COUNCIL CONSEIL
OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE
COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS
CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl (79) 298
CONCLUSIONS
OF THE 298th MEETING
OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES
HELD IN STRASBOURG FROM 15 TO 20 JANUARY 1979
STRASBOURG
CONFIDENTIAL
- i - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
SUMMARY
Page
1. Adoption of the agenda 7
2. State of written procedures 9
II.
Political and General Policy Questions
3. United Nations - Preparation of the exchange of views 11
4. Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) 13
5. Consultative Assembly - Texts adopted by the Standing Committee (Paris, 5 December 1978) 15
6. Election of the Secretary General 17
7. Situation in Cyprus 19
8. Material and financial aid for international non- governmental organisations having consultative status with the Council of Europe - Written Question No. 214 by Mr Spautz 21
9. Medium-Term Plan - Reply to Assembly Opinions 74 and 84 23
10. Situation in Africa (General policy of the Council of Europe) - Recommendation 840 and Resolution 678 25
Human Rights
11. Herbert Eggs v. Switzerland - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 27
12. Arthur Hilton against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 29 CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - ii -
Page13. Human rights within the competence of UNESCO - Written Question No. 210 by Mr Grieve 33
14. Cyprus v. Turkey - Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75 - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights 39
15. Draft statement on race and racial prejudice of UNESCO - Written Question No. 211 by Mr Portheine 41
16. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C47 of 4 December 1978) 43
17. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 10-15 November 1978) 45
Economic and Social Questions
18. Ad hoc Conference of Ministers responsible for Migration Questions 51
Education, Culture and Sport
19. Possible organisation of a 3rd Joint Conference (Council of Europe/European Conference of Ministers of Transport) on Road Safety Education in Schools 53
Environment and Local Authorities
20. 3rd Ministerial Conference on the Environment - State of preparations
21. Protection of wildlife
a. Ad hoc Committee on the Protection of Wildlife (CAHVS) 57
- Report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 4-8 December 1978)
- Final Activity Report and Draft Convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats
b. Written Question No. 216 by Mr Wååg 61 CONFIDENTIAL
- iii - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
Page
Youth
22. European Youth Centre - Recommendation of the Governing Board on Youth Unemployment 63
Administrative Questions
23. Payment of representational allowances in cases of prolonged absence of officials entitled to them 65
24. Council of Europe Budgets - Assembly Opinions Nos 88 and 89 69
25. Co-ordination procedures of the Co-ordinated Organisations 71
26. European Parliament - Facilities 73
27. Staff Regulations of the Council of Europe - Hearing of the Chairman of the Staff Committee at the 291st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies 75
28. Preparation of forthcoming meetings 79
29. Other business
a. Dialogue with the Secretary General 81
b. Standing Conference of Ministers of Education - 11th session (The Hague 10-13 June 1979) 87
c. Committee on the Mass Media (CAHMM) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 11-15 December 1978) 89
d. Freedom of movement of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly in the member States of the Council of Europe Written Question No. 215 93
e. Declaration of Human Rights - Follow-up 95 CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - iv -
Page
APPENDIX I Agenda of the 298th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A level) a1
APPENDIX II Draft agenda of the 300th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (A level) a5
APPENDIX III Resolution DH(79)1, Human Rights Applications (item XIV) Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, Cyprus versus Turkey a9
APPENDIX IV Decision No. CM/101/200179 (CAHEA) a11 (item XXVII)
APPENDIX V Decision No. CM/100/180179 (CDDH, CDAS, CDSS, (item XXIX(e)) CAHRS, CDCC) a13
APPENDIX VI Letter from the Secretary General of the (item XXVI) European Parliament to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe a15
APPENDIX VII Letter from the Chairman of the Staff (item XXVII) Committee to the Chairman of the Ministers' Deputies, via the Secretary General a 17
APPENDIX VIII Corrigenda to previous Conclusions a19 CONFIDENTIAL
- 1 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
The 298th meeting of the Deputies was opened on Monday, 15 January 1979 at 3 pm with Mr J.F.E. Breman, Deputy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, in the Chair.
PRESENT
AUSTRIA Mr O. Maschke Mr U. Hack Mr F. Ceska (item IV)
BELGIUM Mr A.J. Vranken Mr F. Hintjens Mr F. Baekelandt (item IV) Mr P. Raes (item IV)
CYPRUS Mr C.N. Pilavachi Mr L. Loucaides (item XIV)
DENMARK Mr P.A. Von der Hüde Mr J.C. Bützow Mr N.K. Dyrlund (item IV) Mr A.H. Nielsen (item IV)
FRANCE Mr. J. Cazeneuve Mr T. de Kerros Mr Dasque (item IV)
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY Mr H. Meincke Mrs R. Lässing Mr G. Joetze (item IV)
GREECE Mr N. Kambalouris Mr P. Caracassis Mr A. Mallias
ICELAND Mrs H. Bergs
IRELAND Mr M. Flynn Miss T. Doran (item IV)
ITALY Mr M. Pisa Mr N. Cappello Mr G. Ceruti Mr R. Franceschi (item IV) CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 2 -
LIECHTENSTEIN H.S.H. Prince Nicholas of Liechtenstein Mr R. Marxer Count A. de Gerliczy-Burian (item IV) Count M. Ledebur (item IV)
LUXEMBOURG Mr G. Heisbourg Mr A. Berns (item-IV)
MALTA Mr R. Calleja
NETHERLANDS Mr J.F.E. Breman, Chairman Mr P. Lagendijk Miss M.M. Bot Mr J.H. Meesman (item IV) Mr W.J. Elzinga (item IV)
NORWAY Miss K. Ohm, Vice-Chairman Mr K. Paus Mr S. Endresen
PORTUGAL Mr J.P. Cutileiro Mr J.P. Carvalho Mrs Ana Barata (item IV)
SPAIN Mr J.L. Messia Mr J.A. Yáñez Barnuevo Mr A.J. Jiménez Abascal Mr D. Sanchez (item IV)
SWEDEN Mr B. Åkerren Mr M. Åberg Mr L. Westerberg (item IV) Mr I. Lindhal (item IV)
SWITZERLAND Mr A. Wacker Mr R. Serex Mr T. Feller Mr P. Troendle (item IV) Mr B. Godet (item IV) Mr J. Lugon (item IV) CONFIDENTIAL
- 3 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
TURKEY Mr S. Günver Mr Ö. Akbel Mr S. Özsoy Mr S. Umar Mr Deniz Bölükbasi (item IV)
UNITED KINGDOM Mr D. Cape Miss R. Vining Mr A. Mallia-Testaferrata Mr M.L. Tait (item IV) CONFIDENTIAL
- 5 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
The Chairman, opening the meeting, wished all the Committee members and the Secretariat a Happy New Year. He hoped it would be a fruitful one. He welcomed Mrs Halla Beergs, the new Deputy Permanent Representative of Iceland, who was attending her first meeting.
He announced that the Danish Government had decided to open a permanent delegation in Strasbourg and he congratulated Ambassador Von der Hüde who would thus be Denmark's first resident Permanent Representative in Strasbourg. He hoped that this example would be followed by Ireland and by the other non-resident delegations, for he was convinced that their permanent presence in Strasbourg would greatly facilitate their participation in the Committee's work and make their contribution an even more valuable one.
STATE OF VOTES AD REFERENDUM
Concl(78)297/V - Syrian Christians in Turkey - Written Question No. 212 by Mr Voogd
When the draft reply to this Recommendation was submitted for adoption the Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom voted ad referendum.
Since there had been no notification to the contrary from any of these delegations, it was to be supposed that their reservations had been withdrawn, so that the reply was thus adopted.
The Representative of the United Kingdom said that he could withdraw his reservations, but specified that it was to be understood that in the United Kingdom authorities' interpretation the words "ne peut donc pas demander au Secretaire Général" in the French text of the reply meant "cannot instruct the Secretary General".
Concl(78)297/VI - Free movement of members of the Parliamentary Assembly in Council of Europe member States - Written Question No. 215
When this draft reply was submitted for adoption the Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and Malta voted ad referendum. Since the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany had intimated that he could not withdraw his reservations, the item in question has been included in the agenda for the present meeting under "Other business". CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 6 -
Concl(78)279/XVI - Information policy - Report by the Ministers' Deputies working party
When decision (i) concerning certain of the draft budgets for the forthcoming financial years was submitted for adoption, the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany voted ad referendum. No notification having been received from him since, his reservations were considered as having been withdrawn. CONFIDENTIAL
- 7 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item I
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The Representative of Turkey said that as far as item IV, "Situation in Cyprus", was concerned, his delegation's position remained unchanged with regard both to substance and to procedure.
Decision
The Deputies adopted the agenda of their 298th meeting (January 1979 - A level) as it appears at Appendix I to these Conclusions, subject to the postponement to their 302nd meeting (March 1979 - A level) of item XVI and the inclusion under item XXIX (Other business) of sub- items (a) to (e). CONFIDENTIAL
- 9 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item II
II. STATE OF WRITTEN PROCEDURES
The Secretary to the Committee recalled that, at their 294th meeting under item IV(a) concerning the texts adopted at the 2nd part of the 30th Session of the Consultative Assembly, the Deputies had decided to deal with Recommendation 844 on the European Space Agency and Recommendation 845 together with Order No. 372 on Europe's needs in the field of remote sensing under the written consultation procedure, the deadline for comments being 31 December 1978. So far, however, the Secretariat had received comments from only one delegation. Therefore it was very difficult for the Secretariat to prepare draft replies to the two Recommendations. CONFIDENTIAL
- 11 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item III
III. UNITED NATIONS Preparation of the exchange of views (Concl(78)297/III, CM(78)25)
Referring to the suggestions concerning the subjects which might be discussed at the forthcoming exchange of views (CM(79)25), the Representative of the United Kingdom said that it would be wise to restrict the list. In view of the timing it might be sensible to omit the problems of Africa on this occasion.
The Chairman said that it would be preferable to examine matters relating to the mass media (items I(e) and II(b)) together on 6 February 1979.
The Representative of Belgium proposed that the results of the 33rd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations and Human Rights (item I(a) and (b)) be discussed in the afternoon of 5 February. Consideration could then be given to the problem of hostage-taking (item I(f)).
The Director of Human Rights reminded the Deputies of two items under "United Nations", which, in his view, were of particular interest:
Review and co-ordination of human rights programmes (item 127 of the agenda of the 33rd General Assembly, Resolution and doc. A/C.3/33/LA5) (see Appendix II to CM(79)23),
Resolution 32/130 of the General Assembly of the United Nations on human rights; alternative approaches and ways and means within the United Nations systems for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In that connection, the Director recalled the project to appoint a United Nations' High Commissioner for the protection of human rights.
Regarding the item "Torture and other inhuman and degrading treatment", he said that a meeting of experts would be held on 22 and 23 January 1979.
Lastly, he said he would prepare a short paper on item 127 of the agenda of the General Assembly before the meeting on 5 February.
In reply to a question by the Representatives of Turkey and Belgium, the Representative of Italy said that his delegation had proposed a discussion on the debates in the Third Committee, consisting of a general examination of the most important points. The Director of Human Rights' proposal could be considered in that context. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 12 - Item III
The Representative of Austria referred to his authorities' suggestion appearing in CM(79)25. Actually, they felt that the Committee should consider the possibility of using the exchanges of views as a means of establishing a link between initiatives taken at the United Nations and ideas raised in the context of the CSCE.
The Director of Political Affairs suggested that the question of the United Nations' decade on racialism be dealt with under II(c), "UNESCO Declaration on race and racial prejudice".
Decisions
The Deputies i. confirmed that their next exchange of views on the United Nations and UNESCO would take place during the afternoon of 5 February 1979 and the morning of 6 February 1979; ii. asked their Chairman to draw up the list of topics to be discussed at the above-mentioned exchange of views in the light of the suggestions in CM(79)25 and comments made at the present meeting. CONFIDENTIAL
- 13 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item IV
IV. CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE (CSCE) (Concl(78)297/III)
The exchange of views on this item took place on 17 January 1979, with the participation of experts from national administrations. No official record was taken. CONFIDENTIAL
- 15 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
V. CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY Texts adopted by the Standing Committee (Paris, 5 December 1978)
Order No. 374 on the study of the problems of parliamentary democracy
Decision
The Deputies took note of this Order. CONFIDENTIAL
- 17 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item VI
VI. ELECTION OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL (Concl(78)293/VI, CM(78)234, 252, 253 and 254)
This item was discussed in restricted session (see Addendum I to these Conclusions which has been issued to Heads of Delegation only). CONFIDENTIAL
- 19 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item VII
VII. SITUATION IN CYPRUS (Concl(78)297/IV)
No delegation wished to make a statement under this item. CONFIDENTIAL
- 21 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item VIII
VIII. MATERIAL AND FINANCIAL AID FOR INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS HAVING CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Written Question No. 214 by Mr. Spautz (CM(78)342)
Decision
The Deputies adopted the following draft reply to Written Question No. 214 by Mr. Spautz concerning material and financial aid to the International Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) having consultative status with the Council of Europe:
"Since the foundation of the Council of Europe, it has been the constant policy of the Committee of Ministers to develop and strengthen relations between the NGOs and the Council of Europe.
In accordance with this policy, the Committee of Ministers decided, at the 297th meeting of the Deputies: a. to create a permanent B2 post to be assigned to the Directorate of Political Affairs. This measure will make it possible on the one hand to strengthen the sector of this Directorate concerned with relations with the NGOs and, on the other hand, to provide half-time secretarial help for the NGO Liaison Committee; b. to support the principle of material assistance for the NGOs having consultative status with the Council of Europe, such as interpretation at meetings of the NGOs, making meeting rooms available free of charge, etc., within the limits of the appropriations voted for this purpose in the Council of Europe budget for 1979." CONFIDENTIAL
- 23 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item IX
IX. MEDIUM-TERM PLAN Reply to Assembly Opinions 74 and 84 (Concl(78)296/XXXII(a), CM(78)316)
Decision
The Deputies adopted the following reply to Opinions Nos 74 and 84:
"The Committee of Ministers has the honour to transmit the revised Medium-Term Plan 1976-80 to the Assembly and takes the opportunity to comment on some of the issues raised in Opinions 74 and 84.
Opinion 74 was examined by the Ministers' Deputies before the Medium- Term Plan 1976-80 was adopted and a number of the changes proposed were incorporated. When, in accordance with Resolution(74)33, the first review of the Plan was begun, the Committee of Ministers decided that the review should be limited in scope and concentrate on essential updating of objectives and so informed the Assembly when it requested the latter's opinion. The relevant extracts of Opinions 74 and 84 were transmitted to the steering committees and they considered them when carrying out their part of the review.
The Committee of Ministers is aware of the need, in the planning and programming of intergovernmental activities, to establish longer term priorities than those in the annual programme. That is what it has done by adopting through Resolution(74)4 on the future role of the Council of Europe the eight fields which are the basis of the 1976- 80 plan. In the framework of these fields the Committee of Ministers and steering committees are combining their efforts to eliminate non- priority activities. Therefore only activities which are priority activities for the Committee as a whole remain in the annual programmes adopted following majority votes.
The Committee of Ministers fully shares the view of the Assembly expressed in para. 7 of Opinion 84 that "it is the statutory role of the Assembly to take up at any given time any topical subject of political relevance, and to address recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, without being limited by any instrument of planning applicable to the intergovernmental field". The standing practice of the Committee of Ministers is to consider Assembly recommendations on their merits, regardless of whether they correspond to objectives in the Plan or not, though in deciding on follow-up the Committee has regard to the priority fields laid down in Resolution(74)4, resources both in Secretariat staff and in budgetary means, and intergovernmental activities that exist. However, when an urgent problem not covered by the Plan presents itself, the Committee of Ministers is in principle always ready to undertake an intergovernmental activity by giving ad hoc instructions to committees. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 24 - Item IX
Concerning the mechanism for the dialogue between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly, in general as well as in respect of the Medium-Term Plan, it might be pointed out that, since initiatives in this field are under way in both organs, there will certainly be an opportunity for a later exchange of views on this matter between the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly." CONFIDENTIAL
- 25 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item X
X. SITUATION IN AFRICA (General Policy of the Council of Europe) Recommendation 840 and Resolution 678 (Concl(78)294/IV(a))
The Representative of the United Kingdom said that his authorities had followed the Assembly discussions with interest. They were prepared to take note of Resolution 678. As regards Recommendation 840, they thought it preferable to deal with the problems relating to the situation in Africa in the context of the discussions on "European co-operation", for example, or those of the "CSCE". rather than holding a special discussion on the subject. As regards paragraph 3(b) of the operative part of the text, the United Kingdom authorities thought it preferable to deal with the educational problems on a bilateral basis rather than through a special Council of Europe programme to be carried out by the CDCC.
The Representative of the Netherlands agreed with the United Kingdom Representative with regard to paragraph 3(a), for the second part of that paragraph did seem to him to be somewhat vague. Africa was composed of over 50 countries with different political systems, and besides, the term "solidarity" used in the Recommendation might give rise to difficulties. His authorities also agreed with the proposals in paragraph 14 (c) (c) and (e) of the Resolution and wondered why they were not included in the Recommendation.
The Representative of Switzerland, said that the Assembly debate on this question had been an important and useful one. He agreed with the United Kingdom Representative where paragraph 3(b) of the Recommendation was concerned, for it seemed to him preferable for the educational problems to be dealt with in other international organisations or on a bilateral basis.
The Representative of France supported the statements made by the Representatives of the Netherlands and Switzerland. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 26 - Item X
Decisions
The Deputies i. took note of Resolution 678; ii. adopted the following reply to Recommendation 840:
"The Committee of Ministers has examined Recommendation 840 on the situation in Africa and wishes to inform the Assembly that it has already discussed certain problems referred to in the Recommendation in the political exchanges of its ministerial sessions and of the Deputies' political exchanges of views with the participation of experts from national administrations. It will continue to discuss these types of problems in the most appropriate way.
With regard to the proposal in paragraph 3(b) of the Recommendation to consider the possibility of providing practical aid in the educational sphere to meet the educational, scientific and technical needs of young Africans, the Committee of Ministers considers that this action should be pursued through bilateral agreements and international organisations specialising in development aid and educational matters outside Europe." CONFIDENTIAL
- 27 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XI
XI. HERBERT EGGS V. SWITZERLAND Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(78)293/IX, Letter HD/C16 of 24 April 1978)
The Representative of Switzerland made the following statement:
"As you probably know already, the Swiss military criminal code and the code of criminal procedure were modified during the Eggs case. The essential parliamentary procedure before the Federal Chambers was completed during the December Session 1978 but, for technical reasons relating to the finalisation of the amended texts - considerable amendments were made to the military criminal code and code of criminal procedure - it was not possible to take the final vote on these texts in December 1978. That final and obligatory vote cannot now take place until the next session of the Swiss Federal Chambers, in March 1979. I should be grateful therefore if you would postpone once again the examination of the merits of the case "Eggs against Switzerland" until our 303rd meeting in April."
Decision
The Deputies decided to resume consideration of this item at a future A-level meeting not earlier than their 303rd (April 1979 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL
- 29 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XII
XII. ARTHUR HILTON AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(78)297/VIII, Letter HC/C27 of 26 June 1978)
The Representative of the United Kingdom made the following statement:
"1. It may be helpful if at the beginning of the Committee's deliberations I set out the position of my Government.
2. In their report the Commission concluded that no breach of Article 3 is disclosed by the facts of this case. But the Commission found that the facts of Mr Hilton's complaint concerning denial of access to the courts disclose a breach of Article 6(1) of the Convention. I will deal separately with these two aspects.
3. As regards Article 3, the Commission found that the treatment of the Applicant both as regards specific allegations and in general did not consitute inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3, My Government agrees with this conclusion but does not agree with all of the contents of the Commission's report. In particular, they do not agree with the observations of the Commission in paragraph 97 of their report where they speak of 'rigorous, impersonal application of disciplinary measures, on occasion to the point of absurdity' and in paragraph 102 of the report where they say that the general treatment of the Applicant was 'extremely unsatisfactory in all the circumstances of the case'. My Government accepts that the Commission had an exceptionally difficult task to perform in assessing the evidence, in that the testimony of the Applicant conflicted in many, if not most, respects with that of the other witnesses who appeared before them. But it is their considered view that the Commission failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence they submitted on matters of fact.
4. The United Kingdom would also wish to make two particular points on paragraph 5 of the Dissenting Opinion. In the first place there is no inconsistency between an assessment of the Applicant as a 'hysterical psychopath' and a finding that he was not suffering from a mental disorder (by which was meant a mental disorder in the sense that term has in United Kingsom domestic law by which is meant a mental illness which is a case for hospital treatment). In the second place the prison Medical officer, like all prison Medical Officers at Leeds at that time, did have specialist qualifications in psychiatry. Evidence on both these points was presented by the United Kingdom to the Commission. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 30 - Item XII
5. As regards Article 6, the position is very similar to that in the case of Lazlo Kiss which was considered by this Committee last April. In the light of the interpretation of Article 6(1) given by the Court in the Golder case, my Government accepts that there was a violation also in this case of that Article. There were two complaints under this heading. Both instances occurred before the Golder judgement in 1975. In 1976 the Committee of Ministers adopted Resolution (76)35. That Resolution sets out in the Appendix the changes which were made in United Kingdom prison regulations to bring United Kingdom practice into line with the Convention as it had been interpreted by the Court. The Committee of Ministers took note of that information and declared that it had exercised its functions under Article 54 in that case. In the case of Kiss v. The United Kingdom the Committee of Ministers on 19 April 1978 concluded that although there had been a violation of Article 6(1) in the case of Mr Kiss (similar to that which occurred in the Golder case) the facts complained of had occurred before the judgement in the Golder case, that the facts giving rise to Mr Kiss's application could not have arisen at any time after August 1975 when the United Kingdom measures were introduced and that there was therefore no need to take any further measures. Hilton's is another such case.
6. Whilst in most respects identical, the United Kingdom Government felt that it would be argued that Mr Hilton's case was distinguishable from that of Mr Golder, who was regarded by the Court as having been satisfactorily compensated by the judgement in his favour, and that of Mr Kiss, where the United Kingdom concluded that the failure to allow him to consult a solicitor caused him no real damage. As regards the first complaint of Mr Hilton, we accepted that although negligence had not been established it was possible that if Mr Hilton had instituted legal proceedings he might have received a small sum in compensation. Although Mr Hilton instituted no proceedings on his release, when he was not time-barred, the United Kingdom made an offer by way of a proposal for a friendly settlement of a sum such as might have been awarded, having regard to the minor nature of the injury. In the alternative they offered to make it possible for Mr Hilton to take civil proceedings against the Home Office by waiving for a period of six months any defence of limitation. This offer was however refused by the Applicant.
7. For these reasons the United Kingdom, while accepting that there has been a violation, considers that no 'measures' are required (within the meaning of Article 32(2)). The complaint arose before the Golder judgement. The point of principle had already been met by the changes made in the law of the United Kingdom, and the Committee of Ministers have accepted this in the Golder and Kiss cases. Finally, the question of reparation has been covered in the various offers made by the United Kingdom to Mr Hilton and rejected by him." CONFIDENTIAL
- 31 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XII
The Director of Human Rights said that the Secretariat would give careful study to the statement made by the Representative of the United Kingdom and would try to prepare a first draft of a resolution for the next A-level meeting of the Deputies.
The Representatives of Ireland and Belgium said that it might be advisable for governments to study the United Kingdom's statement and comment on it before embarking upon the examination of a draft resolution.
Decision
The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL
- 33 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XIII
XIII. HUMAN RIGHTS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF UNESCO Written Question No. 210 by Mr. Grieve (Concl(78)297/IX, CM(78)131 and 158)
The Chairman proposed considering the draft reply in the addendum to Agenda Notes No. 2744.
The Representative of Spain thought that the first 9 paragraphs, replying to the first part of the question, contained both objective material and subjective material (paragraphs 7, 8 and 9); the two should be clearly seperated.
The Representative of Norway advocated saying at the end of the first paragraph that the system had in fact been applied only during the last 4 years, instead of saying that it had been applied only once.
The Representative of Belgium said that deletion of the reference to the system adopted by another international organisation would remove any value judgment on the system.
The Representative of Austria proposed, as a compromise and with a view to ensuring that the Assembly was properly informed, that the word "only" be deleted from "only once applied".
The Director of Human Rights recommended following UNESCO's terminology, which referred to a new set of rules incorporated into a system that had existed for ten years. He pointed out that the most important passages in the draft reply were paragraphs 7, 8 and 9.
Agreement was reached on a text proposed by the Director of Human Rights in which the last sentence of the first paragraph of the draft text in the Addendum to Notes No. 2744 was deleted and the second paragraph started with the words "Having thought it appropriate to improve this procedure, the Executive Board of UNESCO".
Going on to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, the Representative of Switzerland observed that they formed a whole and that he could accept all three.
The Representative of Italy said that his delegation would have preferred a text which took into account the comments made by the Italian and other delegations and expressly mentioned the fact that the Committee of Ministers did not feel that a proliferation of international control procedures was desirable. Nevertheless, in a spirit of compromise, he did not wish to oppose the text circulated a few days previously. It would be desirable, however, not to alter the text of paragraph 9.
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany was in favour of the new draft as a whole but thought that paragraph 8 should be made more explicit. For this purpose he proposed inserting the following text: CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 34 - Item XIII
"It expects that the competent authorities of UNESCO will act in conformity with the rule which is laid down in Article 5, Section 2 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 27, Section 1(b) of the European Convention of Human Rights".
The Representative of Austria was not able to accept paragraph 7 in its present wording, which was too categorical and would limit the freedom of political action of the Committee in the future.
The Representative of Norway was able to accept paragraph 8 but considered paragraph 9 superfluous.
The Director of Human Rights recalled that problems concerning possible overlapping between the new UNESCO system and the machinery established by the United Nations Covenant had been emphasised at the last meeting of the Human Rights Committee set up by the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In paragraphs 582 and 603 of that committee's report for 1978, doubts were expressed about the new UNESCO procedure. Whereas Article 27 of the European Convention on Human Rights precluded any risk of overlapping, the world-wide texts did not. Article 27 of the European Convention referred to "another procedure of international investigation or settlement". The nature of the committee set up by the new UNESCO procedure was not clearly defined. It would be recalled that problems concerning the co-existence of the European Convention's system of supervision and the system provided for in the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been examined in the Council of Europe, and the Council's member States had been invited to enter a reservation or make a declaration of interpretation when ratifying the Protocol so as to exclude the UN Committee's competence in the matter of individual communications in respect not only of cases being dealt with by other international organisations but also those which had been considered by the Strasbourg Commission. So far, 4 of the 5 Council of Europe states which had ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant had entered such a reservation.
The problem of co-ordination between the various international organisations would probably be raised during the exchange of views to be held in Strasbourg on 5 and 6 February on items on the UN General Assembly's agenda.
It was important that the draft reply should be finalised at the current meeting, as Mr. Grieve's written question had been submitted as long ago as May 1978, and questions on the subject might well be put to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers at the Assembly's next session. CONFIDENTIAL
- 35 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XIII
The Representative of Greece considered the text too vague. Applicants needed to know what results they could achieve. In common with the Representatives of Austria and Belgium, he thought that paragraph 7 should be worded more clearly so as to ensure a predominant place for the European Conventions procedure.
The Representative of Spain advocated putting paragraph 8 in the conditional rather than the future.
The Representative of Greece made the same remark concerning paragraph 9, which simply stated that there would be problems and suggested no solution.
The Deputies subsequently examined a draft reply revised in the light of the various comments made.
Decision
The Deputies adopted the following reply to Written Question No.210 by Mr. Grieve:
"In reply to Written Question No. 210 by Mr. Grieve, the Committee of Ministers thinks that it is appropriate to recall first of all the essential elements of the procedure of UNESCO to which Mr.Grieve is referring in his Question.
The Executive Board of UNESCO laid down more than ten years ago some rules of procedure to be followed when examining communications addressed to that Organisation alleging violations of human rights within UNESCO's field of competence. Under the rules the 'Committee on Conventions and Recommendations in Education' of the Executive Board was instructed to examine the communications under a procedure largely founded on ECOSOC Resolution 728F(XXVIII).
Having thought it appropriate to modify this procedure, the Executive Board of UNESCO, by a decision of 28 April 1978 adopted a new set of rules governing 'the procedure to be followed in the examination of cases and questions which might be submitted to UNESCO concerning the exercise of human rights in the sphere of its competence'. Under these rules, which concerned both the admissibility of communications and the way in which they were to be examined, the powers of the committee, now called the 'Committee on Conventions and Recommendations', were strengthened.
Paragraph 10 of the new procedure provides that UNESCO shall examine communications relating to:
- cases concerning violations of human rights which are individual and specific; CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 36 - Item XIII
- questions of massive, systematic or flagrant violations of human rights which result either from a policy contrary to human rights applied de jure or de facto by a State or from an accumulation of individual cases forming a consistent pattern.
Under paragraph 14(a) (ii) a communication may be sent to the 'Committee' either by a person or group of persons who, it can reasonably be presumed, are victims of an alleged violation of any of the human rights coming under UNESCO's field of competence or by any person, group of persons, or non-governmental organisation having reliable knowledge of such violations.
The 'Committee' first proceeds to an examination of the admissibility of every communication according to the ten criteria laid down by the Decision of 28 April 1978.
For the examination of either the admissibility or the merits of a communication the 'Committee' sits in private and the representatives of the governments concerned have the right to take part in the proceedings in order to supply further information; the 'Committee' may also have recourse to relevant information in the possession of the Director General of UNESCO. Paragraphs 14(g) and 15 to 18 set out the powers for dealing with communications received.
Ad. paragraph (i) of the Question
The Committee of Ministers hopes, without wishing on this occasion to adopt a position with regard to either the desirability of the procedure which has been adopted on a world level, or the manner of its operation, that the competent authorities of UNESCO will not lose sight, when implementing the new system, of the problems of overlapping which may arise in cases which are or have been examined by another international organ such as the European Commission of Human Rights. Therefore the Committee of Ministers will follow closely the application of the new procedure by the competent organs of UNESCO.
Ad. paragraph (ii) of the Question
The Committee of Ministers recalls the contents of Article 1 of the Constitution of UNESCO, which reads as follows: CONFIDENTIAL
- 37 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XIII
ARTICLE I
Purposes and Functions
1. The purpose of the Organisation is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations.
2. To realise this purpose the Organisation will:
a. collaborate in the work of advancing the mutual knowledge and understanding of peoples, through all means of mass communication and to that end recommend such international agreements as may be necessary to promote the free flow of ideas by word and image; b. give fresh impulse to popular education and to the spread of culture; . by collaborating with Members, at their request, in the development of educational activities; . by instituting collaboration among the nations to advance the ideal of equality of educational opportunity without regard to race, sex or any distinctions, economic or social;
by suggesting educational methods best suited to prepare the children of the world for the responsibilities of freedom; c. maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge;
. by assuring the conservation and protection of the world's inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science, and recommending to the nations concerned the necessary international conventions;
. by encouraging co-operation among the nations in all branches of intellectual activity, including the international exchange of persons active in the fields of education, science and culture and the exchange of publications, objects of artistic and scientific interest and other materials of information;
. by initiating methods of international co-operation calculated to give the people of all countries access to the printed and published materials produced by any of them. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl (79) 298 - 38 - Item XIII
3. With a view to preserving the independence, integrity and fruitful diversity of the cultures and educational systems of the States Members of this Organisation, the Organisation is prohibited from intervening in matters which are essentially within their domestic jurisdiction. CONFIDENTIAL
- 39 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XIV
XIV. CYPRUS V. TURKEY Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75 Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(78)297/X, Letter HD/C47 of 31 August 1976, CM(77)117 and Corr. II and 150, CM(78)182 and CM(79)31)
This item was discussed in restricted session (see Addendum II to these Conclusions, which has been issued to Heads of Delegation only).
Decision
The Deputies adopted Resolution DH(79)1 as it appears at Appendix III to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL
- 41 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XV
XV. DRAFT STATEMENT ON RACE AND RACIAL PREJUDICE OF UNESCO Written Question No. 211 by Mr Portheine (Concl(78)294/IX, CM(78)227, 335 and 339)
The Chairman recalled that amendments to the draft reply in CM(78)335 to Mr Portheine's Written Question No. 211 had been submitted by 5 delegations.
The Representative of Norway suggested that in the first paragraph of the draft reply (4th line) the words "substantially amended" be added before "draft".
The Representative of Austria, in company with the Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom, wondered whether the Secretariat ought not to prepare a synoptic table of the draft, with the various amendments, so that the Committee could consider it more easily.
The Representatives of Switzerland and Norway, emphasising the importance of the text in question, suggested that the delegations which had submitted amendments should meet together under the chairmanship of the Director of Human Rights to try to arrive at a compromise on the various proposals.
The Director of Human Rights expressed his readiness to arrange such a meeting in order to produce a text which all delegations could support. The resultant text would be submitted to the Committee of Ministers on the Secretariat's sole responsibility.
Decision
The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 300th meeting (February 1979 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL
- 43 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XVI
XVI. JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE CASE LUEDICKE, BELKACEM AND KOÇ Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Letter HD/C47 of 4 December 1978)
Decision
The Deputies agreed to postpone consideration of this item until their 302nd meeting (March 1979 - A level) (see item I above). CONFIDENTIAL
- 45 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XVII
XVII. STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH) Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 10-15 November 1978) (CM(78)330 and Add. I, II, III and Corr.)
On a motion from the Chair, the Committee considered in turn the various points on page 3 of CM(78)330.
With regard to the point concerning the application of Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Representative of Ireland said that he went along with the Committee in taking note of the final activity report (Addendum III to CM(78)330) of the steering committee, which had nothing to add to its earlier opinion on Article 32 rules. He recalled that this opinion had been a compromise and in that context reiterated that the views of his authorities as expressed at the 264th meeting remained unchanged. Any clarification which might emerge from future deliberations by the steering committee on a particular aspect (relating to conveying of information to applicants) of these rules would be welcome.
The Director of Human Rights observed that the CDDH was continuing to deal with a point raised by the Irish expert with regard to the application of Article 32.
The Committee then considered the draft reply to Recommendation 838 prepared by the Secretariat (pages 2-5 of Agenda Notes No. 2746).
The Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland said they could accept the text of the draft reply.
The Representative of Belgium recommended caution, for political reasons, with regard to paragraph 4 of the text.
The Representative of the Netherlands said he would prefer the words "which basic economic ... rights" in paragraph 3 to be replaced by "whether any basic economic ... rights".
The Representative of Norway thought the draft reply was somewhat pessimistic and asked for an allusion to be included to the terms of reference given to the various steering committees at the current meeting.
The Representative of Ireland, preferring paragraph 5 to be worded less negatively, proposed that "until" be replaced by "while". He also pointed out that there was no reply to para. (f) of the Assembly's Recommendation. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 46 - Item XVII
The United Kingdom Representative thought it might be more tactful in paragraph 5 to say that until the experts had completed their work it would be premature to consider submitting to the Assembly any draft protocol that might be prepared.
The Representative of Spain proposed that a reference be made in the reply to the fact that the text of Recommendation 838 had been transmitted to the CDDH.
The Director of Human Rights, in reply to the Representative of Belgium, said that the phrase "the work of the Committee of Experts ... is proceeding satisfactorily" might advantageously be replaced by "the work ... is progressing". As regards the Norwegian Representative's remark, there was already a reference to the ad hoc committee of experts in the second sub-paragraph of paragraph 3, but there could indeed also be added a corresponding allusion to the terms of reference given to the various steering committees.
The Netherlands Representative's suggestion to replace "which basic economic ... rights" by "whether any basic economic ... rights" was acceptable as far as he was concerned.
He thought that the proposals of the Representatives of Ireland and the United Kingdom regarding paragraphs 4 and 5 might result in an improvement to the text. As for there being no reply to para. (f) of the Assembly's Recommendation, he thought that the absence of a reply was in itself an indication of the Committee's feelings on the subject.
He could agree to the Spanish suggestion that the reply should mention the fact that Recommendation 838 had been included in the CDDH's file.
Decisions
The Deputies i. took note of the final activity report on the re-examination of the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers for the application of Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Add. III to CM(78)330); ii. took note of the report of the CDDH as a whole (CM(78)330) and in particular of
the decision regarding the continuation of the work on the draft European Convention relating to foreign correspondents (item 11, CM(78)330); CONFIDENTIAL
- 47 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XVII
- the ad hoc terms of reference No. CDDH/8/190179 (Appendix III to CM(78)330); iii. adopted the following reply to Recommendation 838:
"1. The Committee of Ministers has carefully examined Recommendation 838(1978) on widening the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. In reply to paragraph 15(a) and (b) of the operative part of the Recommendation, it is recalled that following the adoption on 27 April 1978 by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the member States of the Council of Europe, of the Declaration on Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers instructed the Steering Committee for Social Affairs, the Steering Committee for Social Security, the Special Representative's Advisory Committee and the Council for Cultural Co- operation to consider what action might be envisaged on the lines indicated in paragraph II of the operative part of the Declaration which reads as follows:
'Decide to give priority to the work undertaken in the Council of Europe of exploring the possibility of extending the lists of rights of the individual, notably rights in the social, economic and cultural fields, which should be protected by European Conventions or any other appropriate means'.
3. The Steering Committee for Human Rights was instructed to make concrete proposals regarding the possibilities for action along the lines indicated in paragraph II of the operative part of the Declaration for the possible inclusion in the European Convention on Human Rights of rights of the individual in the social, economic and cultural fields.
4. Having considered the comments and first proposals of these committees, the Committee of Ministers has decided to set up an ad hoc Committee of Experts including two experts in respect of each member State with the task of preparing a comprehensive report on the action which should be taken to follow up paragraph II of the Declaration on Human Rights of 27 April 1978.
In addition, it has instructed the steering committees mentioned above to continue consideration of the matter regarding possibilities for action in their particular sectors. The Committee of Ministers has likewise not failed to transmit Recommendation 838 to the Steering Committee for Human Rights.
5. In this action, the Committee of Ministers has been guided by the following considerations: CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 48 - Item XVII
It will be recalled that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 set forth as a common standard of achievement both civil and political rights and rights in the social, economic and cultural fields. When subsequently the principles thus proclaimed were translated into treaty provisions establishing legal obligations, two instruments were adopted, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At that time, the prevailing view was that two Covenants were needed because civil and political rights could be secured immediately, whereas adequate economic, social and cultural rights could be achieved only progressively, according to each State's available resources. Broadly speaking, most of the rights in the former category are rights to non-interference by the State whereas those in the latter category require positive action by the State and the allocation of resources and consequently the progress which can be made towards their full implementation is much more dependent on economic and other circumstances. This difference is reflected both in the nature of the obligations accepted by States under the two Covenants respectively and in the nature of the machinery established to supervise the implementation of each. In particular, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for a more elaborate control machinery including, in an optional Protocol, for the possibility of individuals taking action before an international body.
A similar difference in approach was adopted by the Council of Europe. In fact, the European Convention on Human Rights, which essentially covers rights described as 'civil' and 'political', is endowed with machinery for judicial control, whereas the Social Charter, which deals essentially with economic and social rights, provides only for supervisory machinery which might eventually lead to the adoption of recommendations.
Nevertheless, although it reflects important differences between the two categories of rights, this historical background should not in any way inhibit the search for an improvement in guarantees of social, economic and cultural rights both through the possible extension of the list of rights protected by the legal mechanism of the European Convention on Human Rights and by other means.
In carrying out this search, it is essential to bear in mind the particular character of the Convention and its judicial control system. The Committee of Ministers agrees with the idea expressed in paragraph 11 of Recommendation 838 that the incorporation of any new rights in the European Convention on Human Rights should not weaken the authority of the Convention and in particular that in order to be incorporated, a right must satisfy the criteria summarised in paragraph 12 of the Recommendation. For inclusion, the right must be fundamental and enjoy general recognition and be capable of sufficiently precise definition CONFIDENTIAL
- 49 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XVII
to lay legal obligations of a justiciable character on a State. In addition, it is essential to bear in mind the possible economic and financial implications of the creation of legal obligations of an immediate character in the economic, social and cultural fields. It must be recognised that the full enjoyment of some of the rights in this field can still only be achieved through development of the economic and social system in the State concerned and cannot therefore be made the subject of an immediate legal obligation.
The inclusion of certain economic, social and cultural rights in the European Convention on Human Rights does not constitute the sole means of promoting their enjoyment on the international plane. This is clear in the second operative paragraph of the Declaration of 27 April 1978 itself. Indeed, the protection of such rights might, in certain cases, be promoted more appropriately by other European Conventions or by other means such as recommendations to member States.
6. In reply to paragraph 15(c) and (d) of the Recommendation, it is noted that the work of the Committee of Experts for the Extension of the Rights embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights proceed with a view to incorporating in the European Convention certain rights included in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
7. When the experts have completed their work and if a Protocol is prepared then the Committee of Ministers will decide on the question of transmitting the Protocol to the Assembly for an opinion.
8. In reply to paragraph 15(e) of the Recommendation, the Committee of Ministers refers to the reply of April 1977 on paragraph 12(a)(ii) of Recommendation 791 (1976) on the protection of human rights in Europe. In this reply, the Committee of Ministers considered that it was a matter for each member State to determine the manner in which it implements, in its national legal order, the substantive provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. This question is governed, in its view, not by the Convention itself, but by the constitutional law of each member State. The Committee consequently feels that it would not be advisable to address a recommendation of this kind to the member States." CONFIDENTIAL
- 51 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XVIII
XVIII. AD HOC CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS RESPONSIBLE FOR MIGRATION QUESTIONS (Concl(78)291/VI, CM(78)348 and Corr.)
The Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom said that the doubts expressed by their authorities appeared on page 7 of the report (CM(78)348).
The Representative of Austria said that his authorities had some hesitations in respect of the conference, although nothing had been mentioned in the report.
The Representative of Spain said that his authorities appreciated the work done at the ad hoc meeting of senior officials in Stockholm. His delegation was able to support the points proposed, in particular the convening of a ministerial conference in 1980.
The Representative of Norway said that the preparatory work for organising the conference, which could possibly be held in spring 1980, should start as soon as possible.
The Representatives of Austria and the United Kingdom said that they would prefer first to reach a decision on the conclusions of the ad hoc meeting of senior officials and then go on to discuss matters relating, inter alia, to the establishment of a special working relationship between the Council of Europe and the Conference of European Ministers responsible for migration affairs, the venue of the conference and other organisational problems.
The Representative of Italy observed that the senior officials had agreed in principle on the desirability of convening a Conference of Ministers responsible for migration questions. They had also decided on a procedure which ensured in every way that this conference would be as carefully prepared as possible, since a committee of senior officials would be dealing with the matter and the draft agenda would, to a certain extent, have to be approved by the Committee of Ministers. Accordingly, it should be possible to agree without any difficulty on the organisation of this conference.
The Representative of Sweden said that his government was prepared to issue invitations for the conference. His authorities' preference was Strasbourg. Three conferences of specialised ministers had already been scheduled to take place outside Strasbourg in 1980 so if this conference were to take place in Strasbourg there would be a better balance.
In reply to a question by the Representative of the United Kingdom, the Secretary to the Committee recalled that the ministerial conference on social security would be held in Strasbourg at the invitation of the Belgian Government. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 52 - Item XVIII
After the Committee had adopted its decisions, the Representative of the United Kingdom stated that in view of the reservations expressed at Stockholm and the fact that there was no certainty that a British Minister could attend the conference he would have had to abstain in any vote.
The Representative of Sweden expressed his gratitude to the Committee of Ministers for the favourable follow-up action given to the proposal made by his Minister. He mentioned that his authorities would wish to revert to the question of how best to ensure an effective participation of Finland and Yugoslavia in the conference and, recalling the keen interest shown by public opinion in Sweden on matters concerning imigration, he said that the Swedish authorities intended to issue a statement relating to the decision taken by the Deputies on the organisation of the conference.
Decisions
The Deputies, having considered the conclusions contained in Appendix III to the meeting report of the ad hoc committee of senior officials (CM(78)348 and Corrigendum), i. noted that there was general agreement in the Committee of Ministers for the establishment of a special working relationship between the Council of Europe and the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Migration Affairs to be convened in Strasbourg in 1980 at the invitation of the Swedish Government; ii. noted that there was general agreement that the preparation of the Conference be entrusted to an ad hoc committee of senior officials; iii. authorised the Secretary General to provide secretarial services for the ad hoc committee and Conference. CONFIDENTIAL
- 53 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XIX
XIX. POSSIBLE ORGANISATION OF A 3RD JOINT CONFERENCE (COUNCIL OF EUROPE/EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT) ON ROAD SAFETY EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS (Concl(78)297/XXVI(a), CM(78)343)
The Chairman recalled that there had already been two joint conferences of the type proposed, the first in Paris in 1963 and the second in Vienna in 1971. After the second conference an ad hoc committee of experts had suggested that a third conference be organised in 1977. That conference had not, however, taken place. On 13 October 1978 the Secretary General of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport had written to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to inform him that the ECMT wished to hold a third joint conference (see CM(78)343). In the past the CCC had been responsible for organising these conferences on behalf of the Council of Europe. Owing, however, to the scale of its programme and to the priorities it had had to fix, the Council for Cultural Co-operation considered that the current state of its budgetary resources did not permit it to take part in the organisation of a third conference.
Consequently, the Committee of Ministers would first of all have to take a decision on the principle of organising a third conference and then, in the event of its deciding in favour of such a conference, determine the ways and means.
The Representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria and Turkey expressed themselves in favour of the principle of holding a third conference.
The Representative of France thought it was inadvisable to change the programme of the CDCC and that the organisation of the proposed conference would be a drain on its budget. The French authorities considered that the CDCC was at liberty to determine priorities within its programme and they could not vote in favour of a third conference, to be organised by the CDCC, unless the latter were granted supplementary appropriations for that purpose.
The United Kingdom Representative said that his government favoured the holding of the conference, but its timing needed to be examined carefully. It might now not be practical to hold it in 1979, and it might be easier to find the necessary funds for the organisation of a conference in 1980. He would like the Secretariat to state the exact cost of organising the Conference and to specify the Vote to which it could be charged. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 54 - Item XIX
The Representative of the Netherlands thought that the subject of the conference was a very interesting one but that it was not so important as to require a meeting of 21 Ministers. In his view, the question could first be examined by experts.
The Representative of Switzerland, supported by the Representative of Belgium, said he was disappointed by the Council of Europe's negative attitude. It seemed to him that a conference on the subject of road safety instruction in schools was patently a matter for the CDCC, whose terms of reference had a more strongly educational than cultural bias.
He recalled that 1979 was the International Year of the Child and that at the beginning of the year the President of the Swiss Confederation had distinguished three priority questions: the first was that of child deaths on the roads, the second, the lack of playing-fields and recreation grounds, and the third, the problem of housing for large families.
The Representative of Sweden said that if the CDCC was not in favour of organising the conference, it had good reasons for saying so. His authorities could agree to the CDCC being asked to organise the conference if it and the Secretariat were given the necessary funds and staff for the purpose.
The Representative of Spain considered that the mission of the CDCC was, as its name indicated, a primary cultural one. When the CDCC had concerned itself with educational problems in accordance with its terms of reference, it had concentrated its work on secondary and higher education rather than on primary education.
Decisions
The Deputies
i. declared themselves in favour of the organisation of a 3rd Joint (Council of Europe/European Conference of Ministers of Transport) Conference on Road Safety Education in schools;
ii. agreed to examine the modalities of the organisation of such a conference at their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level) in the light of a document to be prepared by the Secretariat on the question. CONFIDENTIAL
- 55 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XX
XX. 3RD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT State of Preparations (CM(78)333)
In reply to a query from the Representative of the United Kingdom, the representative of the Secretariat explained that the European Information Centre for Nature Conservation envisaged launching a campaign on the protection of wildlife on the occasion of the 3rd Ministerial Conference. It remained to be seen how such a ceremony could best be fitted into the programme of the 3rd Ministerial Conference.
Decisions
The Deputies
i. took note of the draft agenda appearing in Appendix IV to CM(78)333 and of the other aspects of the preparation of the 3rd Ministerial Conference on the Environment that are mentioned in the said document;
ii. noted that there was general consent in the Committee of Ministers on the advisability of inviting Finland and Yugoslavia to take part in the work of the Conference as observers;
iii. noted that there was general consent in the Committee of Ministers on the advisability of inviting the following international organisations to take part in the work of the Conference as observers: UNESCO, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the EEC Commission, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Economic Commission for Europe, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), the European Federation of Nature and National Parks, the International Commission for the Protection of Alpine Regions, the European Confederation of Agriculture and a representative organisation active in the forestry sector in Europe to be designated by the Committee of Senior Officials;
iv. gave their consent for the Secretary General to provide secretarial services for the next meeting in Berne, from 2 to 4 May 1979, of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the 3rd Ministerial Conference on the Environment. CONFIDENTIAL
- 57 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXI(a)
XXI. PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE a. Ad hoc Committee on the Protection of Wildlife(CAHVS) Report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 4-8 December, 1978) (CM(78)347) Final Activity Report and Draft Convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats (Add. to CM(78)347)
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that the German federal authorities were interested in the draft convention but would have to wait for the Länder to express their own views thereon before being able to take part in its adoption.
The Representative of Denmark recalled that he had in September last spoken in favour of a wildlife convention open to all interested parties and which gave extended powers to the contracting parties. The draft Convention was a compromise text but was in the circumstances generally acceptable to his authorities although they would have to study the annexes further. He welcomed the fact that the CAHVS had succeeded in completing the draft in time, which should make it possible to have the convention ready for signature in Bern in September at the Ministerial Converence. His government would be commenting on the draft Convention in writing and he therefore at this stage limited himself to stressing the importance of the proposal to set up an interim committee after the signing of the Convention and charge this Committee with the setting in motion of the co-operation foreseen in Chapter VI of the draft Convention.
The Representative of Norway said that his government was in general agreement with the draft convention. He proposed deleting the square brackets in the second and third paragraphs of the preamble. He could accept the alternative to sub-paragraph 2(b) of Article 15 and could agree to the Secretary General of the United Nations being appointed as the authority mentioned in Article 17, paragraph 2. Moreover, either of the two possibilities envisaged in Article 24 for making notifications was acceptable.
The Representative of Portugal observed that the ad hoc committee had reached a broadly acceptable compromise. His government could accept the proposal to open the convention for signature at the 3rd European Ministerial Conference on the Environment, in Berne in September 1979.
The Representative of Austria was also able to agree to the convention being opened for signature at the 3rd Ministerial Conference. As to the text of the draft convention, he proposed that the square brackets in the second and third paragraphs of the preamble be removed and CONFIDENTIAL CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 58 - Item XXI(a)
that these two paragraphs be linked together by the addition of the word "furthermore" after "considering" in the third paragraph. He was also in favour of: the alternative of Article 15, paragraph 2(b) which provided for the approval of the Committee of Ministers for amendments to Articles 12-24; the appointment of the President of the European Court of Human Rights or else the President of the International Court of Justice for the purposes of Article 17, paragraph 2; and the exhaustive enumeration of notifications in Article 24.
The Representative of Italy expressed his general agreement with the text of the draft convention. His government intended to propose two amendments of a secondary nature.
The United Kingdom Representative said that, because of the considerable official and public interest in the draft Convention her government had not yet been able to examine the text thereof with the appropriate thoroughness, expecially as the relevant explanatory memoranda were not yet available in London. The United Kingdom government could nevertheless agree in principle to the convention being opened for signature at the 3rd Ministerial Conference. It might wish to make some comments later on the alternatives, the contents of the appendices and the question of setting up a standing committee.
The Representative of Sweden said that his government had not yet completed its technical study of the draft convention. He could nevertheless congratulate the ad hoc committee and the Secretariat on the result of their work and announce his government's agreement to the convention being opened for signature at the 3rd Ministerial Conference. The Swedish government was anxious that as many non-member States as possible should become parties to the convention, and that the convention should be formulated, where there were alternatives, so as to facilitate this.
The Netherlands Representative congratulated the ad hoc committee on its very substantial work and expressed the hope that the greatest possible number of non-member States would accede to the convention. His government would be submitting some amendments to the text of the draft convention in writing. The convention should be opened for signature during the current year, and in any event not later than the 3rd Ministerial Conference, in September.
The Representative of Belgium, after expressing satisfaction at the work done by the ad hoc committee, made the following two proposals:
- that the President of the International Court of Justice be appointed the authority mentioned in Article 17 of the draft;
- that the words "and non-member States which have participated in its elaboration" be deleted from Article 19, paragraph 1, and that Article 20 be adapted accordingly (as Finland had been the only non- member state to take part in the elaboration of the convention).
The Representative of Switzerland praised the work of the ad hoc committee and hoped that the Deputies would proceed with the same diligence and speed so that the convention would be adopted soon and a decision CONFIDENTIAL - 59 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXI (a)
taken in the spring on its opening for signature in September 1979. To this end he hoped that delegations would submit their comments and amendments regarding the convention as early as possible and that the Secretariat would circulate them immediately afterwards.
Decisions
The Deputies i. took note of the report of the CAHVS's 5th meeting (CM(78)347); ii. took note of the CAHVS's final activity report and the expiry of its specific terms of reference (Add. to CM(78)347); iii. instructed the Secretariat to reproduce in a document the comments and/or the proposals presented at the present meeting and those which delegations present to the Secretariat by 12 February 1979 on the draft Convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats in Europe (Add. to CM(78)347); iv. agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL
- 61 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXI(b)
b. Written Question No. 216 by Mr Wååg (CM(79)14)
Decision
The Deputies adopted the following reply to Written Question No. 216 by Mr Wååg:
"The present draft convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats envisages the protection of birds during nesting and breeding periods and of migrating birds during their migrations.
The provisions of the draft convention are intended to facilitate as far as possible accession to the convention by states that are not members of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers hopes that the convention will be opened for signature at the latest by the 3rd European Ministerial Conference on the Environment in September 1979". CONFIDENTIAL
- 63 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXII
XXII. EUROPEAN YOUTH CENTRE Recommendation of the Governing Board on Youth Unemployment (Concl(78)291/XXX(c), CM(78)157 and 320)
The Representative of Switzerland said that his authorities had no objection to the annual report of the Youth Centre being transmitted to the CDAS, the CDSS, the CAHRS and the CDCC. However, as regards the publication of the text of the recommendation and its circulation to the Assembly and to non-governmental youth organisations, his authorities thought that the recommendation had been given enough publicity with the publication of the Governing Board's annual report. He wished to emphasise that in adopting the recommendation the Governing Board had taken a quite unusual decision, and he could not see why the Committee of Ministers' follow-up action should go further than the publishing of the report.
The Representative of Italy and Belgium agreed with the Representative of Switzerland.
The Representative of France was able to agree to the recommendation being transmitted to the four committees named but wanted the latter to be informed of the comments provoked by the recommendation in the Committee of Ministers. The French authorities could not subscribe to certain ideas and expressions in the recommendation, such as "the need to establish [the right to work] as an effective practice" (paragraph 1 of the recommendation). They considered that "the right to work" should be interpreted in the light of the United Nations Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, which simply specified that states were required to take steps to maintain employment as far as possible. Accordingly, to avoid sheer utopianism, especially in the present economic circumstances, the Governing Board's phrasing should be slightly modulated and not taken literally.
The United Kingdom Representative appreciated the French authorities' misgivings and suggested that the comments made in the Committee of Ministers be transmitted together with the Governing Board's recommendation. He was particularly anxious that the attention of the four committees concerned should be drawn to the possible danger of overlapping with other international organisations in the matter.
The Representative of Switzerland with the concurrence of the Representative of Belgium, said he could not agree to excerpts from the Committee of Ministers' Conclusions being passed on to committees of experts. That would be an unusual procedure, and he saw no need for it in the present instance. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 64 - Item XXII
The Deputy Director of the Centre was sorry that the Governing Board's recommendation had given the Committee of Ministers so much work and that questions of form had ultimately prevented the latter from studying the text's substance. He wondered whether it would not be better to dissuade the Board from using such a procedure in future. In the particular case of the recommendation on youth unemployment, the Board's action had been due to the seriousness of the problem; its intention had been to inform the highest authority of the results of the Centre's work and of its concerns, so as to give them greater impact. Representatives of governments, of the Assembly and of other international organisations had carried out a study together with members of youth organisations, and their conclusions deserved consideration. Was it surprising, therefore, that the Governing Board had in this case approached the Committee of Ministers, which was expressly designated for the purpose by the Centre's statute.
Decisions
The Deputies i. agreed to address the following message to the Steering Committee for Social Affairs (CDAS), to the Steering Committee for Social Security (CDSS), to the Special Representative's Advisory Committee (CAHRS) and to the Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC):
"In the context of the report on its 1977 activities the Governing Board of the European Youth Centre addressed a Recommendation on youth unemployment to the Committee of Ministers (see pages 19 and 20 of the Annual Report).
The Committee of Ministers examined this Recommendation at its 298th meeting (item XXII). Without taking up a position on the substance, the Committee took note of the Report and transmits it to the Committees most directly concerned by the problems discussed in it, with a request - insofar as it came within their sphere of responsibility - to bear the EYC Governing Board's Recommendation in mind when drawing up their future draft programmes of activities, while taking account also of the work being done by other international organisations in the matter."; ii. instructed the Secretary General to bring the text of this message to the knowledge of the Governing Board of the European Youth Centre. CONFIDENTIAL
- 65 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIII
XXIII. PAYMENT OF REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES IN CASES OF PROLONGED ABSENCE OF OFFICIALS ENTITLED TO THEM (Concl(78)293/XXI, CM(78)201)
The Chairman said that Secretariat Memorandum CM(78)201 seemed to imply a recommendation that matters should be left as they stood.
The Representative of Switzerland said that he had reservations with regard to paragraph 5 of CM(78)201. It was hard to accept that in the absence of one of the specially appointed officials, the other two would have to give more receptions. A better solution in such a case would be to reduce the total appropriations for representational allowances.
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany said that his authorities did not share the opinion of the Secretariat that the representational allowance formed an integral part of the remuneration of the specially appointed officials. The allowance was granted to to enable the officials concerned to fulfil certain functions. If one of them were absent, evidently he could not fulfil these functions, and therefore, in principle at least, should not receive the allowance for doing so. However, as the amount of money involved was relatively small, he would be prepared not to take a hard line on this point.
The Representatives of France and the Netherlands shared the point of view of their German colleague.
The Representative of Italy said that his authorities considered it necessary to recall that in accordance with Article 1 of Resolution(71)8 and its successive amendments, the representational allowance was granted in the form of an annual lump sum which did not require evidence of actual expenditure. The inference that followed from this was that the sum, which by its nature was dependent on the actual presence of the official and could therefore be reduced proportionately during periods of absence from active duty, could not revert to other specially appointed officials who were present, given that on particularly important occasions it was possible to draw on the common entertainment fund available to the Organisation.
The Representative of Belgium also shared the view of the Representative of the Federal Republic, but felt that the existing rules should be modified to the effect that payment of the representational allowance would be suspended after six weeks absence of an official entitled to it. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 66 - Item XXIII
After the Chairman had observed that a number of delegations felt that the representational allowance was not part of remuneration, but in view of the relatively small sums involved could agree to leave well alone, the Representative of Sweden said that he could agree with this conclusion but for different reasons. If specially appointed officials needed an increase in their representational allowance because of the absence of one of their number, the increase should be met from a reduction in the allowance of the absentee. However, it was clear from CM(78)201 that the disablement or sickness insurance arrangements did not make this possible, and it was for this reason that he felt it would be better to leave well alone.
The Representative of Austria pointed out that the present discussion was not an academic one; the item had been placed on the agenda as a result of a situation that had actually arisen. He felt that the Deputies should examine more closely the realities and see whether the absence of a specially appointed official did in fact mean that the other specially appointed officials had to shoulder a heavier burden of entertainment.
The Director of Administration and Finance said that the discussion of this item started following the illness of the late Deputy Secretary General. At present it was not a matter of urgency. The reason why the Secretariat considered that the representational allowance was an element of remuneration was that it was paid under the terms of Resolution(71)8, the title of which was "On the remuneration of specially appointed officials", and the Resolution covered the payment of salary as well as various allowances including the representational allowance. The representational allowance itself covered such matters as accommodation, servants, etc., which evidently could not simply be given up during periods of sickness of the official entitled to the allowance. The sickneess insurance arrangements being what they were, the Secretariat felt that if a specially appointed official was ill for a prolonged period, the cost of major entertainment for which he would normally have been responsible could be met exceptionally out of the common entertainment fund, appropriations being transferred to this fund from the savings resulting for the Council of Europe budget when payment of the absentee official was met by insurance. It was therefore the Secretariat's inclination not to introduce new provisions in the regulations covering the remuneration of specially appointed officials. CONFIDENTIAL
- 67 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIII
The Representative of Sweden said that he was prepared to take note of the fact that the Secretariat, in accordance with established practice in the Council of Europe and elsewhere, considered the representational allowance to be an element of remuneration. On the other hand, there was a fair number of member governments which did not look upon representational allowances in that way. However, as long as the allowance was being treated as remuneration for sickness insurance purposes, there was not much that the Committee could do other than to leave well alone. He had no objection to savings made in appropriations for the representational allowances as a result of the application of the insurance scheme being transferred to the common entertainment fund.
The Representative of Switzerland, supported by the Representative France, said that he could agree with the Director of Administration and Finance that the Deputies should take no action on this matter. While they had no objection to the Director's stand being recorded, they did not wish to be associated with it.
The Representative of Belgium supported the latter part of the intervention of his Swiss colleague.
The Representative of the United Kingdom said that he could agree with both the reasoning and the conclusions of the Director of Administration and Finance. This was a question of remuneration, and not of salary, which was only one element of remuneration. As far as the United Kingdom was concerned. it would not be the case that an official serving the government abroad would be deprived of his house if he fell ill for a long period.
After taking soundings by show of hands, the Chairman noted that six delegations wished the present arrangements to be changed, and ten delegations preferred to leave well alone. For there to be a change, it would be necessary to have a majority in favour of it, and it was apparent that no such majority existed.
The Representative of Sweden said that his attitude had been guided by the fact that it was for the Secretary General to make proposals, and in this case he had made none.
The Representative of Norway said that she understood from the statement made by the Director of Administration and Finance that if the Deputies agreed to take no action, there would in fact be a small modification to existing arrangements. CONFIDENTIAL
- 69 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIV
XXIV. COUNCIL OF EUROPE BUDGETS Assembly Opinion Nos. 88 and 89 (Concl(78)295/XVI and 297/XXIII, CM(79)7)
The Chairman recalled that the Deputies were not obliged to reply to Assembly Opinions, but it was customary for them to do so in the case of Opinions concerning the budget.
The Representative of Switzerland pointed out that the text of the draft reply prepared by the Secretariat (CM(79)7) had been distributed only on the penultimate day of the meeting. He was prepared to ask his authorities for their comments on the text, but it was manifestly impossible to discuss the draft reply at the present meeting.
Decision
The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL
- 71 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXV
XXV. CO-ORDINATION PROCEDURES OF THE CO-ORDINATED ORGANISATIONS (Concl(78)297/XX, CM(77)108, 130 and 263, CM(78)196, 270, 307 and CM(78)PV4 prov., para 56)
The Director of Administration and Finance recalled that when the Deputies had discussed this item previously, certain delegations had felt that the NATO and OECD Councils should go into the matter first before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. There had also been a suggestion that the Co-ordinating Committee should itself discuss it first. The Secretariat had not heard that discussions of the proposals of the Secretaries General had taken place within the OECD or NATO Councils. This being so, he suggested that the Secretariat might bring the question up again at a later stage, when it had received indications of developments elsewhere.
The Representative of Belgium said that he had received information which was in fact based on informal discussions that had taken place NATO. His indication was that there was a developing trend towards rejection of almost all of the proposals of the Secretaries General.
The Secretary General said that there would be a meeting shortly at which he would discuss this matter with his colleagues. He may therefore have some news soon.
The Representative of the United Kingdom said that it was the hope of his Government that there would be discussions in the wings of the Co-ordinating Committee between representatives of the Secretaries General and representatives of the governments. This was the best way to pursue the matter rather than having it discussed in bodies such as the present Committee, which may not grasp all the details and nuances.
The Secretary General replied that experience had shown that not much progress would be made in the manner proposed by the United Kingdom delegation. This was why the Secretaries General had felt that the question should be brought before the Councils/Committee of Ministers. It had already become apparent that nothing would come out of the continued dialogue that had been going on for about two years.
The Representative of Switzerland said that he was pleased that the Secretaries General would be discussing the matter shortly. He said he hoped that the Secretary General would take into account the statements made by the Swiss delegation on the matter, particularly at the 295th meeting of the Deputies (Concl(78)295/XVIII). CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 72 - Item XXV
Decision
The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item when the Secretariat is able to report developments in the matter elsewhere in the co-ordinated framework, in particular in the OECD and NATO Councils. CONFIDENTIAL
- 73 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXVI
XXVI. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Facilities (Concl(78)297/XXIV and CM(78)310)
The Director of Administration and Finance reported that preparatory work on the alterations requested by the European Parliament for the Chamber of the Assembly and two 100-seat meeting rooms were going ahead according to plan. With regard to the new building which the Strasbourg Municipal Council had decided to construct for the European Parliament, he said that the Mayor of Strasbourg had submitted a preliminary draft plan to the President of the Parliament. The building had been designed for the use of the parliamentarians themselves, and not the secretariat of the Parliament. The building would include lounges, a restaurant and two committee rooms big enough for the largest political groups. The Parliament's College of Questors was studying this plan. In addition to the footbridge already envisaged to link the new building with the Palais de l'Europe where the Parliamentarians' Restaurant was located, it seemed that the European Parliament would now want a second footbridge that would give access to the first floor of the Palais de l'Europe near the offices of the President of the Parliament. The Council of Europe would be receiving a letter from the Mayor in due course making a formal request for the footbridge or footbridges to be built over its land. The Secretariat would place it before the Deputies.
The European Parliament had been informed that the Deputies were not in favour of extending the Representatives' Bar into the Ministers' Ante-room. The most favoured solution now seemed to be increasing the capacity of the bar by installing furniture of a more traditional type and lengthening the counter. The European Parliament did not consider it necessary to extend the Representatives' Bar into the Writing Room. The Parliamentarians' Travel Office might be near the distribution counter.
On the question of the provision of the 50 additional offices, he said that although he had been informed by telephone that the terms proposed for the rental were acceptable to the Parliament, it now appeared from a letter dated 15 January 1979 from the Secretary General of thé Parliament, that this was not entirely the case. This letter, photocopies of which were distributed in the meeting, is reproduced at Appendix VI to these Conclusions. The European Parliament had accepted all the proposals put forward by the Council of Europe except those concerning the indexing of rent and service charges. As far as the rent was concerned, the Parliament had pointed out in particular CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79) 298 - 74 - Item XXVI
that the period of the lease would be very short. For service charges the Parliament accepted the possibility of adjustments. He had discussed these aspects further with the Director General of Administration, Personnel and Finance of the Parliament, bearing in mind the comments made by the Budget Committee and by the Deputies themselves on various occasions, and without wishing to inflate the issue or politicise it. It would appear that the inclusion in the additional agreement of a clause similar to Article 10 of the main agreement of 15 December 1977 (see CM(78)310, Appendix 1) and affecting both rent and charges might be acceptable to the Parliament. If the Committee agreed, the Secretariat would continue to negotiate on this basis. He added in reply to a point made by one delegation, that although the wording of that Article 10 was not entirely satisfactory from the point of view of the Council of Europe, the Secretariat did in fact use it when presenting an account for increased service charges in January of each year. The European Parliament had always accepted the increased charges.
In reply to further questions, he agreed that if the rent for the 50 offices did not increase this could be represented as an additional subsidy from the Council of Europe to the European Parliament. On the other hand, the lease was for a short period.
During the ensuing discussion, the Secretary General pointed out that no-one yet knew what would in fact be the requirements of the new directly-elected Parliament. In particular it was not possible to predict what would be the frequency of its meetings in Strasbourg or whether they would still find it realistic for the staff of the Secretariat of the Parliament to continue working mainly in Luxembourg. Thus, if a good case could be made out for including indexing provisions, it would be better for relations between the two organisations which would be sharing the Palais de l'Europe on a more intensive basis than heretofor, and would be helpful to the existing Parliament, if the Council of Europe did not place too much insistence on the question of indexing.
The Representative of Luxembourg said that he could agree with the conclusions reached by the Secretary General, but not with his reasoning.
After further discussion and clarification, the Chairman observed that the Deputies were in agreement with the Secretariat pursuing the negotiations with the European Parliament along the lines envisaged by the Secretary General and the Director of Administration and Finance. CONFIDENTIAL
- 75 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXVII
XXVII. STAFF REGULATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Hearing of the Chairman of the Staff Committee at the 291st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (Concl(78)297/XVIII, CM(78)194 and Corr. and 291)
The Chairman recalled that the Deputies were invited to consider at the present meeting the six specific points that the Director of Administration and Finance had drawn attention to at the previous meeting (Concl(78)297/XVIII) and which were summarised in the Notes on the Agenda for this item. He had received a letter dated 17 January 1979 from the Chairman of the Staff Committee which commented on these six points. The text of the letter, which was distributed in photocopy form during the meeting, is reproduced at Appendix VII to these Conclusions.
The Representative of Switzerland recalled that an approved system existed for staff consultation, but noted that there was an increasing tendency to short-circuit it. The rules must be respected, and if they were not considered satisfactory it would always be possible to consider proposed changes presented in accordance with existing procedure.
The Representatives of Belgium and France shared the position of their Swiss colleague.
The Chairman pointed out that there was little time left for the discussion of this item at the present meeting. There was a degree of urgency about one of the six points, and he proposed that consideration of the other five be postponed to a later meeting. The point that was urgent was the one concerning the presence of Staff Committee representatives in meetings of the CAHEA, and he invited delegations to make known their positions on this particular point.
The Representative of the Netherlands, supported in general by the Representative of Norway, said that his delegation could be in favour of the presence of staff representatives in meetings of the CAHEA provided that the latter could always decide to meet without them when it so saw fit.
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany pointed out that the Staff Committee had always had an opportunity to express its views to the Committee of Ministers and to the CAHEA. It was not a function of the CAHEA to arbitrate between the staff and the Secretary General. For these reasons he could not support the request. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 76 - Item XXVII
The Representative of Switzerland recalled that the Committee of Ministers had instructed the CAHEA to consult the staff committee, and that the CAHEA had in fact consulted the staff representatives frequently and in depth. His delegation wished to maintain the status quo.
The Representative of Italy said that his authorities had given due attention to the suggestions made for the first time by the Deputy Secretary General concerning the participation of staff representatives in the work of the CAHEA.
They wondered whether the existing provisions did not already enable those concerned to make their views known to the competent bodies. Admittedly, it was desirable for the staff representatives to be able to put their views to the CAHEA - as they had already done. But if it were decided that a staff representative should always attend that committee's meetings, it might be placed in an unpleasant situation. The committee would, inter alia, have to arbitrate between the Secretariat and the staff representatives, as the Chairman of the CAHEA had pointed out some time previously. The Italian delegation felt that these problems should be taken into account.
The Representative of Belgium shared the views of his Swiss and Italian colleagues. He could see no reason to change the present situation unless the CAHEA itself felt that a change along the lines envisaged might be desirable.
The Representative of the United Kingdom agreed with the three previous speakers. Bearing in mind the opinion on the matter as expressed by the CAHEA in paragraph 3 of its 6th Activity Report (CM(78)194 Corr.), his authorities had instructed him to say that the present situation should not be changed. The permanent presence of representatives of the Staff Committee in meetings of the CAHEA could have an inhibiting effect on its work.
The Director of Administration and Finance pointed out that the 6th Activity Report, in which the CAHEA had expressed an opinion on the matter, had been adopted in May 1978, it therefore predated the statement made by the Deputy Secretary General at the Deputies' 294th meeting in October 1978. The present situation was not very satisfactory as the hearings of the Staff Committee by the CAHEA tended to be rather formalised, with the staff representatives making a statement then, after answering a few questions, being asked to leave the meeting. Should the proposal of the Deputy Secretary General and Staff Committee not be acceptable the Secretariat thought it might be possible to go a little further than the present situation, and if this were the wish of the Deputies, the CAHEA could be asked to have more extended dialogue-type discussions with representatives of the staff. So far as the arrangement mentioned by the Deputy Secretary General at the 294th meeting, was concerned, the Director of Administration and Finance stressed that under it the presence of Staff Committee representatives CONFIDENTIAL
- 77 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXVII at meetings of the CAHEA would be subject to three conditions, namely:
1. that this participation should be on an experimental basis;
2. that the CAHEA retained the possibility of meeting in private whenever it deemed necessary;
3. that the representatives of the Staff Committee undertook to respect the confidential nature of the discussion.
The Representative of Belgium said that the suggestion that such participation should be on an experimental basis gave rise to doubts in his mind. Once representatives of the Staff Committee had been admitted to meetings of the CAHEA in the manner envisaged, it would become impossible to exclude them in the future. He added that when it came to staff matters, nothing was ever confidential. The Director of Administration and Finance had said that the present situation was not very satisfactory, but this might perhaps be because the texts governing the arrangements concerned were not being properly applied. To his mind there was no need to change the texts, but to see whether they could be applied in a way that would result in more extensive discussions between the Staff Committee and the CAHEA.
The Chairman said that the question under discussion was a very important one, but suggested that all the elements of the file might not have been fully absorbed by delegations. In particular the statement made by the Deputy Secretary General at the 294th meeting needed further study. This being so, he proposed that the various elements; including the opinion of the CAHEA, be brought together in a single document for consideration by the Deputies once they were fully apprised of what was involved.
The Representative of Belgium said that he had no need for further documentation to be able to take a stand on the matter.
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany thought that for the time being the Committee should simply take note of the proposals in CM(79)291, which should first of all be referred to the CAHEA. It did not seem advisable that such proposals should be discussed at two different levels simultaneously.
Decisions, The Deputies i. instructed the Secretariat to prepare, for consideration at one of their forthcoming meetings, a composite document bringing together all relevant elements concerning the question of the presence of representatives of the Staff Committee in meetings of the CAHEA, including the opinion of the CAHEA thereon, and accordingly CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79) 298 - 78 - Item XXVII
ii. adopted Decision No. CM/101/200179 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the CAHEA, as it appears at Appendix IV to these Conclusions; iii. agreed to revert at their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level) to the five other specific proposals made within the framework of this item. CONFIDENTIAL
- 79 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXVIII
XXVIII. PREPARATION OF FORTHCOMING MEETINGS
After an exchange of views in the Committee, the Chairman took note of the fact that it was agreed that the date of the next Joint Committee be fixed for 28 March 1979 at 10 am.
The Secretary to the Committee announced that three sub-items should be added to item XXVIII (Other Business) of the agenda for the 299th meeting (February 1979 - B level):
- European Youth Centre - Composition of the Advisory Committee of International Non-Governmental Youth Organisations for 1979 (CM(79)4) (Notes No. 2783 of 10.1.79);
- United Nations - Exchange of views (A level)
- Ad hoc Committee of experts on the new building (CAHNB) - Meeting report (Strasbourg, 28 November 1978) (CM(78)338) (Notes No. 2782 of 4.1.79)
The Representative of Turkey said that as regards the item "Situation in Cyprus", his delegation's attitude remained unchanged both as far as the substance and the procedure were concerned.
Decision
The Deputies approved the draft agenda of their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level) as it appears at Appendix II to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL
- 81 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(a)
XXIX. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Dialogue with the Secretary General
Tripartite Conference on Employment
The Secretary General made the following statement:
"I have received a letter from the Ambassador or Norway and I understand all delegations have already received copies directly. The Ambassador of Norway refers to statements made on 23 November last at the meeeting of Ministers and concludes that the Norwegian Government:
'has arrived at the view that there does not seem to exist sufficient support to make it possible for the Norwegian side to continue the preparations with the view of holding a Tripartite Conference under the auspices of the Council of Europe in April 1979 as planned'.
I am of the opinion that your Committee will now need some time to examine the new situation that arises in view of this and any further developments. May I mention that over the holiday period I received another letter from the Secretary General of the UNICE, Mr Sassen, which has been circulated in CM(79)27. Even more recently, on 11 January, a telex arrived from thé European Trade Union Confederation advocating the holding of the Conference as soon as possible. This telex has also been circulated. I would suggest that the matter be placed on the agenda for your next meeting at A level."
The Representative of Austria thought that this issue, which had been put on the agenda of this Committee by decision of the Ministers, could be more fruitfully dealt with after the correspondence referred to by the Secretary General had been studied in detail and following consultation at home with governments. It was also possible that a more detailed report would be presented by the government of Norway on the results of the consultations it had held.
The Representative of Turkey considered that it ought first of all be established whether there had been any change of heart among those governments which had previously expressed hesitations with regard to the holding of the Conference. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 82 - Item XXIX(a)
The Representative of the United Kingdom recalled the potential complications arising from Article 3 of the 1951 Agreement between the ILO and the Council of Europe on the convening of Council of Europe tripartite conferences. A difficult situation could develop if the Council of Europe decided to organise the Conference on its own, rather than just provide secretarial services to a Conference held "at the invitation" of a member government.
The Secretary General advised against interpreting the UNICE letter in too negative a way. Its last paragraph rather suggested that, in the view of UNICE, one should await the results of the forthcoming regional meeting of the ILO before proceeding any further.
The Chairman noted that there was agreement to place the question of the Tripartite Conference on the draft agenda of the Deputies' meeting which would follow the distribution of a document calling for action on the part of the Deputies.
30th Anniversary of the Council of Europe
The Secretary General made the following statement:
"The 30th Anniversary of our Organisation will occur this year. The Committee of Ministers may wish to mark the occasion when its Chairman addresses the Assembly during the May session and/or in some other appropriate manner. I have written to President de Koster drawing his attention to the matter and I think we could co-ordinate arrangements between him, your Chairman and myself during the part-session of the Assembly commencing on 29 January.
On the Secretariat side, there will be a special pull-out section in the Spring issue of Forum and the organisation of an open day on 5 May."
The Chairman observed that as the celebration of the 30th Anniversary would take place with his own country, the Netherlands, in the Chair of this Committee, he would have to consult with his Minister on how best to proceed in the matter. He thought, however, and here he was joined by his Austrian, Norwegian and Swiss colleagues, that as much advantage as possible should be drawn from this important event, and that the matter might suitably be taken up by the newly set-up "Stimulating Committee". CONFIDENTIAL
- 83 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(a)
The Representative of Portugal wondered if the Directorate of Press and Information Services could not prepare suitable documentation in time for the event, to be distributed to press agencies etc.
The Secretary General said that if he had chosen, for economy reasons, not to ask for any extensive funds in the budget for the 30th Anniversary, it was because of the rather costly celebrations having been held in recent years on occasions such as the 25th Anniversary of the Council of Europe, the inauguration of the new building and the Open Day in October 1977. Nobody would however be more satisfied than himself if this Committee and the Bureau of the Assembly came out in favour of an even more ambitious celebration than the one he had originally foreseen.
Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights
The Secretary General recalled that when adopting the 1979 budget, the Deputies had decided to upgrade the post of Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights from A6 to A7 (Concl(78)287/XXIII, decision (i)). The Registrar of the Court was not chosen by the Secretary General but was elected by the Court itself, after the President of the Court had obtained the opinion of the Secretary General. The Registrar was elected for a term of 7 years and may be re-elected. The present holder of this office, Mr Marc-André Eissen, a French national, had been re-elected for a second term in 1975. In these special circumstances it would not be right to say that as a result of this upgrading the post of Registrar had become vacant, since his term had another three and a half years to run, or that it should be notified as vacant at the higher grade. Accordingly, he would proceed to promote Mr Eissen from grade A6 to A7.
Certain delegations asked for a clarification of the legal situation concerning the Secretary General's intention, having regard to the Regulations on Appointments.
The Deputy Director of Legal Affairs said that the Deputies had decided the previous year to upgrade a certain number of posts, including the post of the Registrar of the Court of Human Rights. Normally all upgradings of posts would result in the posts concerned being considered vacant, as there would no longer be identity between the grade of the post and the grade of its occupant appointed by the Secretary CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 84 - Item XXIX(a)
General. However, in the case of the Registrar special rules applied. Rule 11 of the Rules of the Court specified that the Registrar was elected by the Court for a period of seven years; the Secretary General therefore had no function in the election of the Registrar except that of expressing his opinion on the candidates before the election. He had to nominate the person chosen by the Court to the grade which the post of Registrar had been given in the Table of Permanent Posts. The prerogatives which normally belonged to the Secretary General, namely to choose the person and decide on his duties, belonged in this case to the Court under Rules 11 and 14 of the Rules of the Court. The present Registrar had been elected in 1975 for a period of seven years, and his term of office still had three more years to run. As the result of the election in 1975, neither the person concerned nor his duties could be affected by the ugrading; it followed that the post of Registrar of the Court was not vacant. Consequently, Article 24 of the Regulations on Appointments did not apply:
- there was no obligation to notify a vacancy (Article 24.1)
- there was no obligation on the Secretary General to inform the Committee of Ministers of his intentions (Article 24.2).
The statement made by the Secretary General had been for information purposes only.
The Chairman stated that the Committee took note of the Secretary General's statement.
Other staff matters
A further informal exchange of views in application of Article 24.2 of the Regulations on Appointments, and a discussion on the situation with regard to the geographical distribution of Category A posts (cf. Concl(78)297/XXIII, decision (vi)), took place in restricted session (see Addendum III to these Conclusions, which has been issued to Heads of delegation only). CONFIDENTIAL
- 85 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(a)
European Conference on "the Environment and Human Rights" (Strasbourg, 19 and 20 January 1979)
In response to requests for clarification as to the status of this Conference and its connection with the Council of Europe (the provisional programme of the Conference had been issued as a document of the Assembly's Legal Affairs Committee, ref. AS/Jur(30)33), the Secretary General said the Conference had been organised at the Palais de Congrès by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, Bonn, and the International Institute of Human Rights (the Cassin Foundation), Strasbourg, which had issued invitations. Those Institutes enjoyed excellent reputations, but they were non-governmental organisations. The organisers had invited members of the Assembly to the Conference and he understood that a number of them would be attending it. The Secretary General had also arranged for certain interested Secretariat officials to attend the Conference. The Conference would be opened and concluded by Mr Edgar Faure, in his capacity as President of each of the two Institutes concerned. He, the Secretary General, would not be addressing the Conference himself, but it would be addressed or attended by a number of Ministers or Secretaries of State from member States of the Council of Europe, and Mr Pierre PFLIMLIN, the Mayor of Strasbourg, would be giving a welcoming address.
At the request of the Committee, the Secretary General agreed to ask one of the Secretariat officials authorised to attend the Conference to prepare a full report on its proceedings, including the conclusions and a list of participants. That part of the programme which covered a visit by participants to the Palais des Droits de l'Homme should be reported on too.
The Representative of Belgium said that his delegation considered the Conference to be an outstanding initiative, and one that would contribute to the work of the Council of Europe in this field, which was of top priority. His delegation had always felt that a link should be forged between human rights and the environment. The Deputies would have to consider how the Organisation would be able to profit from the outcome of the Conference. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 86 - Item XXIX(a)
Decision
The Deputies asked the Secretary General to prepare for their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level) a document setting out various alternatives - ranging from the more modest to the more ambitious - for celebrating the 30th Anniversary of the Council of Europe. CONFIDENTIAL
- 87 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(b)
b. Standing Conference of Ministers of Education 11th Session (The Hague, 10-13 June 1979) (CM(79)9)
Decisions
The Deputies i. noted that there was general consent in the Committee of Ministers on the advisability of inviting Yugoslavia to take part in the work of the 11th Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education as an observer; ii. noted that there was general consent in the Committee of Ministers on the advisability of inviting non-European member states of OECD (Australia, Canada, United States, New Zealand and Japan) to take part in the work of the 11th Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education as distinguished guests; iii. gave their consent for the Secretary General to provide secretarial services for the last meeting in The Hague, from 1 to 2 March 1979, of the Committee of Senior Officials responsible for the preparation of the 11th Session of the Standing Conference of European Ministers of Education. CONFIDENTIAL
- 89 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(c)
c. Committee on the Mass Media (CAHMM) Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 11-15 December 1978) (CM(79)13)
The Deputy Director of Legal Affairs emphasised that the Committee was merely invited to take note of the document, since such exchanges of views were part of the CAHMM's terms of reference and were in any case technical, and based solely on the experts' technical knowledge.
He also recalled that when adopting the terms of reference of the CAHMM, the Committee of Ministers had expressed the wish to be kept informed of all measures envisaged by the CAHMM regarding exchanges of views on the work of other international organisations, and it was precisely for that reason that the CAHMM had reported on its conclusions on the subject.
The Chairman proposed that the Committee should concentrate on item A of CM(79)13 concerning UNESCO.
The Representative of the Netherlands announced that his authorities had noted the proposals made by the CAHMM with interest and would welcome a meeting with Mr. McBride, a position supported by the Representative of France.
The Representative of Sweden, supported by the Representative of Norway, feared that this type of exchange of views on the work of other organisations might tend to predominate. He had certain reservations about the activities of the CAHMM and said that political matters should be discussed at the level of the Committee of Ministers and not in committees. The measures proposed should therefore be confined to item 5(a). In his view, the CAHMM was going beyond its terms of reference as far as the other items were concerned.
The Representative of Switzerland said that the hearing with Mr. McBride was inadvisable.
The Deputy Director of Legal Affairs recalled that the CAHMM had met infrequently but had done a great deal of work and that the proposed exchange of views - which would last only one day - would take up only 20% of its time. Furthermore, these were technical exchanges of views, ie. confined to the technical expertise of the participants, and they did no more than allow those present to exchange their personal points of view without any formal conclusions being reached. Most experts had been in favour of such an exchange of views. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 90 - Item XXIX(c)
The Representative of Austria, supported by the Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, thought it would be useful to see whether these new working methods produced useful results. It could not be assumed that the exchange of views would serve no purpose.
In reply to a question by the Representative of Austria as to whether the CAHMM might have gone beyond its terms of reference in the case of paragraph 5(c), the Deputy Director of Legal Affairs explained that the CAHMM's terms of reference included the organisation of such exchanges of views. When considering how an exchange of views on the work of UNESCO could be organised, the CAHMM had decided to adopt certain procedures, but it had been pointed out that the Committee of Ministers would have to be informed about them before they were implemented. That was particularly true of the proposal to invite Mr. McBride. This proposal had been made because no observers attended meetings of the CAHMM, and it had been agreed that the Committee might, when appropriate, arrange hearings to be attended by representatives of organisations concerned.
The Chairman said that this type of exchange of views had advantages in that it could also enable a committee of experts to draw the attention of the Committee of Ministers to the political aspects of certain matters.
In reply to a question from a delegation, the Secretariat representative said that if the Deputies did not object to the hearing of Mr. McBride, the Secretary of the CAHMM would approach Mr. McBride directly and invite him to attend - in the context of the next meeting of the CAHMM - a meeting with the members of the CAHMM to enable them to give him their personal views on the content of the interim report of the UNESCO Commission.
The Representative of Sweden circulated the following draft decision:
The Committee of Ministers
i. took note of CM(79)13, item 5(a);
ii. decided to remind the sub-committee of the necessity to give priority to problems in relations between member states confided to it and to exercise continued care so as not to infringe upon the prerogatives of the Committee of Ministers in respect of foreign policy matters;
iii. to note that it was within the competence of the Secretary General to take a position on p. 5(d). CONFIDENTIAL
- 91 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(c)
The Representatives of Austria and the Netherlands regarded item (ii) as a very severe and unjustified criticism of the CAHMM.
An indicative vote on the Swedish proposal produced the following result: 2 in favour, 7 against and 7 abstentions.
The Representative of Spain said that he would abstain in all votes because the Committee of Ministers was not required to take any action.
In reply to questions by a number of Deputies as to whether a staff member could reply to invitations from other international organisations, such as that referred to under 5(d), the Deputy Director of Legal Affairs said that the Secretary General was competent to deal with that matter and it had been submitted to the Committee of Ministers for information only.
The Chairman wound up the examination of this item by saying that there had been a very useful discussion, that it had been very right to inform the Committee of Ministers of this matter and lastly that the Committee of Ministers should continue to be kept informed of the follow-up to the measures envisaged by the CAHMM. CONFIDENTIAL
- 93 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(d)
d. Freedom of movement of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly in the member States of the Council of Europe Written Question No. 215 (Concl(78)297/VI, CM(78)328 and 329, CM(79)17)
The Chairman reminded the Deputies that they were once more having to deal with Written Question No. 215, concerning Mr. von Hassel, because the Federal Republic of Germany had not been able to withdraw its reservations following its ad referendum vote at the 297th meeting (item VI).
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany made the following statement:
"During our last meeting the German delegation, in a spirit of conciliation, agreed with certain hesitations to a socalled compromise decision, but, as we had serious doubts, only ad referendum. I have informed the Secretariat by letter of January 4 that we are not in a position to lift our reservation.
In this letter, which has been distributed to all delegations (CM(79)17), I pointed out. that Mr. von Hassel did not travel to Valletta in his capacity as member of the Parliamentary Assembly. For this reason all remarks in the draft reply with regard to the privileges and immunities of the Assembly are more or less irrelevant. I say 'more or less' because the Assembly did raise this question so that it seems to be polite to express a view in this connection. However, the question of the Assembly seems to go in the wrong direction, because although Mr. von Hassel indeed travelled to Malta as a parliamentarian, he did not go as a parliamentarian of the Council of Europe. For this reason any answer this Committee could give to the Assembly about immunities of Council of Europe parliamentarians could only be theoretical. However, reference to Article 3 is not theoretical. Article 3 of the Statute provides member States of the Council of Europe with a general framework for the respect of certain basic values in the exercise of their powers. This general rule applies equally to private individuals and to parliamentarians whether they are acting in their official capacity or not.
May I point out again that we are in a position to accept the draft reply presented by the Secretariat during the last meeting, including the remarks in respect of Article 3 of the Statute."
The Representative of Malta expressed his surprise at the Federal Republic of Germany's new attitude, especially as he had been able to withdraw his own reservations. He could not therefore accept any fresh proposal by the Federal Republic of Germany to amend the text CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - 94 - Item XXIX(d) of the original reply. He nevertheless emphasised the importance of a reply. He proposed that, if no agreement could be reached, the President of the Assembly should be informed by letter of the outcome of the voting on the draft reply, which had been approved by 20 delegations.
The Representative of the Federal Republic of Germany could not accept this proposal. As could be seen from Concl(78)295/XX(e), before the vote in question, which had been presumed to be a compromise and had therefore been accepted by all delegations, there had been two indicative votes - one on the Maltese delegations's proposal, the other on the Secretariat's proposal - with the following results:
Maltese proposal: 14 for, 1 against, 4 abstentions;
Secretariat proposal, which had included the reference to Article 3 of the Statute and had been acceptable to the German delegation: 16 for, 1 against, 2 abstentions.
If the President of the Assembly was in fact to be informed of the result of voting, mention should also be made of the indicative votes. However, it was not customary to inform the Assembly of the result of voting. He (the German Representative) was therefore obliged to oppose the Maltese proposal.
In reply to a question by the Representative of Switzerland, the Secretary to the Committee said he knew of no previous instance of the result of a vote being communicated to the Assembly.
In the event of deadlock, there were 3 courses open to the Committee:
- either the Committee could inform the Assembly that it had been unable to reach a decision;
- or the Chairman of the Committee could write to the President of the Assembly to inform him that there was no common attitude;
or the Committee could refrain from replying at all, as it had already done in certain cases.
The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat prepare a reply providing some information on the reasons why no precise answer had been given to the Written Question. He would personally inform the President of the Assembly that the Committee of Ministers was still dealing with the matter as actively as possible.
Decision
The Deputies agreed to resume consideration of this item at their 300th meeting (February/March 1979 - A level). CONFIDENTIAL
- 95 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Item XXIX(d)
e. Declaration on Human Rights Follow-up
Decision
The Deputies adopted Decision No. CM/100/180179 assigning ad hoc terms of reference to the CDDH, CDAS, CDSS, CAHRS and CDCC, as it appears at Appendix V to these Conclusions. CONFIDENTIAL
- al - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX I
AGENDA OF THE 298TH MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES
(Strasbourg(A , Monday 15 January 1979 at 3Level) pm)
1. Adoption of the agenda (Notes No. 2735 of 12.1.79)
2. State of written procedures (Notes No. 2736 of 11.1.79)
II.
Political and General Policy Questions
3. United Nations - Preparation of the exchange of views - (Concl(78)297/III, CM(79)25 of 15.1.79) (Notes No. 2737 of 12.1.79) 4. Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) - (Concl(78)297/III) (Notes No. 2738 of 11.1.79 and Add of 12.1.79)
5. Consultative Assembly - Texts adopted by the Standing Committee (Paris, 5 December 1978) (Notes No. 2739 of 29.12.78)
6. Election of the Secretary General (Concl(78)293/VI, CM(78)234, 252, 253 and 254) (Notes No. 2740 of 4.1.79)
7. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(78)297/IV) (Notes No. 2741 of 21.12.78)
8. Material and financial aid for international non-governmental organisations having consultative status with the Council of Europe - Written Question No. 214 by Mr. Spautz - (CM(78)342 of 27.12.78) (Notes No. 2742 of 29.12.78) 9. Medium-Term Plan - Reply to Assembly Opinions 74 and 84 - (Concl(78)296/XXXII(a), CM(78)316) (Notes No. 2697 of 14.11.78) CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - a2 - Appendix I
10. Situation in Africa (General policy of the Council of Europe) - Recommendation 840 and Resolution 678 - (Concl(78)294/IV(a)) (Notes No. 2743 of 29.12.78)
Human Rights
11. Herbert Eggs v. Switzerland - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(78)293/IX), Letter HD/C16 of 24 April 1978) (Notes No. 2606 of 6.10.78)
12. Arthur Hilton against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(78)297/VIII, Letter HC/C27 of 26 June 1978) (Notes No. 2708 of 1.12.78)
13. Human rights within the competence of UNESCO - Written Question No. 210 by Mr. Grieve - (Concl(78)297/IX, CM(78)131 and 158) (Notes No. 2744 of 5.1.79 and Add of 12.1.79)
14. Cyprus v. Turkey - Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75 - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Concl(78)297/X, Letter HD/C47 of 31 August 1976, CM(77)117 and Corr. II and 150, CM(78) 182 CM(79)31 of 19.1.79) (Notes No. 2745 of 5.1.79)
15. Draft statement on race and racial prejudice of UNESCO - Written Question No. 211 by Mr. Portheine - (Concl(78)294/IX, CM(78)227, 335 and 339) (Notes No. 2734 of 21.12.78)
16. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç - Application of Article 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights - (Letter HD/C47 of 4 December 1978) (Notes No. 2733 of 19.12.78)
17. Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 10-15 November 1978) - (CM(78)330 and Add. I, II, III and Corr.) (Notes No. 2746 of 5.1.79)
Economic and Social Questions
18. Ad hoc Conference of Ministers responsible for Migration Questions (Concl(78)291/VI, CM(78) 348 of 20.12.78 and Corr of 9.1.79) (Notes No. 2747 rev. of 9.1.79) CONFIDENTIAL
- a3 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Appendix I
Education, Culture and Sport
19. Possible Organisation of a 3rd Joint Conference (Council of Europe/ European Conference of Ministers of Transport) on Road Safety Education in Schools - (Concl(78)297/XXVI(a), CM(78)343) (Notes No. 2748 of 27.12.78)
Environment and Local Authorities
20. 3rd Ministerial Conference on the Environment - State of preparations - (CM(78)333) (Notes No. 2749 of 21.12.78)
21. Protection of wildlife
a. Ad hoc Committee on the Protection of Wildlife (CAHVS)
- Report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 4-8 December 1978) (CM(78)347 of 19.12.78)
- Final Activity Report and Draft Convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats (Add. to CM(78)347 of 19.12.78) (Notes No. 2750 of 28.12.78) b. Written Question No. 216 by Mr. Wååg - (CM(79)14 of 11.1.79) (Notes No. 2751 of 8.1.79)
Youth
22. European Youth Centre - Recommendation of the Governing Board on Youth Unemployment - (Concl(78)291/XXX(c), CM(78)157 and 320) (Notes No. 2732 of 20.12.78)
Administrative Questions
23. Payment of representational allowances in cases of prolonged absence of officials entitled to them - (Concl(78)293/XXI, CM(78)201) (Notes No. 2550 of 8.8.78)
24. Council of Europe Budgets - Assembly Opinion Nos. 88 and 89 (Concl(78)295/XVI and 297/XXIII, CM(79)7 of 18.1.79) (Notes No. 2752 of 28.12.78)
25. Co-ordination procedures of the Co-ordinated Organisations (Concl(78)297/XX, CM(77)108, 130 and 263, CM(78)196, 270, 307 and CM(78)PV4 prov., para. 56) (Notes No. 2753 of 29.12.78) CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - a4 - Appendix I
26. European Parliament - Facilities - (Concl(78)297/XXIV and CM(78)310) (Notes No. 2754 of 28.12.78)
27. Staff Regulations of the Council of Europe - Hearing of the Chairman of the Staff Committee at the 291st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (Concl(78) 297/XVIII, CM(78)194 and Corr. and 291) (Notes No. 2755 of 28.12.78)
28. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 2756 of 12.1.79)
29. Other business
a. Dialogue with the Secretary General.
b. Standing Conference of Ministers of Education - 11th session (The Hague, 10-13 June 1979) - (CM(79)9 of 5.1.79) (Notes No. 2785 of 9.1.79)
c. Committee on the Mass Media (CAHMM) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 11-15 December 1978) - (CM(79) 13 of 8.1.79) (Notes Nos 2784 of 8.1.79)
d. Freedom of movement of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly in the member States of the Council of Europe - Written Question No. 215 - (Concl(78)297/VI, CM(78)328 and 329, CM(79)17 of 11.1.79) (Notes No. 2786 of 12.1.79)
e. Declaration on Human Rights - Follow-up (Notes No. 2788 of 16.1.79) CONFIDENTIAL
- a5 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX II
DRAFT AGENDA OF THE 300TH MEETING OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES (A LEVEL) (Strasbourg, Monday 26 February, 1979 at 3 pm)
1. Adoption of the agenda (Notes No. 2789 of ...)
2. State of written procedures (Notes No. 2790 of ...)
II.
Political and General Policy Questions
3. Consultative Assembly
a. Texts adopted at the 3rd part of the 30th Session (Notes No. 2791 of ...)
b. Parliamentary questions for oral reply by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers - (SG/D...) (Notes No. 2792 of ...)
4. Committee of Ministers - Preparation of the 64th Session (Notes No. 2793 of...)
5. Situation in Cyprus - (Concl(79)298/VII) (Notes No. 2794 of ...)
6. Joint Committee - Preparation of the meeting of 28 March 1979 (Notes No. 2795 of ...)
7. Freedom of movement of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly in the member States of the Council of Europe - Written Question No. 215 - (Concl(79)298/XXIX(d), CM(78)328 and 329, CM(79)17 and ...) (Notes No. 2796 of ...)
N.B. In accordance with the deadline rules for the despatch of reference documents and Notes on the agenda, the date limits are 29 January and 16 February 1979 respectively. CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - a6 - Appendix II
Human Rights
8. European Commission of Human Rights - Election of a member in respect of Portugal - (CM(79)30 of 26.1.79) (Notes No. 2797 of ...)
9. Arthur Hilton against the United Kingdom - Decision to be taken under Article 32 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Concl(79)298/XII, Letter HC/C27 of 26 June 1978) (Notes No. 2798 of ...)
10. Draft statement on race and racial prejudice of UNESCO - Written Question No. 211 by Mr. Portheine - (Concl(79)298/XV, CM(78)227, 335, 339 and CM(79)...) (Notes No. 2799 of ...)
Legal Questions
11. Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers - (Concl(78)297/XII, CM(78)278 and CM(79)...) (Notes No. 2800 of ...)
12. European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ) - Report of the 30th meeting (Strasbourg, 27 November to 1 December 1978) - (CM(78)345 and Add. I, II and III) (Notes No. 2801 of ...)
13. Committee of Experts on violence in present-day society (PC-R-VS) Observer status of the Commission of the European Communities (Concl(78)297/VII, CM(79)6) (Notes No. 2802 of 26.1.79)
14. Draft Protocol to the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport - (CM(79)16) (Notes No. 2787 of 24.1.79)
15. Committee on the Mass Media (CAHMM) - Report of the 4th meeting (Strasbourg, 11-15 December 1978) - (Concl(79)298/XXIX(c), CM(79)13 and 34 and Add. I-V of 31.1.79) (Notes No. 2803 of ...)
16. Ad hoc Conference of European Ministers responsible for Public Security - (Concl(78)297/III, CM(79)18) (Notes No. 2804 of ...) CONFIDENTIAL
- a7 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298 Appendix II
Economic and Social Questions
17. Implementation and revision of the European Social Charter - Recommendation 839 - (Concl(78)297/XXVII, CM(78)315) (Notes No.2805 of ...)
Education, Culture and Sport
18. 2nd Conference of European Ministers responsible for cultural affairs (Athens, 24-27 October 1978) - Follow-up - (Concl(78)297/XIV, CM(79)...) (Notes No. 2806 of ...)
19. Possible organisation of a 3rd Joint Conference (Council of Europe/ European Conference of Ministers of Transport) on Road Safety Education in Schools - (Concl(79)298/XIX, CM(78)343, CM(79)...) (Notes No. 2807 of ...)
Local Authorities and the Environment
20. Conference of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE)
a. Textsadopted at the 13th Session and Assembly Opinion No. ... (Concl(78)297/XIV(a), CM(78)151, 166 and 205) (Notes No. 2808 of ...)
b. Membership of committees - (CM(78)346) (Notes No. 2809 of ...)
21. Ad hoc Committee on the Protection of Wildlife (CAHVS) - Draft Convention on the conservation of wildlife and natural habitats and explanatory report - (Add. to CM(78)347) (Notes No. 2810 of ...)
22. Ad hoc Committee of Experts to examine the Draft European Convention for the protection of international watercourses against pollution (CAHPP) - Meeting report (Strasbourg, 20-21 November, 1978) (CM(79)32) (Notes No. 2811 of ...)
Youth
23. prospects of intergovernmental co-operation in the youth field (Concl(78)291/XXX(b), CM(79)28 of 31.1.79) (Notes No. 2812 of ...)
24. European Youth Centre - Programme expenditure for 1979 - Apportionment between various sub-heads - (Concl(78)297/XXIII, CM(79)24) (Notes No. 2813 of ...) CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - a8 - Appendix II
Administrative Questions
25. Regulations on half-time work and leave for personal reasons - Opinion of the Co-ordinating Committee - (Concl(78)286/XXIX, CM(79)11) (Notes No. 2814 of ...)
26. Convening of committees - Interpretation of Articles 34, 35 and 36 of Resolution(76)3 - (Concl(78)295/XVI, Part 1) (Notes No. 2815 of 30.1.79)
27. Council of Europe Budgets - Assembly Opinion Nos. 88 and 89 (Concl(78)295/XVI and 297/XXIII, CM(79)7) (Notes No. 2816 of 30.1.79)
28. Staff Regulations of the Council of Europe - Hearing of the Chairman of the Staff Committee at the 291st meeting of the Ministers' Deputies - (Concl(79)298/XXVII, CM(78)291) (Notes No. 2817 of ...)
29. General review of the remuneration of the staff of the Co-ordinated Organisations - Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of Government Experts - (CM(79)...) (Notes No. 2818 of ...)
30. Preparation of forthcoming meetings (Notes No. 2819 of ...)
31. Other business
a. Dialogue with the Secretary General CONFIDENTIAL
- a9 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX III (item XIV)
RESOLUTION DH(79)1
HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATIONS NOS. 6780/74 and 6950/75
CYPRUS VERSUS TURKEY (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 1979 at the 298th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers,
Considering the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the Convention);
Having regard to the situation concerning the respect of human rights in the Republic of Cyprus;
Considering its decision of 21 October 1977 by which it
- had taken note of the report of the European Commission of Human Rights as well as of the memorial of the Turkish Government and found that events which occurred in Cyprus constitute violations of the Convention,
- had asked that measures be taken in order to put an end to such violations as might continue to occur and so that such events are not repeated,
- and consequently had urged the parties to resume intercommunal talks;
Considering with regret that this request had not been taken up by the parties concerned;
Having decided to resume consideration of the matter;
Convinced that the enduring protection of human rights in Cyprus can only be brought about through the re-establishment of peace and confidence between the two communities: and that intercommunal talks constitute the appropriate framework for reaching a solution of the dispute; CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - a10 - Appendix III
Decides strongly to urge the parties to resume intercommunal talks under the auspices of the Secretary General of the United Nations in order to agree upon solutions on all aspects of the dispute.
The Committee of Ministers views this decision as completing its consideration of the case Cyprus versus Turkey. The documentation will be declassified on 31 August 1979. CONFIDENTIAL
- a11 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX IV (item XXVII)
DECISION NO. CM/101/200179
Ad hoc terms of reference
1. Name of relevant committee: AD HOC COMMITTEE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERTS (CAHEA)
2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers
3. Completion date: 1979
4. Terms of reference:
To give an opinion, in the light of developments in the matter since it made known its initial reactions in its 6th Activity Report, on the question of the presence of representatives of the Staff Committee in its own meetings.
5. Other committee(s) to be informed of terms of reference: None CONFIDENTIAL
- a13 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX V (item XXIX(e))
DECISION NO. CM/100/180179
Ad hoc terms of reference
1. Name of committees: - STEERING COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH) - STEERING COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL AFFAIRS (CDAS) - STEERING COMMITTEE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY (CDSS) - SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAHRS) - COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL CO-OPERATION (CDCC)
2. Source of terms of reference: Committee of Ministers
3. Completion date: 30 June 1979
4. Terms of reference:
Having regard to the setting up of the CAHDH by Decision No. CM/99/131278, to continue considering the proposals made in pursuance of Decisions Nos. CM/67, 68, 69, 70 and 71/300678 and to make concrete proposals regarding possibilities for action in their particular sectors along the lines indicated in paragraph II of the operative part of the Declaration on Human Rights of 27 April 1978.
5. Other committee(s) to be informed of terms of reference: None. CONFIDENTIAL
- a15 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX VI (item XXVI)
LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Luxembourg, 15 January 1979
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your letter of 21 November 1978 concerning the renting of 50 extra offices on the 6th floor of the Palais de l'Europe. I should like to comment as follows on your proposal.
The European Parliament is in agreement as regards the area proposed and the 250 days to be taken into account when estimating service charges. I also see no objection to the fact that the lease should be terminated on the date on which the building to be constructed by the City of Strasbourg for our Institution becomes operational.
Furthermore, in my opinion, the budgetary authorities of the European Parliament will be able to agree to the annual rent of FF 295/m2; but I am sure that they will not accept the proposal that the rent should be geared to the increase in the index for building costs, particularly since the period proposed for the lease is extremely short.
I have similar reservations about the gearing of the flat rate for service charges, ie. FF 0.40/m2 per occupation day, to the increase in the cost of living. I trust that a formula providing for a possible review of these amounts, in accordance with the Agreement of 15 December 1977, will meet with your approval.
In the light of the foregoing comments, I have the honour to submit a draft supplementary agreement, which could be signed on the occasion of the January 1979 session in Strasbourg, if it meets with your agreement.
Please accept etc. ...
(signed) H.R. NORD CONFIDENTIEL CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - A16/a16 - Annexe VI
AVENANT N° 1
à l'Accord du 15 décembre 1977 réglementant l'usage des facilités d'ordre administratif consenties mutuellement entre le CONSEIL DE l'EUROPE et le PARLEMENT EUROPEEN
ARTICLE 1
Outre les facilités mentionnées dans l'accord du 15 décembre 1977, le CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE donne en location au PARLEMENT EUROPEEN, qui accepte, 50 bureaux permanents, d'une surface totale de 880 m2 (circulations comprises) situés au 6ème étage du Palais de l'Europe. La liste de ces bureaux est reprise en annexe I.
ARTICLE 2
La location débute au 1er novembre 1978 et se poursuit jusqu'à la date de mise à disposition du bâtiment que la Ville de Strasbourg doit réaliser pour les besoins du Parlement Européen.
ARTICLE 3
Le montant du loyer de ces locaux est forfaitairement fixé à 295 FF par m2 et par an.
Les charges locatives sont calculées sur un montant forfaitaire de 0,40 FF par m2 et par jour d'occupation, à raison de 250 jours par an. Ce montant pourra faire l'objet d'une adaptation à convenir d'un commun accord entre les deux Institutions.
ARTICLE 4
Au terme de la location et sur demande du Conseil de l'Europe, les locaux seront remis en leur état d'origine aux frais du Parlement Européen, si celui-ci a effectué des modifications.
Fait à Strasbourg, le 15 janvier 1979
Au nom du Secrétaire Général Au nom du Secrétaire Général du Parlement Européen du Conseil de l'Europe
(signé) Enrico VINCI S.HUNT Directeur Général de l'Administration, Directeur de l'Administration du Personnel et des Finances a.i. et des Finances CONFIDENTIAL
- a17 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX VII (item XXVII)
LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STAFF COMMITTEE TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MINISTERS' DEPUTIES, VIA THE SECRETARY GENERAL
17 January 1979
Subject: Staff Regulations of the Council of Europe Item XXVII on the agenda of the 298th meeting
Dear Mr. Breman,
The Staff Committee is pleased to see that the Committee of Ministers is intending to discuss, at its present meeting, a number of issues of fundamental importance to the staff (item XXVII).
The purpose of this letter is not to repeat in detail the policy and views of the Staff Committee on the points under discussion. These were made clear by my predecessor as Chairman, Mr. Harald Wendelbo, and Mr. Paul Mahoney, member of the Staff Committee, at the 291st meeting of the Deputies (Appendix XV, Concl(78)291).
However, I should like to underline the importance attached by the staff to:
- the abolition of the 45-year age limit for transfer from category B to category A;
the extension of the system of twinning of grades to not just C2/C3, B2/B3, LT2/LT3 and L13/LI4 as proposed in the Secretary General's paper (CM(78)291, para. 4) but also to other grades;
the severance of the grades of A2, A3 and A4 from posts, in order to increase promotion prospects; CONFIDENTIAL
CM/Del/Concl(79)298 - a18 - Appendix VII
- the improvement of the status of temporary staff and the gradual transformation of temporary posts into permanent posts, particularly when the occupants of such "temporary" posts have held them for a long time and are doing in many respects the same job as their more fortunate permanent brethren;
- the study of the implications and possibilities of a single salary scale for all categories of staff. It is essential that such a system should be the subject of adequate and detailed study before any decision is taken;
- the acceptance by the Committee of Ministers of the presence of Staff Committee representatives in all the discussions of the ad hoc Committee of Administrative Experts (CAHEA).
I should also like to remind you of the specific proposal made by Mr. Wendelbo, namely to establish a joint tripartite Working Party of the Committee of Ministers, the Administration and the Staff Committee to study the reform of the Secretariat's structures.
In conclusion, I would urge you, in all your deliberations on these questions, to have at heart the conviction that the well-being of our Organisation is synonymous with the well-being of its component parts and that its strength depends very much on a coherent, equitable staff management that not only respects but uses to the full the qualities, skills and legitimate career aspirations of all staff members.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Richard Hartley CONFIDENTIAL
- a19 - CM/Del/Concl(79)298
APPENDIX VIII
CORRIGENDA TO PREVIOUS CONCLUSIONS
297:
Introduction: replace the 2nd paragraph of the statement by the Representative of Switzerland by the following:
Ambassador Lüders had represented German values in their best and most authentic form. He had been distinguished by his politeness, his fair-mindedness, his sense of duty, his "Gründlichkeit" and his great qualities as a negotiator. All who had been present at the time would remember the masterly way in which he had chaired the 1975 budget discussions, guiding the proceedings as both a diplomat and an expert. It had been thanks to his patience and understanding that Resolution(76)3 had been adopted; and thanks to German initiative under the impulse of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Mr. Lüders that the exchanges of views on the CSCE and subsequently on the United Nations had been held. Mr. Lüders had also been in the difficult situation of having a Secretary General who was a compatriot of his alongside him almost through his time in Strasbourg. This could lead to delicate situations. The speaker was convinced that all present, the Secretary General included, had admired the attitude taken by Mr. Lüders and would retain a highly honourable memory. The Committee was sorry to see him go; it would remember him as a friend, a European and a great man. Both he and his wife would take the Committee's best wishes with them.
297/Appendix XI: Resolution(78)75 on the setting up of the Council of Europe Sports Fund on page a42 (English only) add under Article II, "Purpose", the following sub-paragraphs 3b. and 3c.: bo support individual or collective activities of European interest in the same sector in so far as such activities extend beyond the national framework; c. introduce, when financial resources permit, a policy of mutual aid in the sports sector on behalf of any member countries which desire it.
I 16.692