982 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL

- 33 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Point 6

6. UNITED NATIONS Exchange of views (15 janvier 1982) (CM(81)244)

The Chairman announced that a report on the exchange of views on the United Nations would be drawn up under the responsibility of the Chairman.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 35 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 7

7. SITUATION IN CYPRUS (Concl(81)341/5)

No delegation wished to make a statement under this item.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 37 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 8

8. AFGHANISTAN Recommendation 922 on the situation of refugees from Afghanistan and Order No. 399 on the solution of the Afghan crisis (Concl(81)339/7, CM(82)7)

The Chairman, referring to his letter of 2 January 1982 in which he asked delegations to let the Secretariat have any additional information concerning the position of their governments and action in their countries to provide aid to Afghan refugees, said that information had been received from the following delegations:

Iceland: In February 1980 the Icelandic Red Cross sent 7,976 Swiss Francs to the League of Red Cross Societies. In 1981 an additional contribution of 10,000 US Dollars was sent to the Afghan refugees in Pakistan which was channelled through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Furthermore, aid has been given privately through Icelandic relief organisations.

Ireland: The following contributions have been made to the UNHCR for the purpose of aiding refugees from Afghanistan:

- 1980: 20,000 Irish Pounds - 1981: 23,500 Irish Pounds

It is expected that a substantially higher figure will be contributed in 1982.

The Netherlands: The aid to Afghan refugees in category III.B amounted to 4,000,000 Guilders in 1980 and 5,000,000 Guilders in 1981 given through the UNHCR.

Decision

The Deputies adopted the following reply to Recommendation 922:

"1. The Committee of Ministers has examined Assembly Recommendation 922 on the situation of refugees from Afghanistan. It shares the Assembly's concern at the situation of refugees from Afghanistan and reaffirms its belief that there should be a political solution to the Afghan crisis. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 38 Item 8

2. On 2 July 1981 the Committee of Ministers adopted a statement recalling that 'as early as January 1980 it expressed its profound anxiety at the situation in Afghanistan. It continues to call for the establishment of conditions enabling the Afghan people to choose their own future freely and without outside interference or pressure'. In this statement the Committee of Ministers also said that it had taken note with interest of the proposal contained in the Declaration on Afghanistan made by the European Council of the ten members of the European Community in Luxembourg on 30 June 1981 and that 'it supports this proposal which constitutes a realistic effort to bring about a peaceful and negotiated solution to the problem of Afghanistan'.

Furthermore, at the 69th Session of the Committee of Ministers, held on 19 November 1981, the 'Ministers reiterated their expression of profound anxiety at the situation in Afghanistan, now for nearly two years the victim of foreign occupation. They noted with interest that more than 60 countries have supported the proposal contained in the declarations made by the European Council in Luxembourg and by the Committee of Ministers of the "Twenty-one" in Strasbourg respectively on 30 June and 2 July (1981). They remained convinced that that initiative still provides a sound framework for serious negotiations for a political solution, which would also pave the way to relieving the plight of the Afghan refugees.'

3. The Committee of Ministers also refers to the Resolution on the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 18 November 1981 which inter alia 'calls for the immediate withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan' and 'calls upon all parties concerned to work for the urgent achievement of a political solution, in accordance with the provisions of the present Resolution, and the creation of the necessary conditions which would enable the Afghan refugees to return voluntarily to their homes in safety and honour'.

4. As regards assistance for Afghan refugees, the Committee of Ministers has exchanged views on the action being taken by the governments of member States to give aid to the Afghan refugees either bilaterally or through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Furthermore, private organisations in some of the member States have also given aid to the refugees. It is expected that such assistance will continue with a view to alleviating the hardship of the Afghan refugees, pending the political solution of the Afghan crisis which would enable them to return voluntarily to their home country." CONFIDENTIAL

- 39 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 9

9. RESALE RIGHTS FOR WORKS OF ART Request from the Commission of the European Communities (CM(82)9)

Decision

The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - for discussion at A level) (see item 1 above)

CONFIDENTIAL

- 41 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 10

10. CONFERENCES OF SPECIALISED MINISTERS (Concl(81)341/9, CM(78)62 and CM(81)229)

There were no new developments to report under this item (but see also item 27 of the Agenda of the present meeting).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 43 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 11

11. MCVEIGH, O'NEILL AND EVANS AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(81)339/10, Letter HD/C29 of 11 May 1981)

This item was discussed under the chairmanship of the Representative of Austria.

The Director of Human Rights recalled that in its report concerning these cases, the European Commission of Human Rights had found no breach of a series of Articles of the Convention but on the other hand had found that the applicants had been prevented from contacting their wives, concluding therefore, by 12 votes to 2, that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

He recalled that the Deputies had heard, at the 339th meeting (November 1981), a statement by the Representative of the United Kingdom who had underlined that, as already stated by his government before the Commission, the allegation of the applicants that they had been prevented from contacing their wives was unsubstantiated.

The Director of Human Rights said that it would be regrettable if the two-thirds majority, provided for by Article 32 of the Convention (ie 14 votes), could not be obtained either for violation or non-violation on the point at issue. That situation had occurred in the Huber case in April 1975. Following a very detailed discussion by the Deputies, the Committee of Experts on Human Rights had been instructed to study the question. The Committee of Experts had suggested a draft model resolution for cases where the two-thirds majority could not be attained either way, with the effect that the Committee of Ministers, having ascertained that the majority had not been attained, would decide that no further action was called for in the case under examination. This procedure, which had already been followed in the Huber case, had been used in only one other case (East African Asians case). CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 44 - Item 11

He also recalled that, as regards the question of whether members of the Committee of Ministers were obliged to take part in the vote provided for in Article 32, the Committee of Experts on Human Rights had underlined that the powers given by the Article to the Committee of Ministers had a quasi-judicial character and that from this it might be deduced that its members should contribute to a decision under Article 32 and should normally take part in the vote provided for in Article 32. In the opinion of the Director of Human Rights, even if there were no legal obligation in the matter, this was a clear invitation not to abstain when dealing with questions under Article 32 of the Convention.

The Representative of France said that his authorities agreed with the conclusions of the Commission with the exception of the violation of Article 8. Present French legislation did not contain a provision recognising the right of a person under police custody to communicate with another person. The work on the modification of the Penal Procedure Code was not sufficiently advanced and the extent of the modifications on the rules concerning custody were not yet known. He would therefore abstain in the vote on this matter.

The Deputies proceeded to an indicative vote on the points where the Commission had concluded that there had been no violation of the Convention. This vote gave the following result: violation 0, no violation 19.

The Deputies proceeded to an indicative vote on the question of violation of Article 8 of the Convention (on the ground that the applicants had been denied the possibility of contacting their wives), which gave the following result: violation 12, no violation 1 and 6 abstentions.

The Representative of the Netherlands in an explanation of vote said that he had voted in favour of the proposition that there had been no violation on the understanding that the alleged facts were true. That conclusion should be reflected in any Resolution to be adopted by the Committee of Ministers.

Decision

The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at A level at their 343rd meeting (February 1981 - A and B levels). CONFIDENTIAL

- 45 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 12

12. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE OF LUEDICKE, BELKACEM AND KOC Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(81)339/9, Letters HD/C47 of 4 December 1978 and HD/C12 of 13 March 1980, CM(81)241)

Decision

The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - for discussion at A level) (see item 1 above).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 47 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 13

13. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH) Report of the 10th meeting (Strasbourg, 20-27 November 1981 (CM(81)294 and Addenda I and II and Corr.)

Decisions

The Deputies i. took note of the final activity report relating to activity 1.2.1. - Extension of the lists of rights of the individual in the economic, social and cultural fields which should be protected by European conventions or by other means - and adopted Decision No. CM/263/130182 assigning further ad hoc terms of reference to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), as it appears at Appendix V to these Conclusions; ii. took note of the opinion prepared by the CDDH under its ad hoc terms of reference (Decision No CM/190/300480) instructing it to "give an opinion on Articles 5 and 7 of the draft Recommendation on Artificial Insemination of Human Beings" (Item 10 of CM(81)294), noted that the CDDH has carried out these ad hoc terms of reference and agreed to resume examination of this draft Recommendation at their 345th meeting (March 1982 - A level);

iii. took note of the opinion prepared by the CDDH under the ad hoc terms of reference (Decision No CM/200/270680) instructing it to "give an opinion on Articles 9 and 10 of Part B of the Declaration on the Police" (Item 11 of CM(81)294), noted that the CDDH has carried out these terms of reference and agreed to examine the opinion of the CDDH at the same time as that of the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) (Addendum IV to CM(81)125) and that of the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO) (Addendum IV to CM(80)273), at their 344th meeting (March 1982 - B level);

iv. in view of the above decisions took note of the report on the 10th meeting of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) as a whole (CM(81)294).

The Representative of France approved decision (i) above ad referendum.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 49 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 14

14. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE Recommendation 909 (Concl(81)338/20, CM(81)202 and 302)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the following reply to Assembly Recommendation 909:

"1. The Committee of Ministers has examined Assembly Recommendation 909 on the International Convention against Torture. It shares the view of the Assembly to the effect that there is a need for the draft Convention, being negotiated within the framework of the UN Commission on Human Rights, to be adopted as soon as possible.

2. As the Assembly is undoubtedly aware, the working group set up by the UN Commission on Human Rights to consider the draft Convention presented by the delegation of Sweden has already adopted, in 1980 and 1981, a number of articles of the Convention but is having great difficulty with the provisions relating to questions of jurisdiction and those concerning the system of supervision of the Convention. It is to be hoped that the different positions will be reconciled at the next session of the working group of the UN Commission on Human Rights to be held in February 1982.

3. It is to be recalled in this context that the Committee of Ministers has instructed an ad hoc committee of experts, with the participations of observers from the members of the 'Western Europe and others' group at the UN not members of the Council of Europe (Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand and the USA), to exchange views on the draft Convention. Five meetings of the ad hoc committee have taken place: in June 1978, January 1979, December 1980, June 1981 and December 1981. At its most recent meetings the ad hoc committee of experts considered Recommendation 909.

4. The Committee of Ministers welcomes the presentation by Costa Rica to the UN Commission on Human Rights of the text of a draft Optional Protocol prepared by the International Commission of Jurists and containing a system of control based principally on a fact-finding machinery more stringent than that included in the Swedish draft.

5. In the opinion of the Committee of Ministers it would be desirable to have at least some basic implementing rules included in the text of the Convention itself which could be then rapidly adopted. More ambitious machinery could subsequently be included in an optional protocol which might be negotiated once the Convention has been adopted."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 51 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 15

15. ACCESS BY THE PUBLIC TO GOVERNEMNT RECORDS AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Recommendation 854 (CM(81)295)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the following final reply to Assembly Recommendation 854:

"The Committee of Ministers recalls its interim replies to Recommendation 854 on access by the public to government records and freedom of information (Documents 4195 and 4514) and wishes to supply the following additional information:

1. The Committee of Ministers has adopted Recommendation No. R(81)19 to member States on access to information held by public authorities, the text of which appears in the Statutory Report presented to the January 1982 part-session of the Assembly (Document 4827).

2. The Committee of Ministers has also adopted a procedure concerning public access to official documents of the Council of Europe which provides for documents of the Committee of Ministers and its subordinate committees and those of the Secretariat normally to be made available to the public after a period of 30 years. In application of this procedure it has decided to declassify these categories of documents for the years 1949, 1950 and 1951."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 53 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 16

16. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS (CAHTA) Meeting Report (9-11 December 1981) (Concl(81)336/13 and Appendix IV and CM(81)299)

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement:

"The German authorities, at whose initiative the CAHTA was created, have the following comments to make on the report of CAHTA's first meeting (CM(81)299):

With regard to the statements of the Polish observers in points 8 and 9 of the report that the situation concerning the transport of horses from Poland to France has improved considerably in recent years, it is pointed out by the German authorities that this improvement applies primarily to transport by rail but not to transport by road which in fact accounts for three-quarters of the transport of horses and cannot be controlled to the same degree as transport by rail.

The limitation of the study to the problem of the transport of horses, which is mentioned under (i) in the conclusions of CM(81)299, is justified in the opinion of the German authorities since transport of this kind creates particular problems due to very long duration.

The studies pursued by the European Communities regarding the limitation of transport duration, which are mentioned under (ii) of the conclusions, have to be finalised before the European Community member States in CAHTA can define their position on this problem. For this reason the report of the Commission of the European Communities had to be awaited.

On the other hand, as is mentioned under (iii) of the conclusions, the solution of these problems from the aspect of animal protection cannot be postponed much longer. The German authorities would therefore welcome it if the discussion of technical details referred to in Recommendation 923 could be continued. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 54 - Item 16

With regard to (iv) of the conclusions, the German authorities feel that in view of a realistic assessment of the political situation it cannot be expected that all Eastern Europe States which are involved in animal transport to Western Europe will become Contracting Parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals. However, it seems absolutely necessary to examine this Convention, which has been in operation for more than 10 years, with regard to the question of whether certain provisions do not need to be supplemented.

Directive 81/389 of the EEC for the international transport of horses, cows and other animals, which is mentioned in (v) of the conclusions, will enter into force by the end of 1982 not only among member States of the EEC but also between the latter and third countries. Therefore the application of a control system by means of transport certificates along the lines of the EEC Directive by States which are not bound by this Directive would not lead to any considerable improvement.

As envisaged in (vii) of the conclusions, the German authorities think it necessary that CAHTA should continue its work and that member States should send experts to future meetings who are real specialists in questions concerning the protection of animals during transport".

The Representative of France stated that he was satisfied with the results of the CAHTA meeting. He went along with the Committee's conclusions and the statement by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular with regard to the scope of the Directive of the European Economic Community and the continuation of the activities of the CAHTA. He emphasised that the control of transport conditions was difficult in the case of road transport. Frontiers should be crossed at posts equipped with veterinary facilities.

The Representative of Switzerland drew the Deputies' attention to the excellent work done by the CAHTA which, in two days of meetings, had covered all the problems which it had been instructed to examine and presented a succinct but full report which had been distributed only one week after the meeting. He considered that this way of working should serve as an example to all the committees and above all to all committee secretaries.

The Representative of the United Kingdom said that the CAHTA meeting had aroused the interest of the United Kingdom authorities who, without being directly concerned in the transport of horses for slaughter, nevertheless wished to continue to share in any future activities of the CAHTA.

After examining the conclusions of the CAHTA, point by point, as reproduced on pages 8 and 9 of its report (CM(81)299), the Chairman observed that points (i) to (iii) of those conclusions did not call for any particular comment. CONFIDENTIAL

- 55 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 16

With regard to point (iv) of the CAHTA's conclusions, the Director of Legal Affairs stressed that in order for the European Economic Community, as such, to be able to become a party to the Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport, the additional Protocol to the Convention must still be signed and ratified by Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Norway, Spain and Turkey and be ratified by Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Portugal.

The Representative of Italy stated that the ratification procedure for the Protocol to the 1968 Convention was now under way in Italy.

The Director of Legal Affairs considered that the revision of the 1968 Convention with a view to its completion as suggested in paragraph 4 of point (iv) of the conclusions of CAHTA should be dealt with by the ad hoc Committee for the Protection of Animals (CAHPA). However, having regard to CAHPA's time-table particularly with regard to the draft Convention on Animals Used for Experimental Purposes and the Comittee's intention to prepare a draft Convention on the Protection of Animals in National Transport it would probably not be in a position to return to dealing with the aspects of international transport before the second half of 1983, or possibly 1984.

On the other hand CAHTA might consider at a coming meeting the possibility of extending the application of Directive 81/389 of the European Economic Community to all member States of the Council of Europe (point (v) of CAHTA's conclusions) and also the provisions of Resolution (68)23 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the protection of animals in international transport. Furthermore, as mentioned in point (iii) of CAHTA's conclusions, the study of Assembly Recommendation 923 on the ill-treatment of horses in international transport should receive further consideration at a later stage. But, generally speaking, the meeting of CAHTA had shown that no final solution of the matter could be contemplated without the active participation of the Commission of the European Communities. This, however, was far from being assured at the moment. In diplomatic terms CAHTA's report pointed out that it was desirable to wait until the Communities' detailed studies on the physiological, ethological and economic aspects of the transport of animals were completed before drawing general conclusions in the Council of Europe. The completion date for this work had, however, not been fixed. The Secretariat, therefore, thought it was not advisable to consider making provision at that stage for a supplementary meeting of CAHTA in 1982 (for which moereover there was at present no budgetary provision).

However, if, as pointed out in point (vii) of CAHTA's conclusions, the Committee of Ministers considered in view of the various questions raised at the present meeting that a further meeting of CAHTA should be held in 1982, the Secretariat would try to obtain more precise information from the Communities as soon as possible. The Deputies would thus be able to reach a decison on this question at a forthcoming meeting and, if appropriate, adopt terms of reference for CAHTA. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 56 - Item 16

Decision

The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at a forthcoming meeting at the same time as they resume consideration of Assembly Recommendation 923 on the ill-treatment of horses during international transport (see decision (ii) under item 17 below). CONFIDENTIAL

- 57 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 17

17. ILL-TREATMENT OF HORSES DURING INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT Recommendation 923 (Concl(81)338/5a)

With regard to point 8(i) of Recommendation 923, the Director of Legal Affairs emphasised that the meeting of the CAHTA had shown that the Contracting Parties to the European Convention on the Protection of Animals During International Transport were taking all necessary steps to apply the Convention. In addition, other States which had taken part in the meeting of the CAHTA, particularly Poland and Hungary, had shown preparedness to co-operate in providing animals with the best possible conditions of transport.

As regards the other States mentioned in point 8(ii) of the Recommendation, the USSR and the German Democratic Republic were not included among States invited to take part as observers at the meeting of the CAHTA. On the other hand, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had been invited but had not sent representatives.

Following a question put by a Representative, the Director of Legal Affairs stated that the 1968 Convention was open to non-member States of the Council of Europe but only at the invitation of the Committee of Ministers. At its meeting in December the CAHTA had not broached the question of the adherence to the Convention by non-member States, as that was a political question, reserved for the Committee of Ministers. However, as in the case of other Council of Europe conventions open to non-member States, the Secretariat could make soundings in order to establish States likely to react favourably to an invitation from the Committee of Ministers.

The Representative of Switzerland considered that the Secretariat should first make statistical and other surveys and submit its findings to the Committee of Ministers. Only at a subsequent stage, once the non-member States had been selected by the Committee of Ministers, could the Chairman make soundings concerning a possible formal invitation by the Committee of Ministers. He added that it was precisely in technical fields that it was possible to contemplate the participation of East European States in the Council of Europe's activities. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 58 - Item 17

The Director of Legal Affairs pointed out that Point 8(iii) of Recommendation 923 had already been dealt with on the occasion of examination of the report of the CAHTA (see item 16 of the agenda of this meeting).

The Representative of the United Kingdom pointed out that in the present economic situation it would be difficult to justify setting up an additional body as requested under point 8(iv) of Recommendation 923.

The Representative of Switzerland, while agreeing that it would be useful to create such an organ, did not consider that there was any urgency to do so.

The Director of Legal Affairs pointed out that the 1968 Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport, unlike the Convention on the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, did not provide for a committee to be responsible for following application. He considered that the Assembly's suggestion under point 8(iv) was worth keeping in mind for the future; with a view to efficiency and co-ordination one might, in effect, consider setting up a single committee responsible for watching over application of all the conventions dealing with the protection of animals.

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement:

"With regard to point 8(vi) of Recommendation 923, the German authorities are, from the point of view of animal protection, in principle in favour of the replacement of long-distance transport of horses by transport of cold storage meat. However, such a goal could be realised only if the necessary technical and economic conditions have been achieved not only in countries of import as mentioned in point 8(vii) of the Recommendation, but also in the respective countries of export.

As for point 8(viii), which envisages as an interim solution the interdiction of road transport of more than 500 km and the obligation to use rail or sea transport instead, the German authorities think that such a solution causes legal problems so long as it is not covered by the Convention itself or the corresponding provisions in European Community directives. The German authorities therefore propose as a first step that the provisions of the Convention should be examined with regard to the question of whether they still meet today's requirements for animal protection in view of instances of transport over long distances and duration of time which have become a wide-spread practice in animal transport." CONFIDENTIAL

- 59 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 17

With regard to Points 8(vi) to 8(viii) of Recommendation 923, the Director of Legal Affairs said that the answers to the questions raised depended on the attitude of the European Communities, as indicated under item 16 of the agenda of this meeting.

The Chairman considered that Recommendation 923 should be examined again, particularly with regard to the question of adherence of non-member States to the 1968 Convention, when the Depties resumed discussion of the follow-up to the CAHTA report (see the decision concerning item 16 of the agenda of this meeting).

Decisions

The Deputies i. adopted the following interim reply to Assembly Recommendation 923:

"1. The Committee of Ministers has forwarded, for information, Recommendation 923 (1981) on the ill-treatment of horses during international transport to the ad hoc Committee of Experts on the International Transport of Animals (CAHTA).

The CAHTA met in Strasbourg on 10 and 11 December 1981. Algeria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were invited to be represented as exporting or transiting countries; observers from the first three countries mentioned took part in the meeting, as did the European Economic Community.

2. The CAHTA's conclusions are still being considered by the Committee of Ministers. Pending the final outcome of its consideration, the Committee conveys to the Assembly the following observations:

Points 8(i), (ii) and (iii) of Recommendation 923

3. The Committee of Ministers shares the Assembly's concern about the conditions of international transport of animals over long distances, a problem which moreover is not restricted to horses for slaughter but concerns all species of slaughter animals which are transported on the hoof. It considers that the European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport (ETS 65) constitutes an overall frame for protection which remains effective; its application is satisfactorily ensured by the Contracting Parties in their respective territories. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 60 - Item 17

4. The Committee of Ministers welcomes the fact that at the meeting of the CAHTA the non-member countries which participated intimated that they were ready to collaborate with a view to ensuring the application of the best possible transport conditions for animals coming from those countries.

5. It should be recalled that the 1968 Convention is a convention open for accession by Council of Europe non-member States, which can be invited to accede by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee will study in due course the question of addressing such invitations to those non-member States which regularly transport large numbers of animals to countries already bound by the Convention.

6. It is recalled that the following eighteen member States are Contracting Parties to the Convention: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Among the member States which have not become Contracting Parties to the Convention, Portugal signed it on 16 October 1980.

7. Reference should also be made to the Additional Protocol to the 1968 Convention which aims at enabling the European Economic Community as such to become a Contracting Party to the Convention and whose entry into force is subject to ratification by all Contracting Parties to the Convention; so far, the Protocol has been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, and signed by Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Portugal.

Point 8(iv) of Recommendation 923

8. Under the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes (ETS 87) a Standing Committee has been set up with responsibility for overseeing the application of the Convention's provisions. The Committee of Ministers considers that, given the economic and budgetary constraints confronted by the governments of member States, it is not opportune to envisage setting up a similar body in the framework of the 1968 Convention.

Points 8(vi), (vii) and (viii) of Recommendation 923

9. Although replacing long distance international transport on the hoof of animals for slaughter by the transport of refrigerated meat is desirable, this can nevertheless be done only if the necessary technical and economic conditions are met, not only in the importing countries, as mentioned in point 8(vii) of Recommendation 923, but also in the exporting countries."; ii. agreed to resume consideration of Recommendation 923 at the same time as the follow-up to the report of the ad hoc Committee of Experts on the International Transport of Animals (CAHTA) (see decision under item 16 above). CONFIDENTIAL

- 61 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 18

18. AD HOC COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE (CAHAQ) Second meeting (Strasbourg, 6-9 October 1981) (CM(81)286 and Corrigendum)

Decisions

The Deputies i. made the following addition to paragraph 5 of the specific terms of reference of the CAHAQ (page 6/19 of the Compendium of Terms of Reference):

"To draft a Recommendation to member States on means of furthering the co-operation between the different bodies and categories of persons concerned with the protection of the underwater cultural heritage"; ii. took note of the report of the 2nd meeting of the CAHAQ (CM(81)286).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 63 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 19

19. FIGHT AGAINST INTERNATIONAL TAX EVASION AND AVOIDANCE Written Question No. 245 by Mr. Antoni (CM(81)278)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the following reply to Written Question No. 245 by Mr. Antoni:

"The Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition and the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters were both opened for signature on 17 March 1978. These two instruments extend extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters to fiscal offences. The Committee of Ministers examined this matter in 1981 when it adopted Recommendation No. R(81)12 to member States on economic crime, which recommends the member governments to sign and ratify the European Conventions on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and on Extradition, and the Protocols thereto. The Committee does not therefore consider it necessary to take further steps for the time being. It should be pointed out, however, that Sweden and The Netherlands have ratified the two instruments concerned and that both instruments have been signed by Austria, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Switzerland, while Belgium has signed the Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that these member States may shortly also be ratifying these instruments; they may thus enter into force in the near future."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 65 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 20

20. TRADE MARK LAW Recommendation 899 (Concl(81)330/16, CM(81)279)

The Representative of Switzerland asked what had become of co-ordination between the European Communities and the Council of Europe in respect of work on trademark law, a matter which had been raised at the last hearing of the Secretary General of the Commission, Mr E. Noel.

The Director of Legal Affairs pointed out that at one time a joint Communities/Council of Europe working party had been envisaged. Such a meeting had never been convened, however. Just recently, in December 1981, COREPER, when considering proposals put before it by the Commission of the Communities and after raising the question of co-ordination, had decided not to set up a committee or issue invitations to the Council of Europe to take part in the work being done in the Council and the Commission.

The Representative of the United Kingdom said her authorities had reservations on the need for harmonisation of trade mark law at the Western European level, although it was necessary at the EEC level because of the existence of the common market. They would therefore wish the reply to avoid a specific commitment to Council of Europe action on this subject.

She therefore proposed amending the draft interim reply to Recommendation 899 reproduced in CM(81)279 as follows:

Paragraph 2: Combine last sub-paragraph with opening words of paragraph 3 as follows:

'It is clear that the work on the latter proposal is of particular importance to the non-member States of the European Community which are members of the Council of Europe and to the Council of Europe itself in view of the close commercial ties between the Community and those member States of the Council of Europe which are not members of the Ten and considering the wish of all members of the Council of Europe to avoid barriers to trade among its member States'. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 66 - Item 20

Paragraph 3: Reword to read:

'The possibilities of harmonising certain elements of trade mark law on a Western European basis cannot usefully be examined by the Council of Europe until after the Community is ready for co-operation in that field. In the meantime the Secretariat will closely follow the relevant activity of the Community.'

Paragraph 4: Omit second sub-paragraph.

The Representative of Switzerland, supported by the Representatives of Sweden and Austria, said he was in favour of the wording of paragraph 3 of the draft reply proposed by the Secretariat in CM(81)279.

The Chairman had an indicative vote taken on i. the Swiss proposal above. Result: 9 votes in favour, 1 against and 7 abstentions; and then ii. the British proposal above. Result: 5 votes in favour, 6 against and 6 abstentions.

The Deputies resumed consideration of this item at a later stage of the meeting on the basis of a compromise text subsequently incorporated in the reply to Recommendation 899 (see decision below.)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the following reply to Assembly Recommendation 899:

"1. The Committee of Ministers has studied the content of Recommendation 899 on trade mark law and the proposals contained therein for action within the Council of Europe framework.

2. It is recalled that the European Communities are at present pursuing work on: a. the proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community Trade Mark; CONFIDENTIAL

- 67 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 20

b. the proposal for a first Council Directive to approximate the laws of the member States relating to trade marks.

It is understood that priority will be given by the European Communities to the proposal referred to under (a) and that work on the proposal referred to under (b) will not be initiated until sometime in 1982.

3. It is clear that the work on the latter proposal will also be important for the member States of the Council of Europe which are not members of the European Communities and to the Council of Europe itself in view of the close commercial ties between the Communities and those States and considering the wish of all members of the Council of Europe to avoid barriers to trade among its member States. In these circumstances the Council of Europe could, when the Communities are ready to co-operate, examine the possibilities of harmonising certain elements of trade mark law on a wider Western European basis.

4. Contacts have already been taken at Secretariat level in order to obtain that adequate information procedures be established which may meet the concern expressed by the Assembly in Recommendation 899.

The Committee of Ministers is kept currently informed of these endeavours and will welcome solutions which will safeguard the interests of all member States of the Council of Europe in ensuring a harmonised legal protection of trade marks in Europe and at the same time further strengthen co-operation between the European Communities and the Council of Europe in the legal sector."

CONFIDENTIAL

- 69 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 21

21. RATIFICATION OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON THE LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANT WORKERS Recommendation 931 (Concl(81)341/23, CM(81)281 and 305)

The Representative of Spain proposed adding the following paragraph at the end of the draft reply (CM(81)305) prepared by the Secretariat:

"It is reasonable to assume that signatory States may shortly ratify this Convention; it may thus enter into force in the near future."

Decisions

The Deputies i. agreed to forward Recommendation 931 to their governments; ii. adopted the following reply to Recommendation 931:

"1. The Committee of Ministers has examined Recommendation 931 on the ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers and has instructed the Secretariat to bring it to the attention of the Steering Committee on Intra-European Migration (CDMG). Furthermore, it has agreed to forward it to the governments of member States.

2. The European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, which was opened for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe on 24 November 1977, has so far been ratified by Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Turkey, and signed by Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and The Netherlands. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 70 - Item 21

It shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the date of the deposit of the fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval (Article 34, paragraph 2). In conformity with Article 33, a Consultative Committee shall be set up within a year of the entry into force of this Convention, which will examine any proposals submitted to it by one of the Contracting Parties with a view to facilitating or improving the application of the Convention, as well as any proposal to amend it.

3. The Committee of Ministers has been informed that the Convention is being examined by governments of member States who have not yet ratified it. It is reasonable to assume that signatory States may shortly ratify this Convention; it may thus enter into force in the near future." CONFIDENTIAL

- 71 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 22

22. EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 6th period of supervision Assembly Opinion No. 106 (Concl(81)339/14, T-SG(80)9 and Addendum and CM(81)298)

The Chairman referred to the previous exchange of views which the Deputies had held at their 339th meeting (November 1981, item 14) and recalled the stand taken by various delegations on the draft Resolution prepared by the Secretariat. He expressed the view that the text of the draft Resolution appearing in CM(81)298 was broadly similar to the previous one and observed that this proposal differed from the Resolution adopted by the Committee of Ministers in regard to previous cycles of supervision of the application of the Charter, in that it named individual governments whose legislation and practice were seemingly at variance with the Charter.

The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement:

"The German authorities are not prepared to accept the new version of a draft Resolution (CM(81)298 Appendix) as they are not at all satisfied with the arguments put forward by the Secretariat in CM(81)298 to justify this draft Resolution.

With regard to paragraph 7 of CM(81)298 a certain bias of the Secretariat is, in the opinion of the German authorities, evident. The Secretariat claims that it 'has not effected a specific choice on the basis of any criterion other than the existence of a situation giving rise to criticisms in one or more States'. This statement is questionable. A statistical comparison which was elaborated by the competent German Ministry clearly shows that more than two dozen provisions of the Social Charter which caused remarks in the Conclusions VI of the Independent Experts were not taken into consideration by the Secretariat although some of them, like the remarks on Article 6, paragraph 4, affected five countries. The truth is that the Secretariat followed as closely as possible the proposals submitted by the Assembly in Opinion No. 106 and these proposals dealt with only nine provisions of the Charter out of a total of 38 provisions causing critical remarks by the Committee of Independent Experts. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 72 - Item 22

This procedure led to some odd results. If one compares for example Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany it turns out that in the case of Italy the Committee of Independent Experts found cause for criticism concerning 14 provisions; the Assembly and the Secretariat, however, found cause for criticism concerning one provision only. In the case of Germany, on the other hand, the Committee of Independent Experts expressed criticism with regard to 8 provisions, the Assembly with regard to 6 and the Secretariat originally with regard to 5 provisions.

The explanation for this phenomenon lies in the fact that the Assembly concentrated its criticism primarily on the provisions of the Charter dealing with the legal status of migrant workers and their families. On this selective basis the Assembly finds cause for a total of 22 individual criticisms levelled against member States in groups of between 2 and 5 States with regard to Article 12, paragraph 4, and specific provisions in Article 18 and 19. Outside this selective focus of attention the Assembly finds fault with regard to 3 other provisions which all concern the Federal Republic of Germany.

In the latter case the Secretariat modified its attitude as it stated in paragraph 9 of CM(81)298 because of the intervention of this delegation during the 339th meeting. However, in the cases of Article 18, paragraph 2, and Article 19, paragraph 8, the Secretariat obviously came to the conclusion that the arguments of this delegation put forward at that meeting were not sufficient to modify the attitude of the Secretariat, probably because of the Secretariat's evaluation of recent decisions of the German Government on certain aspects of its policy towards migrant workers. The German authorities are of the opinion that there is no basis for such a kind of supervisory function of the Secretariat since this function should be reserved to the competent bodies.

The argument of the Secretariat in paragraph 10 of CM(81)298 illustrates the crux of the problem. Here the Secretariat states that since the Governmental Committee refrained from verifying the problems connected with the implementation of Articles 18 and 19, the Secretariat had, on these two articles, only the conclusions of the Committee of Independent Experts and the opinion of the Assembly as well as information which reached the Secretariat since the adoption of the respective two documents. CONFIDENTIAL

- 73 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 22

According to Article 29 of the Social Charter, the Committee of Ministers may make any necessary recommendations to each Contracting Party on the basis of the report of the Governmental Committee and after consultation with the Assembly. The Governmental Committee in its 6th report stressed explicitly in paragraph 20 that the recommendations to governments, in accordance with Article 29, 'can only be adopted on the basis of the report submitted by the Governmental Committee'. The Secretariat, however, decided to disregard the latter report because the Governmental Committee 'refrained from verifying problems connected with the implementation of Articles 18 and 1.9'. The Secretariat also decided tacitly to refrain from taking into consideration more than 70% of the Conclusions of the Committee of Independent Experts as was demonstrated earlier in this intervention. The result is that the Secretariat followed the opinion of the Assembly as closely as possible with regard to the Assembly's remarks on Articles 12, 18 and 19 dealing with the treatment of migrant workers which led in turn to some modifications of the attitude of the Secretariat in view of its own evaluation of recent developments in this question.

The German authorities think that the discrepancy between the provisions of Article 29 of the Social Charter and their application in the draft Resolution of the Secretariat has become too wide. The procedure is evidently due to a narrow choice of Articles made by the Assembly and put into a draft Resolution by the Secretariat which results in naming Contracting Parties which do not measure up to a few specific yardsticks. Delegations should realise that in accepting such a draft Resolution the Committee of Ministers would henceforth place itself very much in the hands of the Assembly and the Secretariat and that consequently Article 29 in its present form would have to be considered as obsolete."

The Respresentative of Cyprus said that he had no objection to the draft Resolution, although he recognised that it might be somewhat difficult for some countries to subscribe to it. In his view its adoption by the Committee of Ministers would be a step in the right direction and the most appropriate way of ensuring compliance with the provision of the Charter.

The Representative of France explained that as regards certain aspects of international co-ordination of social security regulations (paragraph 2(b) of the draft Resolution) the French Government was in the course of modifying the relevant texts. He was not against naming countries individually in the draft Resolution.

The Representative of Italy declared that he was ready to accept the draft Resolution as it stood. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 74 - Item 22

The Representative of the Netherlands proposed some textual changes to the text of the draft Resolution and observed that if the Committee of Ministers were to cite countries it would implicitly be a criticism of the competent ministries' action by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which was not conceivable.

The Representative of Spain reiterated his views, already expressed at the 339th meeting, that it was necessary to lay down some criteria forming the basis for individual recommendations. In this respect two criteria were of cardinal importance: a. where the violation of a provision of the Charter by a Contracting Party concerned a persistent non-compliance with its obligations arising therefrom, b. where there was agreement as to the violation by all the bodies concerned with the supervision of the application of the Charter.

The Representative of Ireland was in agreement with the views expressed by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany. At the same time he shared the views of the Representative of Spain with regard to the criteria which needed to be established before the Committee could act in accordance with Article 29 of the Charter. He believed that the Governmental Committee of the Social Charter was the most competent body to express views on States' compliance with the Charter and as this has not been done in all the cases mentioned in the draft Resolution, he would not support it.

The Representative of Austria stated that the position of his Government remained unchanged as regards the problem raised in paragraph 2(f) of the draft Resolution and that he was therefore unable to accept it. He added that his views concerning the interpretation of Article 29 of the Charter coincided with those expressed by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Representative of the United Kingdom agreed with the Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and Austria.

The Director of Economic and Social Affairs, in regard to the argument advanced by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to the effect that the Committee of Ministers can only make individual recommendations under Article 29 of the Charter in those cases where the Governmental Committee has also pronounced itself, observed that the limited number of meetings allocated to the Governmental Committee made it impossible for it to consider all the provisions (72 in number) of the Charter. In fact, and from the outset, the Governmental Committee had always confined itself to examining a limited number of provisions. This constituted a grave CONFIDENTIAL

- 75 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 22

weakness in the effectiveness of the control procedure. He expressed the hope that the Committee of Ministers would give appropriate consideration to ways and means of remedying this weakness by allowing more meetings for the supervisory bodies, which, as from this year will have to examine reports from the Netherlands and Spain also, bringing the total number of reports to 13.

In reply to the Representative of Spain, he explained that the Secretariat was guided by two basic criteria in preparing the draft Resolution, namely persistence by a country in not complying with a provision of the Charter and consensus of opinion by the supervisory bodies on a given violation. Unfortunately, for the reasons given above, in some cases, the Governmental Committee's silence had to be taken into account.

The Director of Legal Affairs said that Article 29 of the Charter provided for individual recommendations to each Contracting Party or for general recommendations to all Contracting Parties. In these cases a two-thirds majority of the members of the Committee of Ministers, ie, 14 votes, was required. In all other cases falling short of a recommendation, eg, where the Committee of Ministers wished simply to draw the attention of Contracting Parties to certain matters as it had done in the past, the Charter did not explicitly provide for a specific majority and therefore the general voting rules would apply. In that case, any reference to Article 29 in the Resolution would be inappropriate.

The Chairman sounded out the members on three possible solutions which showed that the Deputies were not prepared at the present stage to accept any one of them. These were:

a. the text of the draft Resolution as it stood;

b. the text of the draft Resolution without paragraph 2;

c. a Resolution on the same lines as that adopted for the 5th cycle of supervision.

The results of this sounding were as follows:

a. For 8, against 5, abstentions 5.

b. For 7, against 1, abstentions 8.

c. For 5, against 0, abstentions 11. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 76 - Item 22

The Director of Economic and Social Affairs consequently proposed that the Secretariat be instructed to prepare a revised draft Resolution to be modelled on the text of the Resolution adopted for the 5th cycle of supervision of the application of the Charter, which was likely to obtain the largest consensus.

The Representatives of Italy, France and Spain who had favoured solution (a) above agreed with this proposal but regretted that the Deputies felt unable to make a new step forward.

Decision

The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 345th meeting (March 1982 - A level) in the light of a revised Secretariat document which takes into account their discussions at the present meeting. CONFIDENTIAL

- 77 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 23

23. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING ON AIRCRAFT NOISE MATTERS Recommendation 875 (Concl(80)313/XIV, CM(82)2)

Decision

The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - for discussion at B level) (see item 1 above).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 79 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 24

24. 7TH SEMINAR ON INTERNATIONAL VOLUNTARY SERVICE Assembly Recommendation 894 (CM(82)5)

The Chairman noted that following the decision taken by the Deputies at their 325th meeting (November 1980, item IX) only four governments, namely Austria, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland and Sweden, had sent the Secretariat their comments on Recommendation 894 (cf. CM(82)5). He therefore thought that it would be advisable to make a further appeal to those delegations whose governments had not yet done so to send the Secretariat information concerning Recommendation 894, before 31 January 1982. The Secretariat could then prepare a draft reply.

Decisions

The Deputies i. agreed to invite delegations which have not yet done so to forward to the Secretariat by 31 January 1982 any comments on Recommendation 894; ii. agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 344th meeting (March 1982 - B level) in the light of CM(82)5, as well as any information requested under decision (i) above.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 81 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 25

25. INDIVIDUAL SOCIAL FELLOWSHIPS Request from the British Council for a financial contribution (Concl(81)341/27, CM(81)207)

Decision

The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - for discussion at B level).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 83 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 26

26. EUROPEAN YOUTH CENTRE Membership of the statutory organs (Governing Board and Advisory Committee) (CM(81)297)

Referring to document CM(81)297, the Chairman asked whether there were any proposals for allocating the vacant seats on the Governing Board of the European Youth Centre.

The Representative of the United Kingdom proposed that the vacant seat in Group A be occupied by the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Representative of Denmark proposed that the vacant seat in Group C be occupied by Sweden.

The Representative of Ireland proposed that the two vacant seats in Group D be occupied by Austria and Portugal.

Decisions

The Deputies i. designated the Federal Republic of Germany (Group A) Sweden (Group C) Austria (Group D) and Portugal (Group D) to be represented on the Governing Board of the European Youth Centre for the four-year period from 1 January 1982 to 31 December 1985; ii. approved the following list of International Non-Governmental Youth Organisations to sit on the Advisory Committee in 1982 and 1983:

- Council of Europe National Youth Committees (CENYC) - European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) - International Federation of Liberal and Radical Youth (IFLRY) - Democrat Youth Community of Europe (DEMYC) - Young Christian Workers (YCW) - International Young Catholic Students - International Movement of Catholic Students (IYCS-IMCS) - World Scout Organisation - European Regional Office - International Falcon Movement - Socialist Educational International (IFM-SEI) - Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) - European Federation for Intercultural Learning (EFIL) - International Movement of Catholic Agricultural and Rural Youth (MIJARC) - International Young Nature Friends (IYNF) - World Federalist Youth (WFY) - Service Civil International (SCI) - European Democrat Students (EDS).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 85 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 27

27. 6TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR REGIONAL PLANNING (CEMAT) (Concl(81)339/18, CM(81)209 and 300)

The Representative of Greece said that his authorities were hoping that, when the reports for the 6th European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) were ready and in the hands of the Committee of Senior Officials Responsible for preparing the Ministerial Conference on the Environment, it would be seen that the themes of the two Ministerial Conferences (regional planning and environment) did not overlap in any way. His authorities also hoped that the reports would be available very shortly.

The Representative of France said that one of the essential conditions, in his delegation's view, was that the themes of the two Ministerial Conferences should be quite distinct, hence the importance of business-like preparation for both of these events.

The Representative of the United Kingdom welcomed the Secretariat's initiative on the question of a possible review of the CEMAT's statute, but recalled her delegation's concern over the risk of overlapping between the two ministerial conferences and over the time-table for the preparation of the 6th CEMAT. She wondered whether the reports would be ready soon enough.

The Chairman suggested that the Deputies resume consideration of this matter after the meetings of the Committees of Senior Officials: 31 March to 1 April 1982 (Regional Planning) and Spring 1982 (Environment).

Decision

The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of the preparation of the 6th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) at one of their forthcoming meetings.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 87 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 28 28. APPEALS BOARD Administrative meeting (CM(81)306)

Invited by the Chairman to comment on this item of the agenda, the Director of Administration and Finance said that he had little to add to the information provided by the Secretariat in CM(81)306. The Chairman of the Appeals Board wished to convene a two-day meeting of the full members and substitute members of the Board to discuss its new Rules of Procedure (which had been prepared in draft form by the Secretariat on the basis of the previous Rules of Procedure and of the new Statute of the Appeals Board as adopted by the Committee of Ministers in January 1981 by Resolution (81)1). There were certain other administrative matters which the Chairman of the Board also wished to have discussed at the meeting.

There were at present three appeals pending before the Board, and it was envisaged that one of them would be taken at the proposed February meeting, leaving the other two outstanding.

The budgetary implications of convening in February all six members and substitute members of the Board were set out in paragraph 6 of CM(81)306. If the Deputies approved the proposal to convene that meeting the question of the additional cost of FF12,000 would be put to the Budget Committee at its next meeting (May 1982). He added that he could see no difficulty in finding this sum by transfer within the appropriations voted for the 1982 General Budget.

The Representative of Austria said that he could approve the proposal of the Chairman of the Appeals Board, on the understanding that such approval could not be regarded as a precedent for other similar cases in the future.

The Representative of Switzerland who, as former Chairman of the Deputies' working party on the Staff Regulations, had had some responsibility for the elaboration of the new Statute of the Appeals Board, said that he fully agreed that there should be an administrative meeting of all six of the members and substitute members of the Board following the change in the nature of its composition.

The Representative of Italy said that as the additional expenditure involved was clearly of an exceptional nature, he could approve the proposal.

Decision

The Deputies agreed that the travel and subsistence expenses of both the three full members and the three substitute members of the Appeals Board attending an administrative meeting of the Appeals Board scheduled to be held on 15 and 16 February 1982 for the purpose of preparing new rules of procedure for the Board, will be borne by the Council of Europe budget.

CONFIDENTIAL

- 89 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 29

29. PREPARATION OF FORTHCOMING MEETINGS

1. Draft agendas

The Representative of France, referring in particular to the draft agenda for the 343rd meeting (February 1982 - A and B levels), reiterated how important it was for the four- and two-week deadline rules for the despatch of reference documents and Notes on the Agenda to be respected, to enable delegations to be properly prepared for the discussion of items listed on the draft agendas.

With regard to Assembly Recommendation 928 on the educational and cultural problems of minority languages and dialects in Europe, which had been examined at B level at the 341st meeting (December 1981 - item 32) and referred to A level, the Chairman concluded, after discussion, that he and the Secretariat now had the indications necessary for them to work out at which A-level meeting consideration of the Recommendation at A level should be proposed. There was no need to take a decision on this matter at the present meeting: a decision could be taken at the next (343rd) meeting.

2. Schedule of meetings

The Representative of Cyprus recalled that he had already suggested on a previous occasion that the time proposed by the Secretariat for the 1982 budget meeting (353rd meeting - 22 to 26 November 1982) may be insufficient for delegations to be able to obtain full explanations on the details of the draft programme of intergovernmental activities for 1983 and on the draft 1983 budget itself.

The Representative of Switzerland observed that the summer break envisaged (almost three months) was particularly long. He felt that it would not be very wise for such a lengthy break to be adopted by the Committee whose interest lay in giving evidence of its political importance.

After further discussion, the Chairman reverted at a later stage of the meeting to the point raised by the Representative of Switzerland. Having discussed the matter informally with the latter, and also with the Representatives of Austria and Belgium who would respectively be chairing meetings at A level and at B level during the period in question, he said that in the interests of the proper preparation and organisation of the work of the Committee it had been recognised that it would be best to retain the schedule of meetings as proposed. Naturally, in the event of an emergency the Deputies could always meet earlier than the date envisaged for their normal September meeting. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 90 - Item 29

The Representative of Ireland announced that he would be unable to be present at 10am on Monday, 15 March 1982 for the opening of the 344th meeting (B level). He therefore suggested that the opening of that meeting be put back to 3pm on the same day. He accepted that this might imply a prolongation of the meeting into Wednesday 17 March 1982. He asked that the Deputies take a decision on this suggestion at their next (343rd) meeting.

Decisions

The Deputies i. approved the draft agenda for their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - A and B levels) as it appears at Appendix II to these Conclusions; ii. decided to advance the opening of their 343rd meeting to 10 am on Tuesday, 2 February 1982 (cf. the decision under item 2 above); iii. adopted the schedule of their meetings for the second half of 1982 as it appears at Appendix III to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL

- 91 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30a

30. OTHER BUSINESS

a. Dialogue with the Secretary General

1. Visit to Paris

At the intervention of the French Government, the Secretary General went to Paris on an official visit on 7 and 8 January last. He noted with satisfaction that from the very first day his visit and the meetings arranged with the highest authorities of the Council of Europe's host country had aroused exceptional interest in the media and among the public, a fact which could not but be gratifying to the Council of Europe.

The Secretary General had been received by the President of the Republic, Mr Francois Mitterrand, for a long discussion covering topical political questions and the work planned by the Council of Europe in the social and cultural sectors.

The President of the Republic had accepted an invitation from the President of the Assembly to address the Assembly in Strasbourg at its session in April or September/October 1982.

The Secretary General also had talks with the Minister of State and Minister of the Interior and Decentralisation, Mr Gaston Defferre, and with the Minister of Justice and Garde des Sceaux, Mr Robert Badinter. Numerous subjects dealt with by the Council of Europe in the context of European co-operation were discussed.

At the Ministry of External Relations he talked with the Minister, Mr Claude Cheysson, and had several meetings with Mr Andre Chandernagor, Minister with special responsibility for European Affairs at the Ministry of External Relations, as well as a working meeting with Mr Chandernagor's closest collaborators. A major concern of the Secretary General was to plead the cause of the Council of Europe in the current discussion on cultural co-operation in Europe. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 92 - Item 30a

The Secretary General also had a meeting with the Chairman of the Economic and Social Council, Mr Gabriel Ventejol, at which emphasis was laid on the possibilities of social co-operation within the Council of Europe.

In the talks with the President of the Republic and with Mr Defferre and Mr Chandernagor on the possibilities of social co-operation in the framework of the Council of Europe, the proposal for a Conference of Ministers of Labour received the support of the French Government, which declared its readiness to co-operate closely in the preparation of such a conference. The proposal was part of the mission assigned to the Secretary General by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs at the 69th Session of the Committee of Ministers last November - namely to explore the possibilities of convening a second Conference of Ministers of Labour early in 1983. From these soundings there was reason to believe that the Minister of Labour of Italy and perhaps also of Austria would be in favour of the idea. The Secretary General consequently hoped to be able to submit a fuller report on the results of his mission shortly.

The Secretary General was also received by the President of the Senate, Mr Alain Poher, a long-standing friend of the Organisation. In the absence of the President of the National Assembly, Mr Louis Mermaz, he was received, in the presence of the Chairman of the French Parliamentary delegation to the Assembly, Mr Lucien Pignion, by the Head of his Private Office and senior officials of the National Assembly.

The interest taken by the media in this official visit was to be seen in the context of the numerous discussions in the Committee of Ministers concerning the Council of Europe's information policy, and more specifically of the question as to the extent of the Council of Europe's attraction for the media.

The Secretary General's journey was first announced, prior to his departure, by the regional television and the local press. His visit to the President of the Republic was commented on in the news bulletin on the First Channel on the evening of 7 January. The Secretary General was also invited to take part in a live discussion on the Second Channel during the 12 noon news on 8 January. A press conference held by the press services of the Ministry of External Relations was attended, on 8 January at 8.30 am, by some 30 journalists, and this despite the early hour and very unfavourable weather conditions.

Gratified to see that the Council of Europe was capable of interesting the media, the Secretary General was aware that this had been the result of active co-operation between the press services of the Ministry of External Relations and the Council's Directorate of Press and Information Services. CONFIDENTIAL

- 93 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30a

Thus at the instigation of the Permanent Delegation of France in Strasbourg, the two departments prepared and set up in the International Conference Centre, an exhibition of photographs and documents providing an overall picture of the structure and activities of the Council of Europe. The Ministry of External Relations distributed posters in the Ministries connected with the Council of Europe and sent out 600 personal invitations.

He thanked the French authorities in the person of the Ambassador, Mr Doise, for their excellent organisation of the visit which had taken place in an atmosphere of friendship and openness towards the activities and possibilities of the Council of Europe, and added a special thank-you to the Ambassador, Mr Doise, and his team in Strasbourg for the personal contribution they had made towards the success of the visit.

The Representative of France, very touched by the thanks expressed by the Secretary General, said he would not fail to transmit them to his authorities.

The Representative of Turkey stated that he had learned by chance in the press of the Secretary General's visit to the French authorites. He referred to an AFP dispatch of 6 January stating that the Secretary General had had talks with the French authorities, particularly the President of the Republic, on the development of the Organisation's activities, the situation in Turkey and Poland and relations with the East having been at the centre of the discussions. Similarly, the Secretary General had said on Antenne 2 that the Council of Europe would shortly be required to take a decision on the advisability of "expelling" Turkey from the Organisation. The Secretary General had not been mandated by the Committee of Ministers to speak on these matters. He had already expressed regret at the Secretary General's attitude on the occasion of his visit to Vienna.

The Secretary General pointed out that he did not need a mandate from the Committee of Ministers to make an official visit to a member State and that his predecessors had not even reported on such visits to the Committee of Ministers. It was obviously more than likely that, at a time when a parliamentary delegation from the Council of Europe was visiting Turkey, questions on that subject would be put to the Secretary General by journalists. It was equally obvious that, as Secretary General, he could not avoid replying to such questions.

The Representative of Turkey was aware of the fact that the Secretary General did not need a mandate to make an official visit to a member State, but he considered that when questions on the specific case of Turkey were put to the Secretary General, the latter should in his reply take account of the position of the Committee of Ministers as well as of that of the Parliamentary Assembly. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 94 - Item 30a

The position with regard to the Parliamentary delegation's visit to Turkey was that the Parliamentarians would adopt a report on their return and present it to the Assembly. The Assembly would then be asked to adopt either a Resolution or a Recommendation on the situation in Turkey. Turkey's fate would not, of course, be decided by the Assembly alone, since only one of the two organs of the Council of Europe, namely the Committee of Ministers, had authority to make decisions. Should the Assembly adopt a draft Resolution, the Committee of Ministers would take note; if a Recommendation were adopted, the Committee of Ministers would be called upon to discuss it, but no-one could say at this stage what the Assembly or the Committee of Ministers would finally decide.

Whatever the outcome of the debate, there could be no question of "expulsion"; under Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, a member State could be "suspended" or "requested to withdraw".

The Representative of Turkey said he would have been pleased if the Secretary General had taken all these facts into account when answering the journalists' questions.

The Secretary General said in reply that his actions had always been guided, as the Turkish Ambassador knew, by a concern to achieve a solution satisfactory both to Turkey and to the Council of Europe. It had never been his intention to give a one-sided picture of the situation, and his statements to the press had not been confined to the role of the Assembly; he had also referred to the all-important role of the Committee of Ministers over the Turkish question.

The Representative of Switzerland thanked the Secretary General for reporting on his visit in France. His delegation had always held that the Secretary General needed no mandate to visit a member State; for a visit to non-member States, on the other hand, a mandate was necessary.

The Representative of Cyprus noted that, as the Secretary General had said, his visit to Paris had for once had the effect of giving the Council of Europe ample press coverage. He asked the Secretary General to give details of the views he had heard there on the situation in Poland and Turkey.

The Secretary General said that the French authorities had shown keen interest in the discussions taking place on the two issues within the Council of Europe.

The Chairman spoke of the importance which the Committee of Ministers had always attached to the Secretary General's role as a go-between. He feared that the effectiveness of that role might be jeopardised if the Committee of Ministers were to request details of his bilateral discussions with member States. CONFIDENTIAL

- 95 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30a

2. International Seminar on Europe's Environment and Natural Resources

The Secretary General recalled that the International Seminar on 'The Protection and national management of Europe's environment and natural resources: the key role of physical planning' had been held on 17-18 December last.

The event had been a complete success. Several speakers at the Seminar had also paid spontaneous tribute to the originality of the initiative.

The Seminar had been financed by the Commission of the European Communities and jointly organised by the Commission and the Council of Europe Secretariat. This practical co-operation between the Commission and the Council of Europe, not to mention the European Parliament and the Consultative Assembly, in a field as topical and basic as the planning of the natural environment had been greatly appreciated by all the participants.

The Seminar had also been original in being the first forum at which regional planning specialists and ecologists had discussed their respective policies, which were not always convergent, owing to the scope and variety of the objectives and issues at stake.

Moreover, the presence of several senior officials, some of them responsible for preparation of the forthcoming Ministerial Conference on regional planning, in Madrid, and others for the Ministerial Conference on the environment, in Athens, had opened the way to informal contacts, which should help to promote the success of both Conferences.

Thanks to the personal standing and competence, not only of the Chairman and speakers, but also of all of the 130 or so participants, the discussions had reached a high level of interest. The Secretary General had himself made a brief statement at the opening of the Seminar, Mr Narjes, member of the Commission of the European Communities responsible for the environment, had made an important statement which had made a considerable contribution to the discussion. During the final exchange of views, the participants had expressed the hope that this kind of direct, practical co-operation between the Commission and the Council of Europe, between planners and ecologists, might continue and had suggested that it should be initiated at ministerial level as well.

A consolidated report on discussions at the Seminar was being prepared, and he intended to submit it to the Deputies in due course, together with the Secretary General's opinion on follow-up action to be taken on an initiative which had been most successful at all levels and which should be repeated in the future. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 96 - Item 30a

He also took this opportunity of drawing the Committee's attention to another instance of co-operation which was developing between OECD and the Council of Europe. Like the Economic Commission for Europe, OECD was planning to initiate a work programme on the natural environment and wildlife. Owing to the basically complementary nature of OECD and the Council of Europe, close contacts had developed between the two Secretariats. Thus the Council of Europe would be introducing the forthcoming OECD forum on the natural heritage, the hope being that this would from the outset prevent overlapping and the unnecessary expenditure of effort by the governments and organisations concerned.

3. European Parliamant Rent

The Secretary General recalled that when the Deputies had discussed under item 41 of the agenda of their 338th meeting (October 1981) the question of the increase in the rent paid by the European Parliament to the Council of Europe, he had been asked to convey to the European Parliament the Committee of Ministers' point of view that the proposal made by the European Parliament was inadequate.

As it had not been possible to find a suitable date in November, he had had a meeting in December 1981 with the Secretary General of the European Parliament and his colleagues. At that meeting he had explained to Mr. Opitz why the Council of Europe considered that the increase proposed by the European Parliament was too low.

In reply, the Secretary General of the European Parliament had again repeated that the authorities of the Parliament had been particularly discommoded by the importance that the Council of Europe was attaching to indexing the rent, while it was the policy of the European Parliament to move away from any form of indexing. In the circumstances, if the Council of Europe were simply to renew its request the same difficulties would be met that had already been encountered.

He had made it clear to the Secretary General of the European Parliament that the member States broadly shared the view that the Parliament did not pay enough. In the circumstances, the Secretaries General had agreed on a formula that had the advantage of not repeating the former request while showing clearly and firmly that the Council of Europe was expecting the European Parliament to improve its proposal.

The text of a letter on this subject that the Secretary General had sent to Mr. Opitz on 17 December 1981 was distributed during the meeting and is reproduced at Appendix VI to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL

- 97 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30a

The Secretary General went on to say that he felt that it would be useful for him to meet the President of the European Parliament and the Chairman of its Committee on Budgets, at present Mr. Lange of the Federal Republic of Germany. He had informed Mr. Opitz of this. However it had not been a suitable time in view of the fact that new appointments were due to be made to the offices of President of Parliament and Chairmanship of its committees during the forthcoming session of the European Parliament which would be taking place the following week. The Secretary General therefore intended to make these contacts as soon as possible after the election of the President of the European Parliament and of the Chairman of its Committee on Budgets. Meanwhile, it had been agreed with Mr. Opitz that the letter of 17 December 1981 would already be given preliminary consideration.

The Representative of Switzerland said that he was pleased that the Secretary General was keeping the Deputies regularly informed of the state of negotiations with the European Parliament, and also for having distributed that morning copies of the letter he had sent to the Secretary General of the European Parliament on 17 December 1981. However, having read that letter he said that he was disappointed with its content. Indeed, he expressed his surprise that any official in the Secretariat could have submitted such a letter to the Secretary General for his signature. The letter took no account whatever of the points that had been made by delegations over the previous months when the Deputies had been discussing this matter. The letter was concerned exclusively with the rents payable by the European Parliament to the Council of Europe, and made absolutely no mention of the breach of the contract provisions. On the other hand the approach of the letter of 17 December 1981 gave the impression that everything was in order and that with regard to the other lease arrangements between the two Organisations the de facto situation corresponded, without objection, to the contractual texts.

In conclusion, he said that he would like the Secretary General to state in writing to the Secretary General of the European Parliament the points on which the Parliament was in breach of the Agreements.

The Secretary General replied that as far as he was concerned, it had been clear from the Deputies' discussions the previous autumn that the question to which the Committee of Ministers attached the greatest importance at present in the negotiations with the European Parliament was that of the level of rents payable. He had therefore preferred to concentrate on that point at that stage, which in no way implied that the Council of Europe had abandoned its position on other points. However, the question would be looked into further. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 98 - Item 30a

4. Staff Appointments

In application of Article 25(2) of the Regulations on Appointments, an informal exchange of views was held during which the Secretary General informed the Deputies of his intention to appoint Mr. Heinrich Klebes to the post of Deputy Clerk of the Assembly (Grade A7) upon the retirement on pension of its present holder.

5. Seminar organised by the Fourth World Movement

The Deputy Secretary General said that a a seminar on 'Families of the Fourth World and Human Rights', organised by the International Movement ATD - Fourth World, in conjunction with the Directorate of Human Rights, had been held at the Palais de l'Europe from 9 to 11 December 1981.

The movement was a non-governmental organisation working closely with the Council of Europe, with which it has had consultative status for five years. Its action was very much in line with the preoccupations of the Organisation, especially when it came to strengthening individual rights in the economic and social spheres.

During the course of the Seminar, which he had had the pleasure of opening, the participants (some 50 in number) had endeavoured more particularly to exchange information and experience, in the hope of finding ways and means of securing better protection for the poorest citizens. Two main themes had been dealt with: defence of the right to have a family life; defence of human dignity.

A Recommendation had been adopted at the conclusion of the Seminar, addressed to the Committee of Ministers and Assembly of the Council of Europe, and also to the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Family Affairs. The text would shortly be sent to the Committee and to the two other bodies.

The Recommendation showed that the participants had tackled essential aspects of the situation of the most uderprivileged citizens. They had formulated proposals which were perfectly consonant with current activities relating to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter.

The Representative of Greece said that he was much gratified by this venture, carried out within the Council of Europe framework. In his view there was an excellent political case for showing that the Organisation was interested in the problems of the Fourth World and so prevent lack of interest from being exploited politically by others. CONFIDENTIAL

- 99 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30b

b. Statement by the Representative of Turkey on the situation in his country

The Representative of Turkey made a statement, the text of which is set out at Appendix VII to these Conclusions.

The Chairman thanked the Representative of Turkey for his statement. He was sure that members of the Committee would welcome the information about the timetable for parliamentary elections in Turkey and that relating to the visit of the delegation from the Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also told the Committee that a delegation from the Alsatian branch of the CGT (Communist trade union) had asked to be received by the "President of the Council of Europe" on the question of the trial of the DISK trade union. It had been received by the Secretary to the Committee of Ministers and the Deputy Clerk of the Assembly, who had informed them (inter alia) of the visit by the parliamentarians to Turkey.

The Representative of Sweden said he was pleased to hear the information supplied by the Representative of Turkey. He was also grateful for the information supplied in writing between the meetings. Referring to the recent letters relating to the cases of torture examined by Amnesty International, he said that further cases had been drawn to his Government's attention on which he would like to receive information. He suggested that he should send the names to the Representative of Turkey. He had also been instructed to mention the case of the former mayor of Istanbul, Mr. Ahmet Isvan, arrested about a year ago. No charge had been brought against him and no date fixed for his trial; he appealed to the Turkish authorities to expedite the proceedings in question.

The Representative of Turkey replied that there were numerous Swedish observers in Istanbul who were following the DISK trial. Moreover, there were lawyers and journalists who had been and still were able to speak with the wife of the former mayor of Istanbul. The latter was accused of having co-operated with the extreme left-wing militants of the DISK and of having given assistance during certain demonstrations. However, he would not fail to report the concern of the Swedish Government to his authorities. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - 100 - Item 30b

As regards the allegations of torture, the Representative of Turkey recalled that he had always sent to the Secretary General for circulation to the delegations the answers relating to the persons mentioned in Amnesty International's latest report. Out of 62 names, there were nine with regard to whom no information was available. Out of 39 cases, nine persons were not even detained; four were mentioned as being dead, who were in fact alive and against whom proceedings were being taken.

A member of the delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr. Steiner, had raised the question of allegations of torture during the interview given him by the Head of State in Ankara. The latter had confirmed that torture was forbidden in Turkey and that any person could approach the Martial Law authorities in each province or the Ministry of Justice to obtain information on specific cases. CONFIDENTIAL

- 101 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30c

c. European Youth Centre 1982 Budget (CM(82)10)

Decision

The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 343rd meeting (February 1982 - for discussion at A level) (see item 1 above).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 103 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30d

d. Situation in Poland

This item was discussed in restricted session (see Addendum I to these Conclusions, which has been issued to Heads of Delegation only).

CONFIDENTIAL

- 105 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Item 30e

e. Situation of Polish refugees in Austria

This item was discussed in restricted session (see Addendum II to these Conclusions, which has been issued to Heads of Delegation only).

CONFIDENTIAL

- a1 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX I

AGENDA OF THE 342ND MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (Strasbourg, 11-15 January 1982 - A level)

1. Adoption of the agenda. (Notes No. 4046 of 8.1.82)

Political and General Policy Questions

2. The question of "Political discussions" - (Concl(81)341/2b, CM(81)PV 3 prov.) (Notes No. 4047 of 5.1.82)

3. Cultural co-operation - (Concl(81)341/2a, CM(81)PV 3 prov.) (Notes No. 4048 of 6.1.82)

4. Fight against terrorism - (Concl(81)339/3 and 340/2, CM(81)296 of 17.12.81) (Notes No. 4049 of 18.12.81)

5. Balanced development in Europe - (Concl(81)340/2) (Notes No. 4050 of 6.1.82)

6. United Nations - Exchange of views (1) - (CM(81)244) (Notes No. 4051 of 23.12.81 and Addendum of 5.1.82)

7. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(81)341/5) (Notes No. 4052 of 23.12.81)

8. Afghanistan - Recommendation 922 on the situation of refugees from Afghanistan and Order No. 399 on the solution of the Afghan crisis - (Concl(81)339/7, CM(82)7 of 8.1.82 (Notes No. 4053 of 8.1.82)

9. Resale rights for works of art - Request from the Commission of the European Communities - (CM(82)9 of 8.1.82) (Notes No. 4054 of 8.1.82)

10. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - (Concl(81)341/9, CM(78)62 and CM(81)229) (Notes No. 4055 of 23.12.81)

(1) Friday, 15 January 1982 at 10 am. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a2 - Appendix I

Human Rights

11. McVeigh, O'Neill and Evans against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(81)339/10, Letter HD/C29 of 11 May 1981) (Notes No. 4056 of 22.12.81)

12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(81)339/9, Letters HD/C47 of 4 December 1978 and HD/C12 of 13 March 1980, CM(81)241) (Notes No. 4057 of 21.12.81)

13. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 10th meeting (Strasbourg, 20-27 November 1981) - (CM(81)294 and Addenda I and II of 15.12.81) (Notes No. 4058 of 23.12.81)

14. International Convention against Torture - Recommendation 909 (Concl(81)338/20, CM(81)202 and 302 of 18.12.81) (Notes No. 4059 of 18.12.81)

15. Access by the public to government records and freedom of information - Recommendation 854 - (CM(81)295 of 15.12.81) (Notes No. 4060 of 21.12.81)

Legal Questions

16. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the International Transport of Animals (CAHTA) - Meeting report (9-11 December 1981) (Concl(81)336/13 and Appendix IV and CM(81)299 of 18.12.81) (Notes No. 4061 of 5.1.82)

17. Ill-treatment of horses during international transport - Recommendation 923 - (Concl(81)338/5a) (Notes No. 4062 of 21.12.81)

18. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the underwater cultural heritage (CAHAQ) - Second meeting (Strasbourg, 6-9 October 1981) (CM(81)286 and Corrigendum) (Notes No. 4045 of 11.12.81)

19. Fight against international tax evasion and avoidance - Written Question No. 245 by Mr. Antoni - (CM(81)278) (Notes No. 4039 of 18.11.81)

20. Trade mark law - Recommendation 899 - (Concl(81)330/16, CM(81)279) (Notes No. 4040 of 18.11.81) CONFIDENTIAL

- a3 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Appendix I

Economic and Social Questions

21. Ratification of the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers - Recommendation 931 - (Concl(81)341/23, CM(81)281 and 305 of 23.12.81) (Notes No. 4063 of 23.12.81)

22. European Social Charter - 6th period of supervision - Assembly Opinion No. 106 - (Concl(81)339/14, T-SG(80)9 and Addendum and CM(81)298 of 15.12.81) (Notes No. 4064 of 5.1.82)

23. Public participation in decision-making on aircraft noise matters - Recommendation 875 - (Concl(80)313/XIV, CM(82)2 of 8.1.82) (Notes No. 4065 of 5.1.82)

24. 7th Seminar on International Voluntary Service - Assembly Recommendation 894 - (CM(82)5 of 6.1.82) (Notes No. 4066 of 5.1.82)

25. Individual social fellowships - Request from the British Council for a financial contribution - (Concl(81)341/27, CM(81)207) (Notes No 4067 of 26.11.81)

Youth

26. European Youth Centre - Membership of the statutory organs (Governing Board and Advisory Committee) - (CM(81)297) (Notes No. 4068 of 22.12.81)

Environment and Local Authorities

27. 6th European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT) - (Concl(81)339/18, CM(81)209 and 300 of 17.12.81) (Notes No. 4069 of 23.12.81)

Administrative Questions

28. Appeals Board - Administrative meeting - (CM(81)306 of 23.12.81) (Notes No. 4070 of 23.12.81)

29. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 4071 of 7.1.82)

30. Other business

a. Dialogue with the Secretary General CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a4 - Appendix I

b. Statement by the Representative of Turkey on the sitation in his country

c. European Youth Centre - 1982 Budget - (CM(82)10 of 7.1.82) (Notes No. 4073 of 7.1.82)

d. Situation in Poland (Notes No. 4079 of 11.1.82)

e. Situation of Polish refugees in Austria - (CM(82)14 of 11.1.82) (Notes No. 4080 of 11.1.82) CONFIDENTIAL

- a5 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX II

DRAFT AGENDA OF THE 343RD MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (A and B levels) (Strasbourg, 2-12 February 1982)

1. Adoption of the Agenda (Notes No. 4085 of ...)

Political and General Policy Questions

2. East-West Relations - Exchange of views - (Concl(82)342/2) (Notes No. 4086 of ...)

3. Committee of Ministers - Preparation of the 70th Session (CM(82)...) (Notes No. 4087 of ...)

4. Draft Declaration on the freedom of expression and information (Concl(81)341/2c) (Notes No. 4088 of ...)

5. Consultative Assembly - 3rd part of the 33rd Ordinary Session (Strasbourg, 25-29 January 1982)

a. Texts adopted (Notes No. 4089 of ...)

b. Parliamentary questions for oral answer by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers - (SG/D(82)...) (Notes No. 4090 of ...)

6. Colloquy on relations between Europe and Japan - (CM(82)...) (Notes No. 4091 of ...)

NB In accordance with the deadline rules for the dispatch of reference documents and Notes on the Agenda, the date limits are 4 and 15 January 1982 respectively. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a6 - Appendix II

7. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(82)342/7) (Notes No. 4083 du 15.1.82)

8. Resale rights for works of art - Request from the Commission of the European Communities - (Concl(82)342/9, CM(82)9) (Notes No. 4054 of 8.1.82)

*9. European relief plan for natural disasters - Written Question No. 236 by Mrs. Girard - (Concl(81)336/5, CM(81)40 and Addendum, CM(81)198 and ...) (Notes No. 4076 of 7.1.82)

10. Conferences of Specialised Ministers - (Concl(82)342/10, CM(78)62, CM(81)229) (Notes No. 4084 of 15.1.82)

Human Rights

11. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(82)342/12, Letters HD/C47 of 4 December 1978 and HD/C12 of 13 March 1980, CM(81)241) (Notes No. 4057 of 21.12.81)

12. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the "Winterwerp" case - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C39 of 12 November 1979) (Notes No. 4074 of 14.1.82)

13. McVeigh, O'Neill and Evans against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(82)342/11, Letter HD/C29 of 11 May 1981) (Notes No. 4092 of ...)

Legal Questions

*14. European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) - Report of the 10th meeting (Strasbourg, 23-27 November 1981) - (CM(81)304) (Notes No. 4075 of 18.1.82)

*15. Discrimination against homosexuals - Recommendation 924 and Resolution 756 - (Concl(81)341/13) (Notes No. 4077 of 14.1.82)

*16. Ad hoc Committee of Experts for identity documents and movement of persons (CAHID) - Report of the 16th meeting (Strasbourg, 3-6 November 1981) - (CM(81)288) (Notes No. 4067 of 8.1.82)

(*) B level CONFIDENTIAL

- a7 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Appendix II

Economic and Social Questions

*17. Ad hoc Committee of Experts on the protection of consumers in the socio-economic field (CAHCO) - 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 1-4 December 1981) - Meeting report - (CM(82)6 and Addendum) (Notes No. 4081 of 19.11.82)

*18. Council of Europe's contribution to the international year for disabled persons - Recommendation 925 - (Concl(81)341/25) (Notes No. 4082 of ...)

19. European Social Charter - Appointment of two members of the Committee of Experts set up under Article 25 of the Charter - (CM(82)3) (Notes No. 4072 of 8.1.82)

*20. Public participation in decision-making on aircraft noise matters- Recommendation 875 - (Concl(82)342/23, CM(82)2 of 8.1.82) (Notes No. 4065 of 5.1.82)

*21. Individual social fellowships -Request from the British Council for a financial contribution - (Concl(82)342/25,CM(81)207) (Notes No. 4029 of 26.11.81)

Education, Culture and Sport

*22. The Cinema and the State - Recommendation 862 - (CM(81)303) (Notes No. 4093 of 15.1.82)

Youth

23. European Youth Centre - 1982 Budget - (Concl(82)342/30c, CM(82)10) (Notes No. 4073 of 7.1.82)

Environment and Local Authorities

*24. Steering Committee for regional and municipal matters (CDRM) - Invitation to the Committee of Experts on Local and Regional Finance (RM-FL) to hold its next meeting in Rome on 19 and 20 April 1982 - (CM(82)12) (Notes No. 4078 of 14.1.82)

25. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 4094 of ...)

26. Other business

a. Dialogue with the Secretary General

(*) B level

CONFIDENTIAL

- a9 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX III (item 29)

SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR THE SECOND HALF OF 1982

No. Level Month Date Days

350 A and B September 20-29 Monday-Wednesday

351 A and B October 11-15 Monday-Friday

352 A November (1) 3-5 Wednesday-Friday

[Colloquy November 9 Tuesday]

(71 CM November 10 Wednesday)

353 A (budget) November 22-26 Monday-Friday

354 A and B December 6-10 Monday-Friday

(1) Preparatory meeting for the Committee of Ministers.

CONFIDENTIAL

- a11 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX IV (item 4)

RECOMMENDATION NO. R(82)1 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IN THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF ACTS OF TERRORISM

(adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 January 1982 at the 342nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15(b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity among its members;

Concerned at the increased number of acts of terrorism committed in certain member States;

Considering the prevention and suppression of such acts to be indispensable to the maintenance of the democratic institutions of member States;

Having regard to Council of Europe initiatives (*) in the past aimed at the suppression of terrorism which represent important contributions to the fight against this threat to society;

(*) In particular:

- European Convention on Extradition (1957) with two Additional Protocols (1975 and 1978);

- European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1959) and Additional Protocol (1978);

- European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (1977)

- Resolution (74) 3 on international terrorism adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 53rd Session (January 1974);

- Declaration on Terrorism adopted by the Committee of Ministers at its 63rd Session (November 1978);

- Communiqués of the Committee of Ministers at its 67th (October 1980), 68th (May 1981) and 69th (November 1981) Sessions;

- Assembly Recommendations 684 (1972), 703 (1973), 852 (1979) and 916 (1981);

- Conference on the "Defence of democracy against terrorism in Europe - Tasks and problems" (November 1980). CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a12 - Appendix IV

Convinced that it is necessary to develop further and to strengthen international co-operation in this field;

Desirous of rendering existing procedures of international judicial co-operation simpler and more expeditious, of improving the exchange of information between the competent authorities of member States, particularly between those with a common border, and of facilitating the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism;

Having regard to existing co-operation and channels of communications between the police forces of member States;

Recalling the Declaration on Terrorism adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 23 November 1978;

Emphasising that any measure of international co-operation must be fully compatible with the protection of human rights and particularly with the principles contained in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950.

RECOMMENDS the Governments of member States to give effect, by the most apprropiate means, to the following measures aimed at improving international co-operation in the prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism directed against the life, physical integrity or liberty of persons, or against property where they create a collective danger for persons, including, in accordance with domestic law, attempts at or threats of or participation as an accomplice in these acts (referred to as "acts of terrorism" in the present Recommendation).

I. Channels of communication for mutual judicial assistance in criminal matters

1. Direct communication between the authorities concerned in the requesting and requested State, of requests for judicial assistance and the replies thereto should be encouraged in all cases where it is permitted by the law of these States or by any treaty to which these States are Party, if it is likely to render mutual judicial assistance more expeditious.

2. Where direct transmission is permitted, cases involving acts of terrorism should be treated with urgency according to the procedure provided by Article 15(2) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters or by other treaties in force between member States or by the law of these States, so that letters rogatory may be addressed by the authority concerned in the requesting State directly to the authority concerned in the requested State, it being understood that the requested State may require a copy to be sent to its Ministry of Justice or other competent ministry. CONFIDENTIAL

- a13 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Appendix IV

3. Where requests for assistance and the replies thereto may be communicated directly between the authorities concerned in the requesting and the requested State, their transmission should be effected as rapidly as possible, either through Interpol National Central Bureaux, insofar as this is not contrary to Interpol's Constitution, or by other existing ways of transmission.

4. Where communication is effected between Ministries of Justice or other competent ministries, the authority concerned in the requesting State should be allowed directly to provide the authority concerned in the requested State with an advance copy of the request. The authority concerned in the requested State should be advised that the sole purpose of transmitting the copy is to enable it to prepare for the execution of the request.

II. Exchange of information

5. Exchanges of information between member States should be improved and reinforced. To that end, the competent authorities should, insofar as this is not contrary to domestic law, be enabled to furnish, of their own accord, information in their possession on such matters as:

i. measures concerning the prosecution of the alleged offender (eg, arrest, indictment);

ii. the outcome of any judicial or administrative proceedings (eg, conviction, decision on extradition);

iii. the enforcement of any sentence (including pardon, conditional release);

iv. other relevant information relating to the whereabouts of the person concerned (eg, expulsion, escape, execution of an extradition decision)

to the authorities of any member State concerned, as for instance, the State where the act of terrorism was committed, the State which has jurisdiction over the offence, the State of which the offender is a national, the State where the offender has his habitual residence, or any other State likely to have an interest in the particular element of information.

6. The exchange of this information should be effected with all necessary expediency either through Interpol National Central Bureaux, insofar as this is not contrary to Interpol's Constitution, or by other existing ways of transmission. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a14 - Appendix IV

III. Prosecution and trial of offences of an international character

7. Where one or several acts of terrorism have been committed in the territory of two or several member States and there is a link between those acts or their authors, the member States concerned should examine the possibility of having the prosecution and the trial conducted in only one State. To that end, the States concerned should agree on the competent State, in accordance with existing international treaties and their internal law. The same should apply, if possible, where one or several acts of terrorism of an international character have been committed in the territory of a single State by several persons acting in unison who have been apprehended in various States. In negotiating such agreements on the competent State, the States concerned should, with a view to ensuring that prosecution and trial take place in the State best suited for conducting the proceedings, take into account the number of offences committed in each State, the seriousness of the offences, the availability of evidence, the personal circumstances of the alleged offender, in particular his nationality and residence, and the prospects of rehabilitation. CONFIDENTIAL

- a15 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX V (item 13)

DECISION NO. CM/263/130182

Ad hoc terms of reference

1. Name of relevant committee STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH)

2. Source of terms of reference Committee of Ministers

3. Completion date end of 1984

4. Terms of reference

The CDDH is instructed to continue its work to identify economic, social and cultural rights which might be included in an additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, if it considers this solution possible, to submit to the Committee of Ministers the draft of such a Protocol. When undertaking this work the CDDH should take into account the work of Committee of Experts for the extension of the rights embodied in the Convention (DH-EX) and the discussion at the 10th meeting of the CDDH in particular the conclusions which it reached (point F of CDDH(81)49, Addendum II).

5. Other committees to be informed of terms of reference Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDSO)

Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC)

CONFIDENTIAL

- a17 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX VI (item 30a, part 3)

LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

TRANSLATION

Strasbourg, 17 December 1981

My Dear Secretary General,

As you will already be aware from my letter of 13 October 1981, the Committee of Ministers has been informed of the position of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgets with regard to the increase in the rents payable by your Institution to the Council of Europe for the premises placed at your disposal in the Palais de l'Europe.

While appreciating the reasons in favour of showing moderation with regard to rent increases in general, the Committee of Ministers nevertheless considers that for the rents payable under the 1977 General Agreement, the position adopted by the Committee on Budgets concerning the Council of Europe's proposals takes insufficiently into account, on the one hand the erosion in the value of money since January 1977, which was the base date for fixing the rents payable under the December 1977 General Agreement, and on the other hand the increase in the intensity of occupation of the premises since the election of the European Parliament by universal suffrage in July 1979, particularly with regard to the number of persons attending sessions of the European Parliament.

Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers has recalled and stressed the fact that the rents agreed in 1977 were set at a specially favourable rate that took into account the balance between a number of factors. This being so, downward adjustment of the proposals made by the Council of Europe could but have the effect of upsetting the balance that both parties recognised as desirable when the Agreement was concluded.

Mr. H.J. OPITZ Secretary General of the European Parliament Case Postale 1601 LUXEMBOURG CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a18 - Appendix VI

For all these reasons, I am instructed by the Committee of Ministers to convey to you its hope that the European Parliament's budgetary authorities will come round to envisaging rent increase percentages substantially higher than those they have proposed.

Thanking you in advance for favourable consideration of the foregoing, I remain

Cordially Yours

(signed) F. Karasek CONFIDENTIAL

- a19 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342

APPENDIX VII (item 30b)

STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF TURKEY ON THE SITUATION IN HIS COUNTRY

Mr Chairman,

The most valuable New Year's gift for the people of Turkey has been, beyond any doubt, the timetable for the restoration of democracy in the country, announced by the Head of State in his message of 31 December 1981. The news was greeted with joy by public opinion and the press.

This is what the Head of State said in his message:

EXCERPTS FROM GENERAL EVREN'S SPEECH OF 31 DECEMBER 1981

"As you have been able to ascertain, the promises I made in my radio and television address of 12 September 1980 and in other public statements delivered on various occasions during my tours of the country, have all been kept. What we promised the Turkish people is becoming reality little by little as our programme is put into effect. We have not allowed ourselves to be swayed by allegations and accusations from a number of foreign sources whose destructive propoganda was generated by internal networks in response to personal interests and for the sole benefit of subversive and secessionist forces. We are making steady progress along our chosen path with the approval of the vast majority of our people. Our latest achievement has been the setting up of the Consultative Assembly, in accordance with our programme. Thus the transition to a system of parliamentary democracy is now well under way. The Assembly has already begun drafting the new Constitution, a task of the utmost importance. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a20 - Appendix VII

If, as we hope, the Consultative Assembly succeeds by the end of the summer of 1982 in drafting the most appropriate Constitution for our nation in the light of bitter past experience, and presents it to the National Security Council, it will then be possible to put the text to the vote in a referendum towards the end of November. Once the Constitution is adopted by the nation, normal elections can be held in the autumn of 1983, provided that no unforeseen events of an international character affect our country in the meantime.

If for some unpredictable reason the Constitution cannot be adopted on the desired date, the elections will have to be deferred until the spring of 1984, as it is impossible to organise elections in mid-winter.

In order to have the best possible Constitution, we think it is advisable to set a deadline for the Consultative Assembly. A hurriedly prepared Constitution might make the country revert to instability and chaos and bring about another "twelfth of September". The proposed election dates are therefore the ones we consider most suitable. In view of the time needed for preparing the political parties act and the elections act following the adoption of the Constitution, and for the political parties to get organised, every right-minded citizen will understand that it is impossible to arrange for the elections to take place any earlier.

As I have always said, the Republic is the best system of government for the Turkish people and the most precious heritage conferred on us by its founder, the great Atatürk. That is why we must restore that system; no-one can possibly doubt this. Today the Turkish people have overcome the most difficult obstacles, as they have always done throughout our nation's history. The way ahead is clear, even, unobstructed and unclouded.

We are striding towards a radiant future and will achieve our aim in a spirit of national union and solidarity. Like the whole nation, we have coped successfully with serious difficulties in 1981, the year of the centenary of Atatürk's birth. We look forward to 1982 with resolve and great hopes. I shall not declare the centenary year closed, as I do not wish to slow down our progress. With Atatürk's precepts in mind we shall achieve our aim in 1982 in the shortest possible time and promote our country to its rightful place among the other nations of the civilised world." CONFIDENTIAL

- a21 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Appendix VII

Mr Chairman,

The trial of the leaders of the extreme left-wing trade union DISK has begun in Istanbul before the competent court, a civil court of first instance. No sooner had the proceedings opened than a dispute arose between the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel over competence and the number of lawyers wishing to attend in the trial in person. The defence counsel insisted that 72 lawyers should be present, but the court decided to limit their number to 52. This decision by the court was immediately followed by outcries, especially in the foreign press, and further pressures from European trade union confederations. Attacks in the media, street demonstrations in European capitals organised by the trade unions in the countries concerned, and even certain government-level representations to my country's authorities, were all stepped up. The Turkish authorities' attitude to these diplomatic initiatives was explained, in each specific case, through our ambassadors, to the governments expressing interest in the DISK trial, probably under pressure from their communist partners or from communist-inspired trade unions. Our position is as follows:

The Turkish Government which took over the direction of the country's affairs on 12 September 1980 in a context of civil war remains faithful to the objective identified by the Head of State on the very first day and reaffirmed on several occasions subsequently. This objective is the setting up of a healthy and balanced democracy in Turkey within a reasonable time. The government has undertaken to continue to respect human rights and the rule of law. There can be no question of this promise to the nation not being kept.

The governments of the member countries of the Council of Europe are surely aware of the causes that allowed anarchy and terror to develop to such an extraordinary degree prior to the operation of 12 September 1980.

Our government is determined to bring all those who availed themselves of the freedoms offered by the democratic regime in an attempt to set up a dictatorship in its place, to trial before independent courts, applying the laws that were already in force before 12 September 1980, those found guilty. Under Turkish law, membership of a trade union does not confer special status on anyone. The trial of the DISK trade union can be considered only from that angle. No trade union member in Turkey, whether a leader of DISK or anyone else, is being prosecuted for trade union activities. The leaders of DISK were simply arrested on suspicion of having engaged in illegal activities, and the charges which the Public Prosecutor has brought against them are very serious. Only when the trial is over will it be known whether these charges are founded. Your governments are certainly aware that foreign journalists and trade union officials are following the proceedings. There can be no question of our government interfering with the working of the independent judiciary and it is therefore unthinkable that we should grant that right to any other government. In the past, when sensitive situations of this kind have arisen in your countries, your governments have always been very careful to preserve the independence of their national courts. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a22 - Appendix VII

The governments of the member States, are of course, free to define their own policy in regard to Turkey. However, on this occasion we feel they should be reminded that the Turkish Government would not think of accepting economic aid offered on political terms, as a means of exerting pressure.

Moreover, we must categorically refute the unrealistic and totally illogical assumption that a parallel can be drawn between the events in Poland and the trial of the DISK trade union in Turkey. It is clear beyond doubt that those who deliberately attempt to establish this link belong to circles which seek to mask the events in Poland and feel uneasy over the Turkish administration's success in curbing terrorism. A further interesting fact is that this argument is mainly developed by certain organs of the Western press - radio and television included - sometimes with the encouragement of their countries' governments or, more likely, of the political parties concerned.

It is indeed absurd to argue that the present Polish Government, which is attempting under threats and pressures from outside to maintain a dictatorial regime and to stiffle any freedom movement and any endeavour to safeguard human rights, bears any resemblance to an administration such as ours whose sole aim is to restors liberal democracy once and for all in Turkey. How unfortunate it is that certain responsible governments are attempting to find a semblance of truth in this false comparison and see fit to authorise the press consistently to propagate misinformation of an outrageously destructive kind. For example, France-Inter and the three French television channels have for some days now been subjecting my country to a campaign of inadmissible slander and censure. There are no difficulties in seeing what precise purpose lies behind the so-called concern to safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms. We are not taken in by it.

It has been proclaimed on several occasions that democratic rule would be set up in Turkey within a reasonable time, after general elections. On 31 December 1981, the date on which free general elections would be held was announced to the Turkish people and international public opinion by the Head of State. As for Poland, any ideas regarding a future date for genuinely free elections still belong, I fear, to the realm of pure speculation.

Mr Chairman,

As you know, the members of the Political Affairs Committee and the Legal Affairs Committee, accompanied by members of the staff of the Office of the Clerk, have been in Ankara since 7 January. CONFIDENTIAL

- a23 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Appendix VII

The Parliamentary delegation consists of 21 persons including the Chairmen of the two committees, MM Urwin and Grieve, and their two rapporteurs, MM Steiner and Bardens. The other members, whose names were conveyed to me a few days before their departure for Turkey, were:

Mrs Aasen, Norway Mr Apenes, Norway Mr Amadei, Italy Mr Batliner, Liechtenstein Mr Budtz, Denmark Mr Baumel, France Mr Calamandrei, Italy Mr Cavaliere, Italy Mr Elmquist, Denmark Mr Lidbom, Sweden Mrs Lindquist, Sweden Mr Mommersteeg, Netherlands Mr Richard Müller, Switzerland Mr Reddemann, Federal Republic of Germany Mr Smith, Great Britain Mr Yanez-Barnuevo, Spain.

Later, MM Reddemann and Smith were prevented from going to Ankara and sent their apologies. The parliamentary delegation was accompanied by MM Sand, Plate and Palmieri, and two interpreters.

On 8 January the delegation was received by the Head of State, General Evren. The two Chairmen, MM Urwin and Grieve, together with the two rapporteurs, MM Steiner and Bardens, and Mr Elmquist, were present at this interview which although planned to last 45 minutes at most, went on for over two hours in an atmosphere of cordial plain-speaking. On the same day they were received by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and later by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister made a long statement to the members of the delegation, concluding as follows:

"We have always treated worldwide public opinion with understanding, in particular the concern shown in your countries since the intervention of 12 September. Because of its traditional foreign policy, Turkey regards itself as a lifelong member of the club of parliamentary democracies. That is why we have stated time and time again our determination to listen to constructive criticism. We have regarded public alarm and the concern shown by the European organisations as evidence of a desire for Turkey to retain its place among the democracies of the West. CONFIDENTIAL

CM/Del/Concl(82)342 - a24 - Appendix VII

Our advocacy of the system of parliamentary democracy founded on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and on the rule of law, is one of the basic principles of our foreign policy. Turkey has adopted the democratic principles of Europe and acts accordingly in its present relations with the international institutions, not least the Council of Europe. Turkey is sincere in sharing the ideal of the Council of Europe and has been and will always be faithful to the principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. While gradually making progress towards its aim, our government will maintain its allegiance to the principles set out in Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe relating to human rights and the rule of law.

We think that our attitude should be seen as evidence of the present government's firm determination to restore democracy. We feel that any new step on the way to achievement of pluralistic democracy of Europe will be strengthened. It is, of course, possible to imagine Turkey outside the Council of Europe, or the Council of Europe without Turkey, but it is in the interests of the two parties to continue their relations. As long as we are striving towards a common goal and upholding the same ideal, there can be no valid reason for preventing us from preserving those relations. Needless to say, the two parties should act in a spirit of understanding, patience and mutual tolerance. They should not be sentimental or unrealistic in their relations with each other or have recourse to means that overstop the bounds of reason.

Our administration is resolved to fulfil its duties conscientiously for as long as it remains free from any provocation, pressure or intervention from outside. However, it is obvious that if we are to avoid aggravating our ills, there must be efforts on both sides.

Turkey maintains its wish to remain a member of the Council of Europe, and continues to enjoy its rights and assume its obligations under the Organisation's Statute. I continue to hope that, as members of the Parliamentary Assembly conscious of your responsibilities, you will make a just appraisal of the facts and of the consequences of a step in the wrong direction, and that you will base your position on accurate information."

At Headquarters, they were given a long briefing about terrorism in Turkey, and the allegations made against DISK. The Chairman of the Consultative Assembly, Professor Sadi Irmak, also talked with the deletation. CONFIDENTIAL

- a25 - CM/Del/Concl(82)342 Appendix VII

On the second day, the European Parliamentarians met Mr Demirel and his staff, including Mr Caglayangil, the former interim President of the Republic, with Mr Mustafa Ustundag, President of the former Peoples Republican Party in the company of three former Ministers of the Ecevit Government: Professor Feyzioglu, Chairman of the former Confidence Party (liberal tendency) and Mrs Ecevit, were also present. They also had a two-hour talk with the Chairman and members of the Commission of the Consultative Assembly responsible for drafting the new Constitution. The Parliamentarians were encouraged by the assurances they were given as to the principles which the new Constitution would embody. Further visits to various specialised Ministries and conversations with representatives of the universities, the legal profession and the press, and with the lawyers of the various accused, are to be included in the programme that will continue until 14 January. The parliamentary delegation has also had occasion to meet former members of the Turkish delegation to the Council of Europe. In addition, a meeting has been held with, on the one hand, members of the sub-committee and, on the other, Ambassadors of the member countries of the Council of Europe in office in Ankara.

The programme of the European parliamentarians' visit to Turkey will continue, as I said, until Thursday, 14 January.

The Turkish press is giving substantial coverage to this visit and publishing the statements made by members of the delegation, with their photographs.

On Friday, 15 January, the Political Affairs Committee will hear our visitior' impressions and endeavour to decide what its future action will be.

The Parliamentary Assembly is to hold its debate on Turkey on 28 January, after the debate on Poland - to my mind, an unfortunate and regrettable coincidence.

Mr. Chairman,

Where my country is. concerned, I await future developments within the Council of Europe with every confidence. Meanwhile, may I ask you to allow me to make one last statement in February to the Committee in which I have come to feel very much at home over the past seven years. It will be my farewell speech.