IT-TLETTAX-IL LEĠIŻLATURA
P.L. 6054
Dokument imqiegħed fuq il-Mejda tal-Kamra tad-Deputati fis-Seduta Numru 428 tas-16 ta’ Frar 2021 mill-Ispeaker, l-Onor. Anġlu Farrugia.
______Raymond Scicluna Skrivan tal-Kamra
COUNCIL OF EUROPE l&-Parliamentary Assembly ~~semblee parlementaire ~~~ ~ ;;§=::-- CONSEIL DE !.:EUROPE
DELEGATION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
January Session- 25 to 28 January 2021
The Assembly brings together 324 men and women from the parliaments of the Council of Europe's 47 member states. Though it contains many voices, reflecting political opinion across the continent, its mission is to uphold the shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule oflaw that are the "common heritage" of the peoples ofEurope. Though its texts are not binding, the Assembly speaks on behalfof 800 million Europeans and the 47 Council ofEurope governments must give a collective reply. It is the democratic conscience of Greater Europe. The Assembly initiates international treaties; it debates and adopts recommendations and provides guidelines for the Committee of Ministers, national governments and parliaments; elects the Secretary General, the Human Rights Commissioner and the judges to the European Court ofHuman Rights; it provides a democratic forum for debate and monitors elections; its committees play an important role in examining current issues.
The Assembly held its 2021 winter plenary session from January 25 to 28 in a hybrid manner, allowing members to participate remotely or attend in person in Strasbourg.
Members of the Maltese Delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - January 2021
Hon Emmanuel Mallia Head of Delegation Hon Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici Member with voting rights Hon Rosianne Cutaj ar Member with voting rights Hon Jason Azzopardi Substitute Member Hon Ian Castaldi Paris Substitute Member Hon Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi Substitute Member
For this session, Hon Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi voted as alternative to Hon Rosianne Cutajar.
Delegation Secr~tary: Ms Anna Schembri Coleiro
Assembly
• Adopting its final agenda at the opening of the 2021 winter plenary session (Annex A), the Assembly decided to hold current affairs debates on "The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021" and on "Freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) under threat by 'Big Tech' Companies".
• The Assembly debated the ethical, legal and practical considerations of COVID-19 vaccmes. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus addressed parliamentarians in the debate.
• Other topics on the agenda included ethnic profiling in Europe, restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States, and discrimination against persons dealing with chronic and long-term illnesses.
• The European Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders addressed the members of the Assembly and answered their questions, as did the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Gennany, Heiko Maas (withjn the framework of the German presidency of the Committee of Ministers) and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Marija PejCinovic Buric.
• Debates were also held on the independence of judges in Poland and in the Republic of Moldova (with the participation of Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, former Federal Minister of Justice of Ge1many), on the implementation of judgments of the European Cowt of Human Rights and on the progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedme.
Elections
During the January prut-session, four elections were held by individual electronic voting (A1mex B).
The Assembly elected the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe , the Secretary General of the Assembly and the judges to the European Cowt of Human Rjghts in respect of Greece and Switzerland. (Annexes C, D, E and F).
Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation (Annex G)
PACE has ratified the credentials of the Russian parliamentary delegation by a lru·ge majority after they were challenged on substantive grounds on the opening day of the session - but has deplored a number of"negative tendencies" in the country with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and called on Russia to fulfil all the recommendations made in a series of recent Assembly resolutions.
In a resolution based on a report by Stefan Sche1mach (Austria, SOC), the Assembly said it was committed to dialogue as a means of reaching lasting solutions and pointed out that it remained a platform where the Russian delegation could be "held accountable on the basis of the Council of Europe's values and principles". However, it also listed its concerns, citing:
* a constitutional provision enabling Russia's Constitutional Court to declare a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights as "non-executable"
* a new law which makes a solution to the Crimea issue, m line with international law, "virtually impossible" (the Assembly also made clear that ratification of the credentials "would in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, of the mmexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation").
* the "crackdown on civil society, extra-parliamentary opposition and critical joumalists, as well as restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on basic freedoms"
*restrictive amendments to laws on the activities ofNGOs and the media, the conduct of public events, and the protection of State security, as well as laws limiting the human rights ofLGBTI persons
* the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, and the lack of any meaningful investigation by the Russian authorities, as we11 as his recent arrest and detention in Moscow, and arrests and the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators supporting him.
The Assembly called for Mr Navalny's release, as well as that of peaceful demonstrators and supporters tmduly detained, and urged Russia to review a number of laws to bring them into line with Council of Europe standards. It also called for the COLmcil of Europe's School of Political Studies to be removed from the list of "undesirable organisations".
The Assembly said it "expects that its clear offer of a meaningful dialogue will be taken up so as to lead to tangible and concrete results".
The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (Committee on Rules of Procedure) was of the opinion that the proposal contained in the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) to ratify the credentials of the Russian parliamentary delegation (Doc. 15216) was in accordance with the Parliamentary Assembly's Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1). However, it had to be emphasised that by virtue of the obligation of States and international organisations under international law not to recognise the consequences of the illegal a1mexation of a territory, the ratification of the credentials of the Russian delegation by the Assembly would in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, ofthe annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.
Maltese Delegation voted in favour of this Resolution. (See Annex G). Texts adopted by the Assembly (Annex H)
Recommendations
Recommendation 2193 (2021) The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 15123 and addendum) Recommendation 2194 (2021) Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States (Doc. 15205)
Resolutions
Resolution 2357 (2021) Progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure (January-December 2020) (Doc. 15211 ) Resolution 2358 (2021) The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 15123 and addendum) Resolution 2359 (2021) Judges in Poland and in the Republic of Moldova must remain independent (Doc. 15204) Resolution 2360 (2021) Modification of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure- follow-up to Resolution 2319 (2020) on the Complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations (Doc. 15093) Resolution 2361 (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations (Doc. 15212) Resolution 2362 (2021) Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States (Doc. 15205) Resolution 2363 (2021) Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation (Doc. 15216) Resolution 2364 (2021) Ethnic profiling in Europe: a matter of great concern (Doc.15199)
Hon Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici Member
February 2021 Annexes to Report:
Annex A- Agenda of the First Part of the 2021 Ordinary Session Annex B-Results ofVotes of Electronic Elections Annex C - Election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe Annex D - Election of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Annex E - Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights - Greece Annex F - Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights - Switzerland Annex G - Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation • Report Doc 15216 • Resolution Doc 2363 • Committee Opinion Doc 15218 • Written Amendments Doc 15216 • Vote on Resolution Annex H - Texts Adopted by the Assembly ·t Parliamentary Assembly Assemblee parlementaire
~~~ s1i'W'ilJIIllil'I'Mj1fil1. L'rl·Wl!1J;Ut!JII:•IR!r!l•l:lll¥1illilin______CONSEIL DE t.:EUROPE
Doc. 15196 27 January 2021
First part of the 2021 Ordinary Session (25-28 January 2021)
Agenda1
Part-session held in a hybrid manner.
1. Adopted by the Assembly on 25 January 2021. F- 67075 Strasbourg Cedex l [email protected] - Abbreviations
Bur: Bureau of the Assembly Per: Standing Committee Pol: Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy Jur: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Soc: Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development Mig: Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons Cult: Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media Ega: Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Man: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Pro: Committee on Ru les of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs Cdh: Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights
SOC: Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group EPP/CD: Group of the European People's Party ALOE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe EC/DA: European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance UEL: Group of the Unified European Left NR: Members not belonging to a political group
Symbols
0 Presentation, statement C9 Deadline for tabling documents iJ Lists (speakers, questions) ld Votes
Meetings outside the Chamber
Bureau Friday 22 January: 09 :30-13:00 Monday 1st February: 09 :30-13:00
Committees Monday: 14:30-16:00 Tuesday: 14:00-15:30 Wednesday: 14:00-1 5:30 Thursday: 08 :30-09:00
Political groups Monday: 09:00-11:00 Wednesday: 08:30-10:00
I.
2 Monday 25 January 2021
Sitting No. 1 (11:30-13:30)
1. Opening of the part-session 1.1. Examination of the credentials LJ List of delegations: o (Doc. 15215) 1.2. Election of the President of the Assembly (AS/Inf (2021) 03) 1.3. Election of the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly (AS/Inf (2021) 01) 1.4. Appointment of members of committees (Commissions (2021) 01 + Add. 1) 1.5. Requests for debate: 1.5.1. Urgent procedure debate: "The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021"
1.5.2. Urgent procedure debate: "The worsening situation in Belarus"
1.5.3. Current affairs debate: "Prohibition of the Russian and other national minorities languages in Ukraine"
1.5.4. Current affairs debate: "Unjustifiable delay in repatriation of the Armenian prisoners of war and other captives by Azerbaijani authorities as violation of the European International Human Rights Standards"
1.5.5. Current affairs debate: "The actual human rights situation in temporary occupied Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol during Covid-19 pandemics"
1.5.6. Current affairs debate: "The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021"
1.5. 7. Current affairs debate: "Freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) under threat by "Big Tech" Companies"
1.6. Adoption of the agenda 1.7. Approval of the minutes of the Standing Committee (Strasbourg, 4 December 2020) (AS/Per (2020) PV 08)
2. Debate 2.1. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee LJ Presentation by: o Mr lan LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom, EC/DA), Rapporteur AS/Bur (Doc. 15213, Doc. 15213 Add. 1, Doc. 15213 Add. 2) 2.2. Observation of the parliamentary elections in Georgia (31 October 2020) LJ Presentation by: o Mr Tiny KOX (Netherlands, UEL), Rapporteur (Doc. 15210) I List of speakers (deadline for registration: Sunday 24 January, 11 :30)
Sitting No.2 (16:00-19:30)
3. Address (16:00-17:00) 3.1. Communication from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe L:J Presentation by: o Ms Marija PEJCINOVIC BURIC, Secretary General of the Council of Europe iJ Questions (deadline for registration: Sunday 24 January, 16:00)
3 4. Debate 4.1. The progress of the Assembly's monitoring procedure (January-December 2020) 0 Presentation by: o Mr Michael Aastrup JENSEN (Denmark, ALDE), Rapporteur AS/Mon (Doc. 15211 ) I List of speakers (deadline for registration: Sunday 24 January, 16:00) <9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Thursday 21 January, 16:00) g Vote on a draft resolution (Doc. 15211)
4 Tuesday 26 January 2021
Sitting No. 3 (09:00-13:00)
5. Elections (by individual electronic voting) (09:00-15:00) 5.1. Judges to the European Court of Human Rights L.J List of candidates in respect of: o Greece (Doc. 15187, Doc. 15213 Add. 2) o Switzerland (Doc. 15153, Doc. 15213 Add. 2) 5.2. Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe 0 List of candidates: o (Doc. 15198) 5.3. Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly 0 List of candidates: o (Doc. 15197)
6. Debate 6.1. The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 0 Presentation by: o Mr Constantinos EFSTATHIOU (Cyprus, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Jur (Doc. 15123, Doc. 15123 Add.) ID List of speakers (deadline for registration: Monday 25 January, 09:00) <9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Friday 22 January, 09:00) Q. Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 15123)
7. Debate 7.1. Judges in Poland and in the Republic of Moldova must remain independent 0 Presentation by: o Mr Andrea ORLANDO (Italy, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Jur (Doc. 15204) 0 Statement by: o Ms Sabine LEUTHEUSSER-SCHNARRENBERGER, Former Federal Minister of Justice of Germany illJl List of speakers (deadline for registration: Monday 25 January, 09:00) (9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Friday 22 January, 09:00) Q, Vote on a draft resolution (Doc. 15204)
Sitting No.4 (16:00-19:30)
8. Address (16:00-17:00) 8.1. Communication from the Committee of Ministers 0 Presentation by: o Mr Heiko MAAS, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Germany, Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe L.J Parliamentary question: o (Doc. 15214) lilJ Questions (deadline for registration: Monday 25 January, 16:00)
9. Address (17:00-18:00) 9.1. Mr Didier REYNDERS, European Commissioner for Justice lilJ Questions (deadline for registration: Monday 25 January, 16:00)
5 10. Debate 10.1. Modification of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure- follow-up to Resolution 2319 (2020) on the Complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations 0 Presentation by: o Sir Edward LEIGH (United Kingdom, EC/DA), Rapporteur AS/Pro (Doc. 15093) 1iJ List of speakers (deadline for registration: Monday 25 January, 16:00) (9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Monday 25 January, 16:00) fd Vote on a draft resolution (Doc. 15093)
! I
6 Wednesday 27 January 2021
Sitting No. 5 (10:00-13:00)
11. Debate 11.1. Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations 0 Presentation by: o Ms Jennifer DE TEMMERMAN (France, ALOE), Rapporteur AS/Soc (Doc. 15212) 0 Statement by: o Mr Tedros ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS, Director-General of the World Health Organization 1iJ1 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Tuesday 26 January, 10 :00) (9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Monday 25 January, 10:00) g Vote on a draft resolution (Doc. 15212)
Sitting No. 6 (16:00-19:30)
12. Current affairs debate 12.1 . The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021 1iiJ1 List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 27 January, 09:00)
13. Debate 13.1. Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States 0 Presentation by: o Ms Alexandra LOUIS (France, ALOE), Rapporteur AS/Jur (Doc. 15205) !!ll List of speakers (deadline for registration: Tuesday 26 January, 16:00) (9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Monday 25 January, 16:00) g Votes on a draft resolution and a draft recommendation (Doc. 15205)
7 Thursday 28 January 2021
Sitting No. 7 (09:00-13:00)
14. Debate 14.1. Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation LJ Presentation by: o Mr Stefan SCHENNACH (Austria, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Man (Doc. 15216) o Ms lngjerd SCHOU (Norway, EPP/CD), Rapporteur for opinion AS/Pro (Doc. 15218} II List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 27 January, 09:00) (9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Wednesday 27 January, 16:00) Q, Vote on a draft resolution (Doc. 15216}
15. Current affairs debate 15.1. Freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) under threat by "Big Tech" Companies iJ List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 27 January, 09:00)
16. Debate 16.1 . Ethnic profiling in Europe: a matter of great concern 0 Presentation by: o Mr Boriss CILEVICS (Latvia, SOC), Rapporteur AS/Ega (Doc. 15199) i1JJ List of speakers (deadline for registration: Wednesday 27 January, 09:00) (9 Amendments (deadline for tabling: Tuesday 26 January, 09:00) Q, Vote on a draft resolution (Doc. 15199)
17. Constitution of the Standing Committee 17.1. Appointment of the members of the Standing Committee (Commissions (2021) 02)
18. Closure of the part-session
8 Electronic Elections on January 2021
ELECTIONS (BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTRONIC VOTING) 1!![ RESULTS OF VOTES
Election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Greece
• Members voting: 300 • Spoilt or blank ballot(s): 24 • Votes cast: 276 • Votes for absolute majority: 139
The votes were cast as follows:
• Mr loannis Ktistakis: 145 • Ms Photini Pazartzis: 89 • Mr Michail Pikramenos: 42
Mr Ktistakis, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years which shall commence no later than three months after her/his election.
A) JUDGES TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN Election of a Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in RIGHTS respect of Switzerland
List of candidates in respect of: • Members voting: 300
• Greece: Communication I Doc. 15187 • Spoilt or blank ballot(s): 22 • Switzerland: Communication I Doc. 15153 • Votes cast: 278 • Votes for absolute majority: 140
The votes were cast as follows: B) DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE • Ms Marianne RYTER: 63 • Mr Nicolas VON WERDT: 48 List of candidates: Communication I Doc. 15198 ...... ~· · · ...... ······-·"·-"'' • Mr Andreas ZUND: 167
Mr Zund, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is C) SECRETARY GENERAL OF T HE PARLIAMENTARY elected a judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of ASSEMBLY office of nine years which shall commence no later than th ree months after her/his election. List of candidates: Communication I Doc. 15197 ...... ~ ...... -·····.
Election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe
• Members voting: 300 • Spoilt or blank ballot(s): 3 • Votes cast: 297 • Votes for absolute majority: 149
The votes were cast as follows:
• Mr Bj0rn Berge: 185 • Ms Leyla Kayacik: 112
Mr Berge, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe for a term of office of five years starting on 1 March 2021 and ending on 28 ~ February 2026. 1 Electio n of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe • Members voting: 300 • Spoilt or blank ballot(s): 0 • Votes cast: 300 • Votes for absolute majority: 151
The votes were cast as follows:
• Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis: 240 • Mr Wojciech Sawicki: 60
Ms Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis, having obtained an absolute majority of votes cast, is elected Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for a term of office of five years starting on 1 March 202 1 and ending on 28 February 2026. Doc. 15198 14 December 2020
Election of the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Communication Committee of Ministers
Contents:
I. Letter from the Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies to the President of the Assembly dated 29 June 2020 ...... 2
II. Resolution CM/Res(2020)4 on the appointment of the Deputy Secretary General ...... 2
III. Candidatures: - Candidature of Mr Bjørn Berge (Norway) ...... 3 - Candidature of Ms Leyla Kayacik (Turkey) ...... 7
F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] 1 | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33 Doc. 15198
I. Letter from the Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly dated 29 June 2020
…
I have the honor to transmit herewith Resolution CM/Res(2020)4 on the appointment to the post of Deputy Secretary General, which the Committee of Ministers adopted on 26 June 2020.
…
Signed: Panos Beglitis, Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies
II. Resolution CM/Res(2020)4 on the appointment of the Deputy Secretary General (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 June 2020 at the 1379bis meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 36.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,
Having regard to the Regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly having the rank of Deputy Secretary General;
Having regard to the competence framework agreed with the Parliamentary Assembly in 2012;
Having examined the nine candidatures presented by the Governments of Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom;
Having interviewed the candidates at the present meeting (23 and 24 June 2020);
Decided to submit to the Parliamentary Assembly, for appointment to the post of Deputy Secretary General, the following candidatures, listed in alphabetical order, with the names of the sponsoring governments in brackets:
- Mr Bjørn Berge (Norway); - Mrs Leyla Kayacik (Turkey).
2 Doc. 15198
III. Candidature of Mr Bjørn Berge
On 22 January 2020, the Ministers’ Deputies (at their 1365th meeting, item 1.6) adopted the timetable for the election procedure of the Deputy Secretary General. The closing date for the submission of candidates was fixed at 2 March 2020.
By letter dated 17 February 2020, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway informed the Secretary General that the Norwegian government proposed the candidature of Mr Bjørn Berge for the post of Deputy Secretary General [see hereinafter].
On 18 February 2020, the Secretary General forwarded this candidature to the Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies [see hereinafter].
3 Doc. 15198
$oumd o/ gWMJjte 0'k J eordcwy Y~/W'JCa/
Strasbourg, 18 February 2020
Dear President,
In accordance with the Regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, I hereby forward to you the letter from the Norwegian authorities proposing the candidature of Mr Bj0rn Magnus Berge for the post of Deputy Secretary General.
Furthermore, I confirm that I have been consulted beforehand about this proposal and given my assent.
Yours sincerely,
Ambassador lrakli Giviashvili President of the Ministers' Deputies Permanent Representative of Georgia to the Council of Europe
.~- 67(17.5 ./tmJbO .~..... + .1.1 (o).J ll84t .t7.9.9 + .u (o).J 81l4t n 40 4 Doc. 15198 ROYAl NORWEG IAN MDIISTRY OF FOREIG N AF FAIRS Oslo.l7 February 2020 I r~ fcr to the 1365'" mcctirog ufth~ Miniscers· r>eputies on 22 January 2020. and the ndopcion of a timetable for the prn Mr Hcrgc is highly qualifled for this pusition. and he has ex!cttsive «reri.:nct: thut would be ui particular relcvoncc tO the Council's (lngoing re!bn11 pmccss. Plea~e fiud his curriculum vitae enclosed (in English and french). Yours sincerely lne Eriksen Smcidc HE Ms Marija P.:ji:inovir [!uric S..'Cret:!ry (;,ern! Council of Europe Strasbourg 5 Doc. 15198 Curriculum Vitae Bjorn Berge Born on 17 December 1963. Married, four children Work experience February 2017- Director General and Secretary to the Committee of Ministers Council of Europe (Strasbourg, France) 2009 -2017 Director Private Office of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General Council of Europe (Strasbourg, France) 2008-2009 Ambassador Head of Election Campaign of Norwegian Candidate to the post of Secretary General of the Council of Europe (Oslo, Norway) 2008 Senior Adviser Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Oslo, Norway) 2004-2008 Minister Counselor Head of Section for Media and Culture Royal Norwegian Embassy (Stockholm, Sweden) 2002-2004 Senior Adviser Department for International Affairs Office of the Prime Minister (Oslo, Norway) 2000-2002 Deputy Director and Speechwriter Secretariat of the Foreign Minister Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Oslo, Norway) 1998-2000 Senior Adviser OSCE Chairmanship Unit Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Oslo, Norway) 1995-1998 First Secretary Norwegian Delegation to the OSCE (Vienna, Austria) 1992-1995 Second Secretary Royal Norwegian Embassy (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 1990-1992 Adviser / Foreign Service Training Program Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Oslo, Norway) Education 1988-1990 M.A. International Relations / Fulbright Scholar The Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Johns Hopkins University (Washington D.C., USA) 1986-1987 Certificate, Chinese Language and Culture Studies Chengdu University of Science and Technology (Chengdu, Sichuan, PRC) 1984-1986 B.A. International Relations / Summa cum laude Concordia College (Moorhead, Minnesota, USA) Publications Several books and articles, primarily on speeches and speech-writing 6 Doc. 15198 III. Candidature of Ms Leyla Kayacik On 22 January 2020, the Ministers’ Deputies (at their 1365th meeting, item 1.6) adopted the timetable for the election procedure of the Deputy Secretary General. The closing date for the submission of candidates was fixed at 2 March 2020. By letter dated 7 February 2020, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey informed the Secretary General that the Turkish government proposed the candidature of Mrs Leyla Kayacik for the post of Deputy Secretary General [see hereinafter]. On 13 February 2020, the Secretary General forwarded this candidature to the Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies [see hereinafter]. 7 Doc. 15198 Strasbourg, 13 February 2020 Dear President, In accordance with the Regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, I hereby forward to you the letter from the Turkish authorities proposing the candidature of Ms Leyla Kayacik for the post of Deputy Secretary General. Furthermore, I confirm that I have been consulted beforehand about this proposal and given my assent. Yours sincerely, ~~~ Marija Pej«3inovic Buric I Ambassador lrakli Giviashvili President of the Ministers' Deputies Permanent Representative of Georgia to the Council of Europe qf_ 67075.H~ S?;;,., .. + .'!.'! (o):J 88 4127.9.9 + .'!.'! (o) .'! 88 41 27 40 8 Doc. 15198 c~ Ankara, 7 February 2020 I have the honour to present herewith. on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the candidature of Ms Leyla Kayac1k for the post of Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in accordance with the relevant Regulations of the Committee o f Ministers. and the decision adopted by the Ministers' Deputies on January 22"d, 2020. Throughout her 30-year career in various departments of the Council of Europe, Ms Kayac1k has acquired a wide experience and knowledge of the Organisation. including of its internal management. In view of her personal and professional skills as well as her dedication to the values of the Organisation, it is our firm belief that Ms Kayac1k has all the required qualifications to fulfil the post of the Deputy Secretary General as outlined in the framework of competence established by the Committee of Ministers. Further details on her personal and professional skills are enclosed herewith. Turkey is pleased to present its first ever candidate to this important position as a clear signal of its commitment to this pan-European organisation. I avail myself of this opportunity. Madame Secretary General, to renew the assurances of my highest consideration. Encl: As stated H.E. Ms Marija Pcjcinovic Buric Secretary General of the Council of Europe 9 Doc. 15198 Leyla Kayacik PERSONAL INFORMATION Born on 4 January 1959 in Ankara (Turkey). Married, two children PROFESSIONAL CAREER 2019 Deputy Secretary to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe 2017 Head of the Private Office of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General 2015 Senior Adviser to the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General 2008 Adviser to the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General 2004 Head of the Council of Europe Programme Office in Ankara 2003 Deputy Executive Secretary of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) 1994 Member of the Secretariat of the European Social Charter Department 1989 Member of the Secretariat of the then European Commission of Human Rights EDUCATION 1993 Law Degree at the University of Strasbourg 1988 Degree in English language and literature at the University of Nice LANGUAGES Fluent in Turkish, French and English 10 Doc. 15198 Biography Ms Leyla Kayacik is an experienced, long-time member of the Secretariat. She joined the Council of Europe in 1989 as a member of the Secretariat of the former European Commission of Human Rights. In that role, she also took part in the first fact-finding missions to Turkey within the scope of individual applications. From 1994 to 2004, she served - first as a lawyer then as Deputy Executive Secretary - in the Secretariat of the European Social Charter, a Council of Europe Treaty guaranteeing social rights. In 2004, she opened the first Council of Europe Programme Office in Ankara and was Head of the Office until 2008. She actively contributed to the implementation of joint Council of Europe – European Union programmes related to judiciary and penitentiary reforms. This post enabled her to develop her capacity to have a constructive dialogue with different stakeholders at all levels. She also negotiated and managed the budgetary aspects of these programmes. In 2008, she was appointed Adviser to the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe on matters related to human rights and the rule of law, with a special focus on the European Court of Human Rights. In 2015, she became Senior Adviser to the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General. During that appointment, she had the opportunity to focus on monitoring country specific legal and human rights-related activities. She equally gained valuable experience through her active contributions to the reform process of the Organisation. In February 2017, she was appointed Director of the Private Office. She played a key role in important political and strategic decisions for the Organisation. This posting also proved very valuable in developing high-level contacts with national authorities, successive Presidents of the Parliamentary Assembly, parliamentarians, civil society and representatives of other international organisations, especially with the European Union. It also enabled her to consolidate her experience in the internal management of the Organisation, including budgetary and staff matters. She entertained an open and constructive communication with the Staff Committee. After an 11-year career in the Private Office of the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General, Ms Kayacik joined the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in September 2019, as Deputy Secretary to the Committee. Throughout her career and particularly in recent years, Ms Kayacik became experienced and adept at engaging with a range of stakeholders in order to forge consensus and take decisions as required, even on the most contentious of issues. Ms Kayacik studied English language and literature at the University of Nice followed by a Master’s degree in Law at the University of Strasbourg. She is fluent in Turkish, French and English. She is married with two children. 11 Doc. 15197 14 December 2020 Election of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Communication Committee of Ministers Contents: I. Letter from the Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly dated 9 July 2020 ...... 2 II. Resolution CM/Res(2020)7 on the appointment to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly ...... 2 III. Candidatures: - Candidature of Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis ...... 3 - Candidature of Mr Wojciech Sawicki...... 10 F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] 1 | Tel: + 33 3 88 41 2000 | Fax: +33 3 88 41 27 33 Doc. 15197 I. Letter from the Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly dated 9 July 2020 [non-official translation] … I have the honour to refer to the procedure for appointment to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly and to inform you that the Ministers' Deputies adopted, at their 1380bis meeting on 8 July 2020, the attached Resolution transmitting to the Assembly the following candidatures in alphabetical order: - Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis; - Mr Wojciech Sawicki. … II. Resolution CM/Res(2020)7 on the appointment to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 July 2020 at the 1380bis meeting of the Ministers' Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the Regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General of the Assembly having the rank of Deputy Secretary General, Having taken note of the letters addressed to the Secretary General by nine representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly and by the Government of Poland, proposing the election of Mr Wojciech Sawicki as Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly; Having taken note of the letters addressed to the Secretary General by ten representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly and by the Government of Greece, proposing the election of Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis as Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly; Having interviewed the two candidates; Having consulted the representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly in the Joint Committee on 25 June 2020, Decides to submit to the Parliamentary Assembly, for appointment to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, for a five-year term starting on 1 February 2021, the following candidatures in alphabetical order: - Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis; - Mr Wojciech Sawicki. 2 Doc. 15197 III. Candidature of Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis On 11 March 2020, the Ministers’ Deputies (at their 1370th meeting of the Deputies, item 1.7) adopted the timetable concerning the procedure for the election of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. In that timetable 4 May 2020 was fixed as the closing date for the submission of candidates and 10 June 2020 (1378th meeting of the Deputies) was fixed as the date for the preliminary examination of candidatures by the Deputies. On 4 May 2020, the Secretary General forwarded to the Committee of Ministers the candidature of Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis, the current Head of Secretariat of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy of the Parliamentary Assembly. The Secretary General appended to that communication a copy of the letters addressed to her between 16 March and 29 April 2020 by the following members of the Assembly (in alphabetical order) in which they proposed the candidature of Ms Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis: [see below]. The same day, the Secretary General forwarded the letter of 4 May 2020 signed by Mr Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Alternate Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Hellenic Republic, submitting, on behalf of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, the candidature of Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis for the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. She also forwarded the letter, attached to the letter of Minister Varvitsiotis and signed by Ms Dora Bakoyannis, offering support to this candidature on behalf of the Greek delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly [see hereinafter]. Dear Secretary General, In accordance with the Regulations relating inter alia to the appointment of the Secretary General of the Assembly, we would like to propose Ms Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis, currently Head of the Secretariat of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy of the Parliamentary Assembly, to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. You will find appended her curriculum vitae. We would be most grateful if you could forward this proposal to the Committee of Ministers for preliminary examination and subsequent consideration, on the occasion of the consultation with the Assembly in the Joint Committee, in accordance with the timetable for the procedure for the election of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 March 2020. … Signed: - Ms Rósa Björk Brynjólfsdóttir, GUE, Iceland - Mr Titus Corlăţean, SOC, Romania - Dame Cheryl Gillan, EC/DA, United Kingdom - Mr Alvise Maniero, NR, Italy - Baroness Doreen Massey, SOC, United Kingdom - Mr Andreas Nick, EPP/CD, Germany - Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten, EPP/CD, Netherlands - Mr Franck Schwabe, SOC, Germany - Mr Davor Ivo Stier, EPP/CD, Croatia - Ms Nicole Trisse, ADLE, France 3 Doc. 15197 H ELLENIC REBUBLIC MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS THE ALTERNATE MINISTER Athens, 4 May 2020 I have the pleasure to submit to you, on behalf of the Government of the Hellenic Republic, the candidacy of Dr. Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis for the position of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 1.a.i. of the Regulations. Dr.Chat1.ivassillou-Tsovilis has demonstrated, throughout her 27 year-long career at the Council of Europe, that she possesses the qualities, integrity and sound judgement, required for the position of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. For the past 21 years, she has been working with Parliamentarians from all over Europe, having served in several positions in the Parliamentary Assembly, notably as Head of the Secretariat of the Po litical Affairs and Democracy Committee and Acting Head of the Monitoring Committee. She is well-versed in the Assembly's working methods and has a profound understanding of the full scope of the Organisation's activities and its structures. Mrs. Marija Pejcinovic-Buric Secre~ary General of the Council of Europe 4 Doc. 15197 Having served, myself, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly for many years, I have had a first-hand experience of her professional and interpersonal qualities, as well as her leadership skills, including her ability to consolidate different views in a very constructive way. It is thanks to these qualities that the Greek Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is supporting her candidacy. I attach, herewith, the letter addressed to you, on behalf of the Greek Delegation, by its Chairwoman, Mrs Dora Bakoyannis. I am convinced that Dr. Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis has all the qualities that make her an outstanding candidate for the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, from where she will have the opportunity to further promote our common values and ideals. I would be grateful if you could forward her candidacy to the Committee of Ministers, for further consideration. Please accept, dear Secretary General, the assurances of my highest consideration. Miltiadis Varvitsiotis 5 Doc. 15197 DORA BAKOY ANNIS MEMBER OF THE HELLENIC PARLIAMENT - NEA DEMOKRA TIA Marija Pejcinovié Burié Secretary General Council of Emope Athens, April 23rd, 2020 Dear Madame Secreta,y General, On behalf of the Greek delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Emope, I would like to, hereby, offer our support to the candidacy of Dr. Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis for the position of Secretary General of the Parliamenta.ry Assembly. Dr. Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis has dedicated her ca.reer, of almost 30 years, to the Council of Europe and the Parliamenta.ry Assembly. She possesses deep knowledge and expe11ise in the workings of the Assembly and of its committees, having served in sensitive positions for many years. Her understanding of political, legal, and administrative issues, which lie in the very core of the Parliamentary Assembly's work, are complimented by her emotional intelligence and ability to form strong ties of ttust and cooperation with parliamentarians, stakeholders and colleagues. Ali the above knowledge, skills and competences are concentrated in the candidacy of a strong, dedicated and talented woman that is Ms. Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis. Her adherence and belief to the ideals of democracy, pa.rliamentarism and human rights, to which she has dedicated her life, are an inspiration, and reflect the qualities a Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly should possess. In these troubling past few months, where the entire world is suffering, the need for strong leaders that will bring us together has become paramount. 6 Doc. 15197 Dr. Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis reflects such a strong, female leader, and to that end, the entire Greek delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Emope offers its suppo11 for her candidacy. Sincerely, Dora Bakoyannis Chairwoman Greek Delegation to PACE Approved by the Members of the Greek Delegation Stylianidis Evripidis, Representative, EPP/CD Pipili Fotini, Representative, EPP/CD Kairidis Dimitris, Representative, EPP/ CD Kasimati Nina, Representative, EPP/CD Katrougalos Georgios, Representative, UEL Papandreou Georgios, Representative, SOC COE Rousopoulos Theodoros, Representative, EPP/CD Chatzivasileiou Anastasios, Representative EPP/CD Famelos Sokratis, Representative, UEL Triantafyllidis Alexandros, Representative, UEL Kanelli Liana, Representative, UEL 7 Doc. 15197 Despina CHATZIVASSILIOU-TSOVILIS Head of Secretariat — Political Affairs and Democracy Committee Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Dr Despina Chatzivassiliou-Tsovilis has a total of 27 years of professional experience in the Council of Europe. She has worked for 21 years with and for parliamentarians from all over Europe in thebParliamentary Assembly. During the blast 12 years, she has led thebSecretariats of the Monitoring and then Political Affairs and Democracy committees. She provided advice to four successive Secretaries General of the Assembly, numerous committee Chairpersons and Presidents of thebAssembly. CURRICULUM VITAE She has also acquired solid experience in intergovernmental Born in Athens, Greece, co-operation having worked for the Committee of Ministers monitoring on 28 February 1967 procedure at thebDirectorate of Strategic Planning (DSP). Along with strong Married, two children team management skills, she developed her experience in human resources management as Human Resources Correspondent for the whole DSP. [email protected] She is a Doctor in law, holding a PhD on the European Convention of +33 608099346 Human Rights from the European University Institute (EUI, Florence, Italy). She started her career at the European Commission of Human Rights. LANGUAGES She is of Greek nationality. ENGLISH: fl uent FRENCH: fl uent ITALIAN: fl uent MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS GREEK: mother tongue Political and legal experience CAREER Contributing to the Organisation’s enlargement and monitoring function IN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE contributed to the defi nition of accession criteria for new member States; PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY played an active role in the accession of six member States, having assisted Political Affairs and Democracy the “eminent lawyers” (former judges of the European Court of Human Committee Rights) and/or the rapporteurs of the Political and Legal committees to • Head of the Secretariat prepare respectively pre-accession legal reports or accession opinions. (2010-present) In this, sheb put to the disposal of the Parliamentary Assembly her legal • Secretary of the Ad hoc Committee experience and knowledge of the European Convention of Human Rights of the Bureau of the Assembly on the (ECHR) as well as her strong negotiation skills and political fl air; Role and Mission of the Assembly contributed to the development of (fi rst half of 2018) the Assembly’s monitoring mechanism to accompany reforms in new member States and verify the implementation • Co-Secretary (1994-1995) of accession commitments which led to the creation of the Monitoring Monitoring Committee Committee in 1997; she assisted rapporteurs in charge of monitoring • Secretary and, as of January 2008, with respect to 14 member States and participated in numerous election Acting Head of the Secretariat observation missions; (2006-2009) • Co-secretary (1997-2000) as Deputy and Acting Head of the Monitoring Department at the Directorate of Strategic Planning, she contributed to developing country specifi c monitoring Legal Affairs Committee within the Committee of Ministers, linked to intergovernmental co-operation • Co-Secretary (1996- 1997) programmes and activities. INTERGOVERNMENTAL SECTOR Handling politically sensitive and complex fi les Monitoring Department provided appropriate advice and support to parliamentarians handling with Directorate of Strategic Planning skill, impartiality and discretion politically sensitive and complex fi les and • Deputy and, as of April 2005, Acting Head, responsible for the issues such as crises and confl ict situations in and between member States, monitoring procedure of the including frozen confl icts; Committee of Ministers (2000-2006) assisted parliamentarians to identify priorities for the Assembly, enhance • Human Resources Correspondent its role and mission as the Council of Europe’s political engine, streamline for the Directorate its action, improve synergies with the Committee of Ministers and thus EUROPEAN COMMISSION strengthen its relevance for the benefi t of citizens and member States; OF HUMAN RIGHTS contributed recently (April 2019-January 2020) to the defi nition of • Lawyer (Sept. 1993- Febr. 1994) a bcomplementary joint procedure by the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, in case of violations by member States of their statutory obligations. 8 Doc. 15197 Preparing responses to democratic challenges in Europe contributed to setting up the , having assisted PREVIOUS WORK EXPERIENCE World Forum of Democracy the rapporteur and in close co-operation with the intergovernmental sector • European University Institute (EUI), in promoting the role of the Council of Europe as a global reference on Florence, Italy: Research Assistant Democracy and coordinating the Assembly participation in the fi rst editions; for Professor Antonio Cassese, former President of the CPT and of assisted parliamentarians to identify good practice on electoral matters, the International Criminal Tribunal based also on the fi ndings of the Assembly’s election observation missions, for the former Yugoslavia (1992- and make proposals which fed into the work of the Venice Commission 1993) and follow-up conferences i.a. on the abuse of administrative resources; • Law fi rm A.Chiotellis-I.Yannidis, theb updating of the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice on Athens, Greece: trainee lawyer Referendums is another example of follow-up; (1988-1989); as of 1994, member of the Athens Bar Association. contributed to the Assembly’s endorsement of the initiative by youth activists • Criminal Law Review, Poenika to make 22 July the European Day for Victims of Hate Crime through her work Chronika, Athens, Greece: member of on counteracting neo-Nazism. the editorial board (1986-1993) • Apollonion Musical School: External relations professor of classical guitar (1984- assisted rapporteurs in promoting stronger Council of Europe — European 1988) Union partnership in the aftermath of the Lisbon treaty, including EU accession to the ECHR; EDUCATION provided assistance to the Assembly — European Parliament Joint Informal Body which in 2011 agreed on arrangements regarding the European DOCTOR JURIS Parliament’s participation in the election of judges to the European Court of • EUI, Florence, Italy - PhD thesis Human Rights following EU accession to the ECHR; on “Pre-trial Deprivation of Liberty under the European Convention on put in place streamlined co-operation between the Assembly and the OECD, Human Rights: a critical analysis of ensuring the Assembly’s participation in the OECD Global Parliamentary the Strasbourg case-law”, under the Network as an institutional partner, thus strengthening synergies and supervision of Professor Antonio enhancing the parliamentary dimension of the co-operation; Cassese and Professor Stefan Trechsel, graduated with Honors contributed to the implementation of the Assembly’s neighbourhood policy (summa cum laude) in 1994 by assisting parliamentarians to promote Partnership for Democracy status or following four years of research ad hoc cooperation with parliaments from neighbouring regions, accession to fellowship Council of Europe conventions, co-operation with the Venice Commission and LAW DEGREE the North-South Centre and thus adherence beyond its borders to standards • Law School, University of Athens, and values upheld by the Council of Europe, including in the area of gender graduated with Honors (top of the equality; year) in 1988 co-organised several regional conferences, meetings and visits, most SECONDARY EDUCATION recently in Dubrovnik, bringing together parliamentarians and experts from • Scuola Italiana d’Atene and Anavrita the Middle East, the Southern coast of the Mediterranean and the Council of Europe. MAIN PUBLICATIONS Institutional experience and working together • Together with Heinrich Klebes put to the benefi t of the Assembly her broad knowledge of the Organisation Problèmes d’ordre constitutionnel and in particular: initiated and promoted the co-operation between dans le processus d’adhésion d’États theb Assembly and the Venice Commission; developed synergies with de l’Europe centrale et orientale au Conseil de l’Europe, Revue thebCommissioner for Human Rights and other monitoring bodies, and drew universelle des droits de l’homme examples from the Court’s case-law to substantiate the political positions 1996, Vol. 8 N° 8-9, pp. 269-286. of rapporteurs; • L’adhésion de la Russie au Conseil de initiated the practice of complementing Assembly monitoring reports l’Europe, « Le Conseil de l’Europe with recommendations to the Committee of Ministers proposing concrete acteur de la recomposition de assistance and co-operation activities for the countries concerned thus l’Europe », Cahiers de l’Espace Europe 1997, N° 10, pp. 27-60. linking Assembly and intergovernmental action; • Effectiveness of judicial remedies: provided advice and guidance to the President of the Assembly as secretary to an analysis of the case-law of the the Adbhoc Committee of the Bureau on the Role and Mission of the Assembly European Court of Human Rights which, in the fi rst half of 2018, brought together Chairpersons of all national under Articles 5 and 6, ERA-Forum delegations, political groups and committees and helped him reach consensus 4/2004, Academy of European Law on a report summarising proposals for future Assembly action; (ERA), Trier. forged close working relationships of trust with MPs, including Assembly Presidents and committees’ Chairpersons, from different political cultures and traditions, thanks to her interpersonal skills and human approach; demonstrated her strong resilience capacity and managerial skills in leading and motivating teams, both in the Assembly and in the intergovernmental sector, even in situations of acute pressure; developed human resources management experience through special training and as Human Resources Correspondent for the whole Directorate of Strategic Planning. 9 Doc. 15197 III. Candidature of Mr Wojciech Sawicki On 11 March 2020, the Ministers’ Deputies (at their 1370th meeting of the Deputies, item 1.7), adopted the timetable concerning the procedure for the election of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. In that timetable 4 May 2020 was fixed as the closing date for the submission of candidates and 10 June 2020 (1378th meeting of the Deputies) was fixed as the date for the preliminary examination of candidatures by the Deputies. On 30 April 2020, the Secretary General forwarded to the Committee of Ministers the candidature of Mr Wojciech Sawicki, the current Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. The Secretary General appended to that communication a copy of the letters addressed to her between 5 March and 22 April 2020 by the following members of the Assembly (in alphabetical order) in which they proposed the candidature of Mr Sawicki: [see below]. The same day, the Secretary General forwarded the letter of 30 April 2020 signed by Ambassador Janusz Stańczyk, Permanent Representative of Poland to the Council of Europe, also expressing the support of the Government of the Republic of Poland for the candidature of Mr Wojciech Sawicki for re-election to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly [see hereinafter]. Dear Secretary General, In accordance with the Regulations relating to the appointment of the Secretary General, Deputy Secretary General and Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, we would like to propose Mr Wojciech Sawicki, current Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, as candidate for the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly whose term of office will begin on 1 February 2021. Your will find appended his curriculum vitae. We would be most grateful if you could forward this proposal to the Committee of Ministers for examination and subsequent consideration on the occasion of the consultation with the Assembly in the Joint Committee during 2020 June part-session. … Signed: - Ms Rósa Björk Brynjólfsdóttir, UEL, Iceland - Mr Boriss Cilevičs, SOC, Latvia - Sir Roger Gale, EC/DA, United Kingdom - Mr Antonio Gutiérrez, SOC, Spain - Mr Killion Munyama, EPP/CD, Poland - Mr Aleksander Pociej, EPP/CD, Poland - Ms Ingjerd Schou, EPP/CD, Norway - Ms Nicole Trisse, ALDE, France - Ms Yelyzaveta Yasko, EPP/CD, Ukraine 10 Doc. 15197 Strasbourg, 30 April 2020 Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg SPRE/4011/432/2020 H.E. Marija Pejcinovic-Buric Secretary General Council of Europe Madam Secretary General, I would like to take this opportunity inform you, Madam Secretary General, that the Government of the Republic of .Poland extends its full support to the candidature of Mr. Wojciech Sawicki for reelection to the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As you will be aware, Mr. Sawicki's candidature has recently been presented in due course by the members of the Parliamentary Assembly. I am convinced that the exceptional diplomatic and top managerial skills already proven in so many delicate and demanding situations during the past years, clearly demonstrate that Mr. Sawicki is best suited to continue performing the tasks of Secretary General of our Parliamentary Assembly. His extensive experience as well as a fully impartial and professional approach to his work, provide us with a guarantee that the crucial cooperation between the Council's statutory organs will continue to improve and strengthen for the benefit of the Organization and its Member States. Mr. Sawicki has been instrumental in assisting the members of the Parliamentary Assembly in stirring the PACE towards stability, efficiency and close cooperation with the Committee of Ministers. In these challenging and demanding times, we are certain that professional excellence, experience and continuity are most needed at the post of Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly. Mr. Sawicki can offer all of these qualities and more. 2, rue Geiler 67000 Strasbourg, France Tel. +33 388372300 Fax +33 388356331 E-mail : strasburg.r e.sekretariat@msz. gov.pI 11 Doc. 15197 For the above reasons we would encourage Member States of the Council of Europe to support the candidature ofWojciech Sawicki. Please accept, Madam Secretary General, the assurances of my highest consideration. cc. H.E. Irakli Giviashvili President of the Committee of Minsters Deputies 2, rue Geiler 67000 Strasbourg, France Tel. +33 388372300 Fax +33 38835633 1 E-mail: [email protected] 12 Doc. 15197 Wojciech SAWICKI Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Since 1 February 2011 Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe May 2006 – January 2011 Director General, Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (deputy to the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly) November 2009 – March 2010 Acting Secretary General of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe October 1996 - January 2011 Co-director of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation June 1996 – April 2006 Director (Deputy Clerk) - Head of the General Services Department of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe - giving assistance to the Secretary General (Clerk) of the Parliamentary Assembly in all his tasks, and replacing him if need be; - responsible for the Interparliamentary cooperation work programme; - responsible for coordination of committees’ activities; - responsible for management of the Staff of the Secretariat, Administration and Finance. February 1990 – May 1996 Secretary General of the Polish Senate. - responsible for setting up and managing all aspects of the Upper House (Senate) of the Polish Parliament’s day to day activities; - providing political, legal and procedural advice to all statutory organs of the Senate; - responsible for maintaining contacts with the secretariats of other Parliaments; - co-ordinator on the Polish side for the implementation of long term assistance programmes by a number of Western Parliaments. 13 Doc. 15197 October 1977 – January 1990 Programmer and Head of Department in the Power Industry Computer Centre – Warsaw, Poland. - responsible for planning implementing and maintaining of computer operating systems. 1979 – 1986 - Outside lecturer for the Polish Academy of Sciences / Warsaw Miscellaneous: 1990 to present - Association of Secretaries General of Parliament - Member (since 1990) - Member of the Executive Committee (1992-1996) - Vice-President (1995-1996) - Honorary Member (since 1996) 1979 – 1996 - Member of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw Club of Catholic Intellectuals - 1981-1984: Vice-president of the Club - 1984-1990: Treasurer of the Club. 1980 – 1981 - Chairman of the “Solidarnosc” Trade Union Section at the Power Industry Computer Centre. 1981 – 1987 - Member of the Church Committee to Assist (Political) Prisoners and their Families (set up following the imposition of martial law in December 1981); Head of the Registry and Information Office of the Committee, responsible for setting up and managing the information system of the Committee with more than 18.000 entries. Distinctions: 2011 - Commander Cross of the Order of the Polish Renaissance (Polonia Restituta) 2002 - Gold Cross of Merit (Poland) Education - Warsaw University, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Sciences – M. Sc. In Computer Sciences specializing in operating systems (1978) Languages - English, French and Russian Nationality - Polish Date of birth - 20 March 1955 Status - Married, 3 children 14 http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15187 25 November 2020 Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of Greece Communication Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Doc. 15187 Communication Contents Page 1. List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of Greece ...... 3 Appendix 1 – Ioannis KTISTAKIS ...... 6 Appendix 2 – Photini PAZARTZIS ...... 11 Appendix 3 – Michail PIKRAMENOS ...... 17 2 Doc. 15187 Communication 1. List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of Greece Letter from Mr Vassilis Vikas, Chargé d'Affaires a.i., Permanent Representation of Greece to the Council of Europe, to Mr Wojciech Sawicki, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, dated 31 July 2020. […] I have the honour to transmit to you herewith the names of the three candidates nominated by the Greek Government with a view to the election by the Parliamentary Assembly of the new judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Greece. The names of the three candidates are as follows, in alphabetical order: – Mr Ioannis Ktistakis – Ms Photini Pazartzis – Mr Michail Pikramenos You will find enclosed the curricula vitae of the three candidates, in accordance with the model adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as a detailed description of the procedure followed for the nomination of the candidates. […] Information on national selection procedure for the position of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights The procedure for the nomination of candidates was based on the practice followed on the occasion of the previous selection of candidates for the position of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Greece (2010), with important improvements. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs drafted a public “call for expression of interest” to submit applications for inclusion in the candidates’ list, which was signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice on 31 October 2019. The deadline for the applications was 6 December 2019. The public call was published on 1 November 2019 on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Along with the public call were uploaded the Model curriculum vitae (in the English and French languages), as well as links to relevant Resolutions and Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European Court of Human Rights, the Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers on the status and conditions of service of judges of the European Court of Human Rights and on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights. In order to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the call for candidatures, a relevant announcement was published in two national newspapers with wide circulation and was also sent by letter signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice to the Presidents of the three Supreme Courts, the President of the Plenary of the country’s Bar Associations, and the Rectors of Universities with law schools. The abovementioned public call contained a detailed job description, focusing on the requirements set out in the ECHR and mentioning the relevant Resolutions and Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular Resolution 1646 (2009), as well Resolution CM/Res(2010)26 of the Committee of Ministers on the establishment of the Advisory Panel of Experts. In the public call, it was also stated that: – candidates should have proven experience in the field of human rights and possess excellent active knowledge of one, and a passive knowledge of the other, official language of the Council of Europe; – in establishing the list of candidates, the criteria set out in relevant Resolutions and Recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular Resolution 1646 (2009), would be taken into account, while care would be taken in respect of the balanced representation of men and women in the Court. Furthermore, the public call indicated the procedure for the evaluation of candidatures, which was the same as the one followed in 2010, consisting, namely, in two stages: (a) the setting up of an Ad hoc Selection Committee, composed of the Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Legal Council of State (the Government’s Agent before the 3 Doc. 15187 Communication European Court of Human Rights), with the task of considering and evaluating the candidatures and making relevant recommendations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice and (b) the adoption of the final list of candidates by the abovementioned Ministers. Two important innovations were introduced in the national selection procedure. First of all, it was decided that the Selection Committee would hold interviews with the candidates possessing the required qualifications, with a view to better evaluating the respective candidatures. Furthermore, taking into account best practices of Council of Europe member States, the membership of the Selection Committee was enlarged to include the President of the Council of State (Supreme Administrative Court), as Chair of the Committee, as well as the former Judge in respect of Greece of the European Court of Human Rights. To this effect, a Joint Ministerial Decision was published in the Official Gazette on 20 December 2019. According to the abovementioned Decision, the Selection Committee, tasked with the examination and evaluation of the candidatures, was composed of (1) Ms Aikaterini Sakellaropoulou, President of the Council of State, as Chair, (2) Mr Ioannis-Konstantinos Chalkias, President of the Legal Council of State, (3) Mr Themistoklis Demiris, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (4) Mr Panos Alexandris, Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice and (5) Mr Christos Rozakis, Emeritus Professor of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, former Judge and Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights. The Joint Ministerial Decision also provided that the Committee would select, among the candidates, those to be invited to an interview, and would, thereafter, evaluate the candidatures and draw up a list of up to six candidates to be considered by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice, with a view to establishing the list of three candidates to be submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Eventually, the President of the Council of State informed the competent authorities that she could not exercise her functions as Chair of the Selection Committee. Ms Sakellaropoulou was later elected by Parliament as the first female President of the Hellenic Republic. By virtue of a Joint Ministerial Decision dated 21 January 2020 and published in the Official Gazette, as Chair of the Selection Committee was appointed Mr Ioannis Sarmas, President of the Court of Auditors. In total, fourteen applications were submitted to the competent D03 Directorate for the OSCE and the Council of Europe of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by December 6, 2019. Later, two of the applicants withdrew their candidatures (one before the first meeting of the Committee and the second before the interviews). Hence the final number of the applicants was twelve. In its first meeting, on January 27, 2020, the Committee reviewed the thirteen – at the time – applications and verified their compliance with required criteria. Hence, the Committee decided that all candidates would be invited in an interview on February 18, 2020. In addition, the Committee decided that its role was strictly advisory, aiming at recommending a list of candidates to the competent Ministers, who would take the final decision. Before the second meeting of the Committee, another applicant announced that he withdrew his application. The remaining 12 candidates were invited and all of them participated in the interviews, before the Committee, at the building of the Court of Auditors. Interviews were held on February 18, 2020. In the same day and before the interviews, the members of the Committee in its second session, decided that the questions addressed to the candidates would be: the examination of the active and/or passive knowledge by the candidates of the two official languages of the Council of Europe (English and French), the role of the Council of Europe in the shaping of international and European legal order, a description of their personal and professional qualifications and their comparative advantage as a judge of the ECHR and three questions regarding the case law of the ECHR. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes and the candidates were called to answer one question in one language, and to read and summarise a text, regarding the case law of the Court, in the other. The exact time of the interviews was fixed so as to safeguard the privacy of the candidates. 4 Doc. 15187 Communication In its third session, and after a thorough examination of the candidates’ curricula as well as their performance during the interviews, the Committee shortlisted four candidates, submitted their names to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice, who drew up a list of three candidates, among those shortlisted by the Committee, to be forwarded for opinion to the Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights. 5 Doc. 15187 Communication Appendix 1 – Ioannis KTISTAKIS CURRICULUM VITAE1 I. Personal details Name, forename: Ktistakis, Ioannis Sex: male Date and place of birth: 3 January 1971, Athens, Greece Nationality: Greek II. Education and academic and other qualifications – Law Degree, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini (Greece) (1993) – Master’s degree in Political Science, Institute of Political Sciences, University Robert Schuman, Strasbourg (France) (1995) – Master’s degree in Legal Theory, European Academy of Legal Theory, Katholieke Universiteit Brussels & Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis, Brussels (Belgium) (1996). Scholarship by the European Academy of Legal Theory – Doctor iuris, National and Kapodistrian University, Athens (Greece) (2003) (“Religious liberty under the European Convention of Human Rights”) – Postdoctoral research, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini (Greece) (2006) (“NGOs before international courts”). Scholarship by the Greek State Scholarships Foundation III. Relevant professional activities – Associate Professor Dr., Faculty of Law, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini (Greece) – Substitute Member of the Venice Commission (“European Commission for the Democracy through Law”) of the Council of Europe (2019-) – Member of the Athens Bar Association, Supreme Court Lawyer In this capacity, he has defended the following 55 individual applications before the European Court of Human Rights (the date of the relevant judgment in brackets): Anagnostopoulos and others (7.11.2000), Karahalios (11.12.2003), Belaousof and others (27.5.2004), Theodoropoulos and others (15.7.2004), Makaratzis (20.12.2004), Stamatios Karagiannis (10.2.2005), Karobeis (10.2.2005), Selianitis (10.2.2005), Theodoros Anagnostopoulos (10.2.2005), Charalambos Katsaros (10.2.2005), Vlasopoulos and others (10.2.2005), Oikonomidis (17.2.2005), Plastarias (21.4.2005), Kollias (21.4.2005), Koufogiannis (21.4.2005), Kabetsis (21.4.2005), Tsamou (21.4.2005), Stamos and others (19.5.2005), Makedonopoulos (19.5.2005), Moisidis (19.5.2005), Nikolopoulos (2.6.2005), Nafpliotis (2.6.2005), Aggelopoulos (9.6.2005), Fraggalexi (9.6.2005), Charalambos Karagiannis (9.6.2005), Kaskaniotis and others (9.6.2005), Ioannidis (4.8.2005), Vozinos (4.8.2005), Gavalas (4.8.2005), Spyropoulos (4.8.2005), Tsaras (4.8.2005), Renieri and others (8.12.2005), Gili and others (8.12.2005), Giakoumeli and others (8.12.2005), Georgopoulos and others (8.12.2005), Chatzibyrros and others (6.4.2006), Mantzila (4.5.2006), Athanasiou (1.6.2006), Tsiotras (1.6.2006), Sillaidis (30.11.2006), Diakoumakos (30.11.2006), Gousis (29.3.2007), Alvanos and others (20.3.2008), Meidanis (22.5.2008), Fener Rum Patrikliği (Ecumenical Patriarchate) (8.7.2008), Typopoiitiria Thivas A.E. (11.12.2008), Panoussi (22.4.2010), Saidoun (28.10.2010), Fawsie (28.10.2010), Konstas (24.5.2011), Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos (15.3.2012), Ninos (7.6.2018), Molla Sali (19.12.2018), Dimopulos (2.4.2019) and Loupas (20.6.2019). He has, also, defended the following collective complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights: International Federation for Human Rights v. Greece (5.6.2013) – Assistant Professor Dr., Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul (Turkey) (2012-2015) 1. Text in bold indicates posts or missions held at present. 6 Doc. 15187 Communication – Lecturer, Greek National School for the Judiciary (2000, 2001, 2004, 2013-2018) – Substitute Member of the Greek National Commission for Human Rights (2004-2006) – Member of the Executive Board of European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Intolerance (EU) (2004-2006) – Member of the Greek Equal Treatment Committee (2005-2006) – European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field (2005-2008) University Teaching Activities – Faculty of Law, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini (Greece): ° International Protection of Human Rights: undergraduate and postgraduate studies, with particular emphasis on the Council of Europe and the United Nations system of protection of human rights. ° Refugee Law: postgraduate studies. ° Public International Law: undergraduate and postgraduate studies. – Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Boğaziçi (Bosphorus) University, Istanbul (Turkey) (2012-2015): ° International Protection of Human Rights, Public International Law and International Organizations (undergraduate studies). – Invited as Visiting Professor by the following academic institutions to offer seminars regarding the international protection of human rights: ° Faculty of Law, Georges Washington University, Washington DC (United States) (2016). ° Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration, University of Athens (Greece) (2007-2012). IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights In Europe A/ European Court of Human Rights In his capacity as Supreme Court Lawyer, he has defended 55 individual applications before the European Court of Human Rights, 3 of them before the Grand Chamber: Makaratzis (20.12.2004), Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos (15.3.2012) and Molla Sali (19.12.2018) (see supra). B/ European Committee of Social Rights In his capacity as Supreme Court Lawyer and member of the Greek League of Human Rights (affiliated member of the International Federation for Human Rights), he has defended the following collective complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights: International Federation for Human Rights v. Greece (5.6.2013). C/ Venice Commission (Council of Europe) He was appointed by Greece as a Substitute Member of the Venice Commission (“European Commission for the Democracy through Law”) last September. He participated in the 120th Plenary session. D/ National School for the Judiciary in Albania, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria (Council of Europe) Invited as a Council of Europe expert to offer seminars on the ECHR, addressed to high-ranking judges from Albania (April 2000), the FRY (September 2001) and Bulgaria (December 2002). E/ European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Intolerance (EU) As elected member of the Executive Board of EUMC (2004-2006), he had the task to draft its annual report or to offer opinions and recommendations regarding issues raised by the institutional bodies of the Union on racism and xenophobia in EU member-states. F/ European network of legal experts in the non-discrimination field (EU) 7 Doc. 15187 Communication In his capacity as independent legal expert, he submitted annual reports on the situation of human rights in Greece (2005-2008). In Greece A/ Greek National School for the Judiciary He has given regular courses on the European Convention on Human Rights during four training periods addressed to newly appointed Greek judges of Civil and Penal Courts as well as Prosecutors (2013-2018). Prior to this, he had given lectures on the ECHR to high-ranking Greek judges, under the auspices of the National School for the Judiciary (2000, 2001, 2004, 2015 and 2018). He is the editor of the first book of a series of publications issued by the National School for the Judiciary: The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the application of Greek law, Athens-Komotini, 2003 (in Greek). B/ National Commission for Human Rights In his capacity as scientific counsel from 2000 (date of creation) until 2003, and then, in his capacity as substitute member (2004-2006), he submitted numerous reports related to the implementation of human rights, eight of which related to the European Convention on Human Rights concerning religious freedom (1.3.2001, 19.10.2005), the execution of domestic administrative courts’ judgments (4.7.2002), Greece’s ratification of the 12nd and 13th additional Protocols to the ECHR (28.2.2002 and 24.4.2002 respectively), conditions of detention (12.12.2002), “reasonable time” of penal proceedings (29.5.2003) and legal aid (30.10.2003). C/ Equal Treatment Committee In his capacity as member of the Equal Treatment Committee (2005-2006), one of the Greek specialised bodies for the promotion of the principle of equal treatment according to the Racial Equality Directive 2000/43/EC and Employment Equality Directive 2000/78/EC, he represented the Committee on various occasions and was appointed as rapporteur for the examination of the first two individual complaints. D/ Greek League of Human Rights In his capacity as Secretary-General of the Greek League for Human Rights (2003-2007), the oldest (1953) Greek NGO for human rights (affiliated member of the International Federation for Human Rights), he organized more than 10 conferences, colloquies and seminars in Greece regarding a wide range of human rights issues, with particular emphasis on the rights guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights. E/ Marangopoulos Foundation of Human Rights In his capacity as legal counsel (1996-1999) of the Marangopoulos Foundation of Human Rights (NGO with consultative status with the Council of Europe and the UN Economic and Social Council), he organized human rights-related colloquies and seminars in Greece, with emphasis on the European Convention on Human Rights. He is the author of two books regarding ECHR by the Foundation (in Greek): (i) Survey of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights 1997-1998, Athens-Komotini, 1999 (co-author: E. Kastanas), and (ii) Religious freedom and European Convention on Human Rights, Athens-Komotini, 2004. V. Public activities a. Public office Associate Professor Dr., Faculty of Law, Democritus University of Thrace (see supra) b. Elected posts Member of the Executive Board of European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Intolerance (EU) (2004-2006). c. Posts held in a political party or movement Non applicable. 8 Doc. 15187 Communication VI. Other activities Participation in International Conferences and intergovernmental bodies – October 2012 – Human Rights Dimension Conference (OSCE, Warsaw): keynote speaker – September 2000 – European Conference against Racism (Council of Europe, Strasbourg) – December 1998 – European conference for the European Charter for minority and regional languages (Council of Europe, Strasbourg) Membership – Member of the Administrative Board of the Greek Branch of the International Law Association (2016-) – Member of the European Society of International Law – Member of the Greek League of Human Rights VII. Publications and other works Author, co-author, editor and co-editor of 62 books, articles and reports on the European Convention of Human Rights and general international law, published in Greek, French and English, including five monographs and six collective books. Among those publications, please note the following: Monographs – The Friends of the Court – Amici Curiae before International Tribunals, Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, 2019 (in Greek), foreword by Panagiotis Pikrammenos, former Greek Prime Minister and former President of the Supreme Administrative Court. – Migrants and European Human Rights Law, Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, 2014 (in Greek), foreword by Nils Muižnieks, former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. – Islamic Law, Greek religious courts and human rights, Istos, 2013 (in French), foreword by Christos Rozakis, former vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights. – Religious freedom and European Convention on Human Rights, Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights, Athens-Komotini, 2004 (in Greek), foreword by Nicos Alivizatos, Emeritus Professor of Law of University of Athens, member of Venice Commission of Council of Europe. Articles – «Human rights, Greek constitutional judge and economic crisis» in Litigation of fundamental rights and freedoms: the test of the market economy, La Revue des Droits de l’homme, 2017/11 (in French) ( – Protecting Migrants under the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter, Strasbourg, 2013 (Handbook for legal practitioners in English, French and Greek). Publication of Greek National School for the Judiciary – The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights at the application of Greek law, Athens- Komotini, 2003 (editor and author – in Greek), foreword by Evangelos Kroustalakis, former Director of the National School and former Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation. 9 Doc. 15187 Communication Publication of Athens Bar Association – The protection of human rights in Europe on the basis of Strasbourg’s Court case-law, Athens, 2006 (co-authors: S. Matthias, L. Stavriti and K. Stefanaki – in Greek), foreword by Dimitris Paxinos, former President of the Athens Bar Association. VIII. Languages Language Reading Writing Speaking very good fair very good fair very good fair good good good a. First language: – Greek X X X b. Official languages: – English X X X – French X X X IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. X. Other relevant information XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. I hereby confirm this. 10 Doc. 15187 Communication Appendix 2 – Photini PAZARTZIS CURRICULUM VITAE2 I. Personal details Name, forename: Pazartzis, Photini Sex: female Date and place of birth: 28 June 1959, Athens, Greece Nationality/ies: Hellenic II. Education and academic and other qualifications – 1981– Degree, Faculty of Law (Public Law Section), National & Kapodistrian University of Athens – 1983 – LLM (Diplôme d’études approfondies), University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas – 1990 – Doctor of Law (Docteur d’État en droit), University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas (subject: Les engagements internationaux en matière de règlement pacifique des différends entre États, Paul Guggenheim Prize, 1992) III. Relevant professional activities a. Description of judicial activities In 2014, I was elected by the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to serve as member of the ICCPR Human Rights Committee. I was re-elected in 2018 for a second mandate. This Committee is the legal organ of the Covenant entrusted with the supervision of the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted in 1966). During my mandate, I have participated in the examination of a large number of individual complaints concerning violations of the rights enshrined by the Covenant. I have also been Rapporteur for a number of cases, thus taking a part in shaping the Committee’s jurisprudence in various areas. As Rapporteur on the Follow-Up to Views, I was actively involved in the supervision of the implementation of the Committee’s decisions (views) on individual complaints. Further, as Chair of the Working Group on the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, I had the opportunity to be actively involved in the revision of the Committee’s procedural rules, including the procedure concerning individual complaints. – Member of the UN Human Rights Committee, 2015-present – Vice-Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee, 2019-present – Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Committee on Follow-Up to Views, 2017-2018 – Chair of the Working Group of the UN HRC on the Rules of Procedure, 2016-2018 b. Description of non-judicial legal activities As a professor of public international law, my areas of expertise, teaching and research are public international law both on an undergraduate and graduate level, including international human rights law, minority rights, international criminal law, reparations, public international law, law of treaties, law of state responsibility, international dispute settlement, law of the sea. – Professor, Public International Law, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, since 2015 – Director of the Athens Public International Law Center, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, since 2015, www.athenspil.law.uoa.gr – Director of the Department of International Studies, Faculty of Law, since 2019 – Coordinator, LLM in International and European Studies, Faculty of Law, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 2. Text in bold indicates posts or missions held at present. 11 Doc. 15187 Communication – President, European Society of International Law (since September 2019); member of the Board, since 2015; Vice-President, 2017-2019 – Visiting Fellow, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, 2017-2018 – Invited Professor, Hague Academy of International Law, July 2018, Special Course: Reparation in International Adjudication [in French] – Invited Professor, University of Paris-II Pantheon-Assas, Master II: Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, February 2019, course: La réparation des violations des droits de l’homme dans le contentieux international – Invited Professor, Xiamen Academy of International Law, August 2015; course: Arbitration in International Law: Continuity or Revival – Invited Professor, University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas, Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales, 2015; course: Statut étatique et juridictions internationales – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2007-2015 – Member, International Law Association – Committee on: Reparations for Victims of Armed Conflict, 2008-2014 – Co-Chair, International Law Association – Study Group on: The Content and Evolution of Rules of Interpretation, 2015 to present – President, Hellenic Branch, International Law Association, 2002-2015 – Invited Professor, University of Paris-II Panthéon-Assas, Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales, 2004; Course: La répression pénale des crimes internationaux – Invited Professor, University of Paris-Sorbonne (Paris-I), 2003 – Director of Studies (French Section), Session of Public International Law, Hague Academy of International Law, July, 2003 – Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2000-2007 – Lecturer, Temple University School of Law-Athens Faculty of Law Joint Summer Program, 1999-2001 – Visiting Fellow, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge, 1998 – Visiting Scholar, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, 1998 – Lecturer, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 1993-2000 – Editorial Committee, Revue hellénique de droit international, 1991-1998 c. Description of non-legal professional activities / IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights Through different capacities, as legal practitioner/counsel and as academic, I have an extensive experience in the field of human rights, including international humanitarian law and international criminal law. a. United Nations Human Rights Committee (ICCPR) – Member of the UN Human Rights Committee, 2015-present – Vice-Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee, 2019-present – Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Committee on Follow-Up to Views, 2017-2018 – Chair of the Working Group of the UN HRC on the Rules of Procedure, 2016-2018 During my mandate on the Committee, I have participated in the review of the human rights situation in a number of countries, including countries, which are members of the Council of Europe. Through this, I gained valuable experience in assessing the application of international human rights obligations, in a variety of domestic legal orders, from a universal and comparative perspective. As Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Views, I 12 Doc. 15187 Communication had the opportunity to closely monitor the implementation of the Committee’s views by States parties and to prepare the Committee’s annual Follow-Up Report. As mandated Chair of the Working Group on the Rules of Procedure, I was involved in the revision of the Committee’s rules of procedure, in order to align the rules with the practice of the Committee, concerning both State reporting procedures and individual complaints. As elected Vice-Chair, I have chaired some of the Committee’s meetings and participated in the decision-making of the Committee on methods of work, as well as on administrative and budgetary decisions. b. Legal counsel – Scientific Council, Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005-2008, 2017-2019 – Member, OSCE Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, 2013 to present – Hellenic Council of Nationality, member, 2009-2010, 2013-2017 – Hellenic Ministry of Justice, Drafting Committee for the Legislation implementing the Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2000-2012 – Hellenic Committee for the Implementation and Dissemination of International Humanitarian Law, 2000-2012 – Sixth Committee, United Nations General Assembly, member of the Greek Delegation, 1999-2008 c. Academic I have organised and/or participated in many international conferences relevant to international human rights protection and have been invited for presentations hosted among others by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe. – European Society of International Law, 15th ESIL Annual Conference: Sovereignty: A Concept in a State of Flux?, Chair of the Organising Committee, Athens 12-14 September 2019 [invited speakers included judges of the European Court of Human Rights, speaking in panels related to human rights] – Co-Convenor, Workshop on Rethinking Reparations in International Law, Lauterpacht Center for International Law, University of Cambridge, 17-18 November 2017 – Co-Chair, International Law Association – Study Group on: The Content and Evolution of Rules of Interpretation, 2015 to present – Hellenic Committee for the Implementation and Dissemination of International Humanitarian Law, Training Seminar, Athens, 26-29 May 2009 – International Law Association-Hellenic Branch & Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights, Conference on The Genocide Convention at 60, Athens, 2008 – International Law Association-Hellenic Branch and Institute of Public International Law & International Relations, Conference on International Criminal Justice as a Mechanism for the Enforcement of International Law, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2006 Selection of lectures/conference presentations relevant to human rights: – Presentation: L’étranger, personne humaine chez Nicolas Valticos, Conference hosted by the Institut de Hautes Etudes Internationales on: Grandes pages de la doctrine internationale: L’étranger, University of Paris-II, February 15, 2019 – Keynote speech: Human Rights Obligations and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, ILA Committee on the Role of International Law in Sustainable Natural Resource Management for Development, Conference on International Law & Sustainable Management of Natural Ressources: Implementation Issues, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 10 May 2019 – Presentation: Interpreting Human Rights: Between Universality and Pluralism, Workshop organised by PluriCourts: Religion and Ethnicity, University of Oslo, 4-5 October 2018 – Presentation: Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts in a Practical Context, 29th Informal Meeting of Legal Advisers, United Nations New York, 22-23 October 2018 – Presentation: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: Achievements and Challenges, Hellenic Society of International Law & International Relations, Annual Conference: Human Rights: 70 Years from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Athens, 20-22 December 2018 [in Greek] 13 Doc. 15187 Communication – Lecture: Whose Authority? The UN Human Rights Committee and the Interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, 2 February 2018 – Presentation: Challenge of the interaction between the ECHR and other international human rights instruments to which the Council of Europe member States are Parties, Council of Europe, Directorate General Human Rights and the Rule of Law, Drafting Group on: The Place of the European Convention on Human Rights in the European and International Legal Order (DH-SYSC-II), September 2018 I have participated in joint meetings of the Human Rights Committee with the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, respectively. In these meetings, Members of the UN Committee and judges discussed issues relevant to their respective jurisdictions and cross-cutting issues of human rights: – Joint meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, San Jose, November 2018 – Joint meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee with the European Court of Human Rights, Geneva, July 2016 – Joint meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee with the European Court of Human Rights, Geneva, November 2019 V. Public activities a. Public office – Professor, Public International Law, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, since 2015 – Director of the Athens Public International Law Center, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, since 2015, www.athenspil.law.uoa.gr – Director of the Department of International Studies, Faculty of Law, since 2019 – Coordinator, LLM in International and European Studies, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 b. Elected posts – Member of the UN Human Rights Committee, 2015-present – Vice-Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee, 2019-present – Member of the Deanship, Faculty of Law, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2014-2016 c. Posts held in a political party or movement None VI. Other activities – Kalliopi Koufa Foundation for the Promotion of International Law & Human Rights, Member of the Governing Board [ www.koufafoundation.org ] – European Society of International Law (President since September 2019, member of the Board since 2015, Vice-President, 2017-2019) – Société française pour le droit international – Hellenic Society of International Law & International Relations – International Law Association, Hellenic Branch (former President, 2002-2015) – American Society of International Law 14 Doc. 15187 Communication VII. Publications and other works I have published a large number of books and articles and have edited/co-edited a number of publications. Publications concern public international law, dispute settlement, judicial function, treaty law, State responsibility, and international human rights, and include the 10 following most relevant books and articles: – La jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de justice, Paris, Pedone, 2008 (with P.-M. Eisemann, Prix Charles Aubert-Droit 2008, Institut de France, Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques) – The Judicial Function in International Law, Athens, Nomiki Vivliothiki, 2014 [in Greek] – La répression pénale des crimes internationaux, Paris, Pedone, 2007 – “General Principles and International Human Rights Law” (with M. Papadaki), in: M. Andenas, M. Fitzmaurice, A. Tanzi & J. Wouters (eds.), General Principles and the Coherence of International Law, Leiden/Boston, Brill/ Nijhoff, 2019, pp. 369-375 – “The UN Human Rights Committee, other UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies and Treaty Interpretation” (with P. Mercouris), in: ILA Study Group on the Content and Evolution of the Rules of Interpetation, Interim Report, 19-24 August 2018, Sydney – “La succession d’États comme moyen de regulation des relations internationales”, in S. Cassella & L. Delabie (eds.), Faut-il prendre le droit international au sérieux? Journée d’études en l’honneur de Pierre Michel Eisemann, Paris, Pedone, 2016, pp. 33-40. – “Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint: The PCIJ’s Lotus Case”, in C. Tams & M. Fitzmaurice (eds.), Legacies of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013, pp. 319-335 – “The Ambit and Limits of the Advisory Function of the International Court of Justice”, in E. Rieter & H. De Waele (eds.), Evolving Principles of International Law. Studies in Honour of Karel C. Wellens, Leiden/Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012, pp. 265-280 – La responsabilité internationale de l’État pour génocide: l’affaire du crime de génocide devant la CIJ”, in A. Yotopoulos & P. Pazartzis (dir.), Le génocide revisité, Athènes/Bruxelles, Ant. N. Sakkoulas/ Bruylant, 2010, pp. 65-82 – “Le droit coutumier revisité: quelques remarques à propos de l’étude du CICR sur le droit international humanitaire”, in S. Perrakis & D. Marouda (eds.), Armed Conflicts and International Humanitarian Law, Athènes/Bruxelles, Ant. N. Sakkoulas/Bruylant, 2009, pp.183-198 – La réparation dans le contentieux international, course delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law, 2018 [forthcoming in The Hague Academy Courses] VIII. Languages Language Reading Writing Speaking very good fair very good fair very good fair good good good a. First language: – Greek X X X b. Official languages: – English X X X – French X X X c. Other language: – Italian X X 15 Doc. 15187 Communication IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. X. Other relevant information Chevalier de l’Ordre des palmes académiques, République française. http://www.athenspil.law.uoa.gr/people/ director.html XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. I confirm that if elected a judge on the European Court I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg. 16 Doc. 15187 Communication Appendix 3 – Michail PIKRAMENOS CURRICULUM VITAE3 I. Personal details Name, forename: Michail Pikramenos, Vice President at the Council of State, Associate Professor of Law School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Sex: male Date and place of birth: 11 October 1960, Athens, Greece Nationality/ies: Greek II. Education and academic and other qualifications – Graduate of the School of Political Science, Panteion University of Athens (1982) – Graduate of the Law School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (1985) – Graduate of the National School of Public Administration, Department of Administrative Justice (1987-1989) – PhD at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (1991) – Scholar of the State Scholarships Foundation (I.K.Y.) (1985-1991) – Academic Visitor- Attendance of post-graduate program at Law School, Oxford University (1999-2000) III. Relevant professional activities a. Description of judicial activities – 1989–present – Judge at the Council of State. Resolving administrative disputes, I am constantly dealing with issues concerning human rights and especially the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – 2018–present – Vice President at the Council of State, serving as deputy president at the 2nd chamber, dealing with tax and customs disputes – 2006–2008 – Assistant Member at the Supreme Special Court and the Special Court of the article 88 of the Constitution b. Description of non-judicial legal activities – 1985–1987 – Special Postdoctoral Scholarship at constitutional law at Athens University. Sector of Administrative Science, Department of Political Science and Public Administration. Scholarship of the State Scholarships Foundation (Ι.Κ.Υ.) – 1994–1995 – Member of the educational staff at the National School of Public Administration. Subject: Special issues of Administrative Law (Methodology of drawing-up authentic acts)/ General Constitutional Law – 2013–2014 – Chair of the working group at the Ministry of Justice in the frame of the Greek. Presidency in E.U. (first semester of 2014). Subject: Evaluation of the effectiveness of justice (Justice Scoreboard) – 2008–2019 – In 2008 I was elected lecturer and in 2018 associate professor of law at the Law School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. In the course of the administrative procedural law I teach the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the guaranties for a fair trial. I have also taught the course of human rights under the light of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights 3. Text in bold indicates posts or missions held at present. 17 Doc. 15187 Communication c. Description of non-legal professional activities – 2006–2007 – Moderator of the International Relations Committee of the Council of State – 2009–2010 – Member of the scientific working group of the Ministry of Interior. Subject: Processing and formulation of the general principles and the frame for the administrative reform of Greece (“Kallikratis” Plan - administrative decentralisation – local and regional authority) – 2011–present – Alternate representative of Greece in the Group of Independent Experts of the Assembly of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe – 2015–present – Member of the scientific Board of the Journal: “Tetradia Politikis Epistimis (“Review of Political Science”) – 2019–2020 – Instructor in the course of ‘Governance and regional development’ at the Department of Political Sciences of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights a. Activities as judge, expert, member of legislative Committees, university professor, general director of National School of Judges and representative of Greece in European organisations – 1989–present – Judge at the Council of State. Resolving administrative disputes. I am constantly dealing with issues concerning human rights and especially the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, indicating the following examples: ° Rapporteur at the plenary session of the Council of State regarding the relation between the disciplinary and penal trial in the disciplinary law of police officers under the light of the European Convention on Human Rights (Decision of the Council of State 4662/2012). ° Member of the composition of the plenary session regarding the teaching of the lesson of religion in schools under the light of the European Convention on Human Rights, expressing minority opinion (decisions of the Council of State 1749-1750/2019, 660/2018). ° Member of the composition of the plenary session for resolving the issue ne bis in idem in custom disputes under the light of the European Convention on Human Rights (penal and administrative sanction). ° President of the 2nd chamber of the Council of State regarding cases related to the presumption of innocence under the light of the European Convention on Human Rights (decisions of the Council of State 537, 297, 70/2019). ° Rapporteur at cases related to issues regarding the violation of article first of the First Additional Protocol (decisions of the Council of State 2461, 2462/2018, 3154/2014). ° Rapporteur at cases related to issues regarding the article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights on the fair trial (decisions of the Council of State 2457/2018, 3253/2017, 3508-3507/2013). ° Rapporteur at a case about the disciplinary regime of the military (decision of the Council of State 177/2006). ° President or member of the composition of the 2nd chamber of the Council of State in cases related to the principle of ne bis in idem (decisions of the Council of State 407-406/2019, 297/2019, 2103, 1104, 1103, 1102/2018). – 2000–2003 – Expert at the Centre for European Constitutional Law (Themistocles and Dimitris Tsatsos Foundation) examining issues of justice and rights. Participation at meetings with jurists from countries of Eastern Europe. Subject: Organization of justice/Jurisprudence of the Greek courts in relation with the European Convention on Human Rights. – 2001–2007 – Member of the educational staff of the National School of Judges. Subject: European Convention on Human Rights/constitutional law. – 2002–2005 – Chair of a Special Legislative Committee of the Ministry of Justice. Subject: Processing and recommendation of the necessary legislative measures in view of the adjustment of the national legislation to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. 18 Doc. 15187 Communication – 2011 – Chair of the Special Legislative Drafting Committee of the Ministry of Justice. Transparency and Human Rights. Subject: Establishment of a national mechanism for the reasonable duration of the trial proceedings and the formulation of a national action plan. – 2012 – Member of the Legislative Drafting Committee of the Ministry of Administrative Reform and e- Governance. Subject: Disciplinary law of the civil servants (law no 4057/2012). – 2013–2016 – General Director at the National School of Judges. In the frame of the program of the School I enriched the course emphasising on the case law of European Court of Human Rights. Meanwhile I organised a series of seminars for the judges and prosecutors. – 2013–2016 – Representative of Greece at the Steering Committee of the European Judicial Training Network with the topic, among others, the education of judges on human rights and the rule of law. – 2008–2019 – In 2008, I was elected lecturer and in 2018 I was elected associate professor of administrative law at the Law School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. In the course of the administrative procedural law I teach the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the guaranties for a fair trial. I have also taught the course of human rights under the light of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. b. Activities as representative of Greece in the Council of Europe – 2005–2006 – Participation as a representative of Greece in the Program HELP of the Council of Europe regarding the education in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights – 2011–2018 – Representative of Greece in the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) – 2017–2018 – Representative of the Council of State at the Superior Court’s Network of the European Court of Human Rights. V. Public activities a. Public office – 1996–1999 – Special Assistant at the Legal Advisor’s Office of the Prime Minister (according to a High Justicial Council’s decision). Subject: Legitimacy matters of the governmental functioning and special matters of legislative policy. – 1996–1998 – Member of the Special Legislative Committee of the Ministry of Culture. Subject: Drafting a Bill on the “Protection of Cultural Heritage” (law No 3028/2002). – 2002–2005 – Chair of the Special Legislative Committee of the Ministry of Justice. Subject: Processing and recommendation of the necessary legislative measures in view of the adjustment of the national legislation to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. – 2011 – Chair of the Special Legislative Drafting Committee of the Ministry of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights. Subject: Establishment of a national mechanism for the reasonable duration of trial proceedings and the formulation of a national action plan (law No 4055/2012). – 2013–2016 – General Director at the National School of Judges. In this frame I introduced a course on human rights and, among others, a course on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. – 2017–2018 – Member of the Legislative Drafting Committee of the Ministry of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights. Subject: Draft of the Civil Procedure Code of the Court of Audit. – 2017–2018 – Member of the Legislative Drafting Committee of the Ministry of Justice, Transparency and Human Rights. Subject: The courts organization Code and the status of the Greek judges and public prosecutors. b. Elected posts – 2016–2018 – Member of the Steering Committee of the Association of Judges of the Council of State – 2001–2002 – General Secretary of the Steering Committee of the Association of Greek Judges of the Council of State 19 Doc. 15187 Communication – 1992–1993 – Member of the Steering Committee of the Association of Greek Judges of the Council of State – 2017–2020 – President of the Association of Greek Judges and Public Prosecutors for the Democracy and the Liberties (the Association is a member of MEDEL) c. Posts held in a political party or movement No subject VI. Other activities – Scientific Member of the Journal: “Theoria kai Praksi Dioikitikou Dikaiou” (“Theory and Practice of Administrative Law”) – Representative of the Council of State at international scientific Meetings and Fora – Member of the Hellenic Constitutional Bar Association – Member of the scientific Council of the Institute for Private Law, Data Protection and Technology – Member of the scientific Council of the Institute for Justice and Development VII. Publications and other works – Author of 8 books – Introduction and editing of 2 books (Compendium of texts) – Contribution in 2 books (Compendium of texts): author of one chapter in every book Author of 45 articles, already published The problem of the implementation of the administrative acts by the administration authorities in the light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Strasbourg (in the volume with the Minutes of the Conference “Administrative theory and practice- administration and society”, Sakkoulas ed., Athens-Thessaloniki, 2007, pp. 769-784). The disciplinary-criminal trial relationship in view of the article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the volume: “The European Court of Human Rights and the Council of State in a constant dialogue”, Sakkoulas ed., Athens-Thessaloniki, 2013. The European Court of Human Rights and the Council of State in a constant dialogue (edit.), Sakkoulas ed., Athens-Thessaloniki, 2013. Organization and Efficiency of the Justice. The European experience. Introduction/edited by Michail Pikramenos, Nomiki Vivliothiki ed., 2015. The relation between justice and economic developments as priority of policy in E.U. and CoE, Efimerida Dioikitikou Dikaiou (Journal), 4/2016, p. 437-445). Judicial maps and judicial time management in the administrative courts. European public policies for the reform of the judicial system, Nomiki Vivliothiki ed., 2017. Prohibition of discriminations and the public functions. The Council of State and the interpretation of the national and the EU rules, Efarmoges Dimosiou Dikaiou (Journal), issue II/2017. The international and European frame of principles and suggestions for the organization of justice, the judicial independence, the deontology and the status of the judges, and the issue of its implementation in the Greek judicial system, in the collective volume: “The administration of justice as main pillar of a fairly governed state”, Nomiki Vivliothiki, 2018. The contribution of the judicial training to the approach of the European case-law by the national judges (in the volume of the proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Human Rights, co-organized by the International Center on Human Rights LIBERTAS and the Center of International Law at the University Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, with main subject: “The dialogue of judges: Interactions between national and international courts”. 20 Doc. 15187 Communication “Public confidence and the justice in a democratic society” (under publication in the honorary volume of the European Court of Human Rights in the honor of the President Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos). VIII. Languages Language Reading Writing Speaking very good fair very good fair very good fair good good good a. First language: – Greek X X X b. Official languages: – English X X X – French X X X IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. I confirm my intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, my term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. X. Other relevant information Computer literate. XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. I confirm that I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. 21 http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15153 30 September 2020 Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of Switzerland Communication Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Doc. 15153 Communication Contents Page 1. List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of Switzerland ...... 3 2. Information on national selection procedure for the position of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights ...... 3 Appendix 1 – Marianne RYTER ...... 4 Appendix 2 – Nicolas von WERDT ...... 8 Appendix 3 – Andreas ZÜND ...... 12 2 Doc. 15153 Communication 1. List and curricula vitae of candidates submitted by the Government of Switzerland Letter from Mr Christian Meuwly, Ambassador of Switzerland to the Council of Europe, to Mr Wojciech Sawicki, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, dated 20 April 2020. […] I refer to your letter of 14 March 2019 regarding the procedure for the election of a judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Switzerland. The Federal Council approved a list of three candidates for the post in question on 13 December 2019. […] – Ms Marianne Ryter, LLD, judge and president of the Federal Administrative Court – Mr Nicolas von Werdt, LLD, judge of the Federal Supreme Court – Mr Andreas Zünd, LLD, judge of the Federal Supreme Court […] 2. Information on national selection procedure for the position of a judge of the European Court of Human Rights The national procedure for appointing the three candidates on the Government's list took place as follows: The vacancy for the Swiss judge at the European Court of Human Rights was advertised at the beginning of May 2019 in the electronic and paper editions of a respected daily newspaper in each of the three linguistic regions (Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Le Temps, Il Corriere del Ticino), as well as on the Confederation's employment portal (https://www.stelle.admin.ch/stelle/fr/home.html). In parallel, the vacancy was brought to the attention of the presidents of the Confederation's courts and the higher courts of the cantons by e-mail. The deadline for submitting applications was 15 June 2019. There were nine applicants (one of whom subsequently withdrew their application). The government shortlisted five of them. In addition to their qualifications, the criteria of gender (two women, three men), linguistic area (one person from French-speaking Switzerland, four from German-speaking Switzerland) and the type of legal profession represented (representing the judicial and academic spheres) were taken into account. The Government then forwarded the files of the five shortlisted candidates (together with the names of the other three candidates) to the Swiss parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe (DCoE), which involved the Federal Assembly's Judicial committee (JC), competent for preparing the election of federal judges, in the process. On 30 October 2019 the five candidates were interviewed by the DCoE and JC combined, which drew up a recommendation containing three names listed in alphabetical order. The chair of the DCoE forwarded this recommendation with an assessment of the interviews to the Federal Council by letter dated 4 November 2019. It was on this basis that the Federal Council selected the candidatures of: – Ms Marianne Ryter, LLD, judge and president of the Federal Administrative Court – Mr Nicolas von Werdt, LLD, judge of the Federal Supreme Court – Mr Andreas Zünd, LLD, judge of the Federal Supreme Court […] 3 Doc. 15153 Communication Appendix 1 – Marianne RYTER CURRICULUM VITAE I. Personal details Name, forename: Ryter Marianne Sex: female Date and place of birth: Berne, 09.06.1968 Nationality: Swiss II. Education and academic and other qualifications – Law studies at the Law Faculty of the University of Berne (1989-1995) – Admission to the Bar of the Canton of Berne (1995) – Doctor of Laws (Dr. iur.), PhD thesis: “Die allgemeinen Rechtsgrundsätze – Analogien zum Privatrecht; ein Beitrag zur richterlichen Rechtsfortbildung im Verwaltungsrecht” (University of Berne, 2004) – Postgraduate degree Master of Laws (LL.M.) in International and European Economic and Commercial Law (Universities of Lausanne and Geneva, 2001). Diploma thesis: “The direct third-party effect of Article 39 EC” – Integratives Konfliktmanagement (Integrative conflict management) (Mediator, 2010-2012) – Management training (2004/2013) III. Relevant professional activities a. Description of judicial activities – Since 2007 – Judge at the Federal Administrative Court, member of Chamber I (Legal areas: civil service, data protection, access to public documents, communication, energy, infrastructure, tax law, pension legislation, State liability, mutual assistance in administrative matters) – Since 2019 – President of the Federal Administrative Court – 2015–18 – Vice-President of the Federal Administrative Court – 2013–14 – Member of the Administrative Commission of the Federal Administrative Court – 2011–12 – Member of the Arbitration Commission of the Federal Administrative Court – 2003–2007 – Judge at the Federal Appeals Commission for Infrastructure and Environment (Legal areas: energy, communication, infrastructure, data protection) b. Description of non-judicial legal activities – Since 2013 – Lecturer at the Swiss Judge Academy in Lucerne (CAS Judiciary, in the areas of court management ("Can you manage a court"), procedural management ("Management of complex public law proceedings") and publicity of the judiciary. – Since 2010 – Lecturer at the MAS Administrative Law University of Basel ("Introduction to Public Procedural Law" and "Constitutional Jurisdiction in Switzerland"). – Since 2010 – Member of the Executive Board of the Foundation for the Legal Education and Training of Swiss Judges (including organisation and conference management of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Biennale of Administrative Law, organisation and management of the judges' talks "Unter uns gesagt") – Since 2008 – Lecturer at the University of Basel in Public Law and Procedure. – Assistant at the Institute of Public Law at the University of Berne (Prof. Dr. Pierre Tschannen, 1996-2002). 4 Doc. 15153 Communication – Attorney at law (Law office Mattias Ammann, Berne, Criminal and Civil Law, 1995-1996). c. Description of non-legal professional activities – Member and President of the Cantonal Commission for Gender Equality (1996-2002). IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights – Human rights have been part of my daily legal work since the beginning of my professional career. Already during my time as an assistant at the Institute of Public Law at the University of Berne I taught on the influence of the ECHR on Swiss public law. – As a lecturer at the University of Basel, I have been giving lectures on Public Procedural Law since 2008, which cover the entire appeals procedure – from issuing the order to the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Part of the lecture addresses procedural and judicial guarantees, including the articles 6 and 13 ECHR and the relevant case-law. – Within the framework of the training and education courses of the CAS Judiciary at the University of Lucerne (Judge Academy) as well as the MAS Public Law at the University of Basel, I also teach ECHR-relevant contents on procedural and judicial guarantees, again taking into account the ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. – Finally, the ECHR and the related case-law also form an integral part of the jurisdiction of the Federal Administrative Court (especially in the legal area of migration, but also in the area of responsibility of Chamber I and, more generally, in the procedural and judicial guarantees). For example, with regard to article 10 ECHR, it had to be decided to what extent a journalist was entitled to inspect the handwritten documents of the interviewees after the interview, or whether the prohibition of the Swiss Railway Company to hang posters concerning the Palestine conflict at Zurich station was permissible. In another cases it had to be examined with regard to article 8 ECHR whether a state treaty formed a sufficient legal basis for assistance from the tax authorities, i.e. the supply of tax data and thus the encroachment on a person's (property) privacy, whether individuals could demand measures from the state to ensure "clean air" or whether the confidentiality of communications was still sufficiently guaranteed within the framework of secret surveillance by recording so-called marginal data. A further example is the examination under article 4 para. 1 of Protocol 7 whether the principle of "ne bis in idem" was violated by imposing a fine on a pilot and temporarily revoking his licence for violation of the flight rules. Therefore, as a judge in Chamber I and as Vice-President and now President of the Federal Administrative Court, I am required on a daily basis to monitor the implementation of and compliance by the lower authorities with many of the guarantees of the ECHR, of which I have thus acquired in-depth knowledge through my many years of experience. V. Public activities a. Public office / b. Elected posts / c. Posts held in a political party or movement / VI. Other activities a. Field / 5 Doc. 15153 Communication b. Duration / c. Functions / VII. Publications and other works – “Welche Rolle kommt Richterinnen und Richtern heute zu” (“What is the role of judges today?”), Contribution to the St. Gallen Conference on Administrative Jurisdiction, St. Gall, 2019 – ZPO/StPO/VwVG: Eidgenössisches Verfahrensrecht inklusive SchKG, 1st to 4th edition (Handbook on Federal Civil, Criminal and Administrative Procedures), (5th ed. to be published in 2020) – "Die personalrechtliche Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts" (Contribution to the St. Gallen Conference on Civil Service, Lucerne, 2015) – "Staatshaftungsrecht" (Article on State Liability) in: Fachhandbuch Verwaltungsrecht, Biaggini/Häner/ Saxer/Schott (eds.), 2015 – "Sollen Richterinnen und Richter vermehrt zur Verantwortung gezogen werden" (Article on the Liability of Judges) in: Justiz – Justice – Giustizia", 2014 – "Verfahrensführung in Verwaltung und Verwaltungsjustiz" (Contribution to the St. Gallen Conference on Administrative Jurisdiction, Zürich, 2014) – "Persönlichkeitsschutz und Internet" (Contribution to the Seminar of the Swiss Section of the International Commission of Jurists, Berne, 2013) – "Rechtsprechung des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts zum Staatshaftungsrecht" (Contribution to the St. Gallen Conference on State liability), Lucerne, 2012 – "Justiz und Öffentlichkeit – ein paar Gedanken" (Article on Justice and the Public), in: Justice – Justiz – Giustizia, 2008 – "Gerichtsverwaltung und richterliche Unabhängigkeit: Überlegungen am Beispiel des Bundesverwaltungsgerichts", (Article on Court Management and Judicial Independence) in: Verwaltungsorganisationsrecht – Staatshaftungsrecht – öffentliches Dienstrecht, 2007 VIII. Languages Language Reading Writing Speaking very good fair very good fair very good fair good good good a. First language: x x x – German b. Official languages: x x x – English – French x x x c. Other language: x x x – Italian 6 Doc. 15153 Communication IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. X. Other relevant information XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge. 7 Doc. 15153 Communication Appendix 2 – Nicolas von WERDT CURRICULUM VITAE1 I. Personal details Name, forename: von Werdt, Niklaus Rudolf Alfred (a.k.a. von Werdt, Nicolas) Sex: Male Date and place of birth: 15 September 1959 in Basel/Switzerland Nationality: Swiss II. Education and academic and other qualifications – Doctor of Laws (Dr. iur.) at the University of Bern School of Law, Switzerland: 21 February 1991. In my doctoral thesis I commented on the Swiss semiconductor chip protection act (“Ausgewählte Probleme des Topographienschutzes für mikroelektronische Halbleitererzeugnisse”; Verlag Schulthess, Zürich 1991, ISBN 3-7255-3977-7). – Master of Laws (LL.M.) at the Cornell University School of Law, Ithaca, New York: 31 May 1987. My Masters’ thesis was a comparative law study on the legal foundations of the U.S. government’s and the European Economic Community’s regulatory powers (‘interstate commerce clause’ according to Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution vs. ‘trade between member states’ according to Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome of 1957). – Attorney-at-law (Fürsprecher/Rechtsanwalt): admitted to the Bar on 29 November 1985. – Student at the University of Bern School of Law from 15 September 1979 to 30 March 1985. – Baccalaureate (Matura/Maturité) at the Collège (Grammar School) de St. Maurice/VS: 30 June 1979. III. Relevant professional activities a. Description of judicial activities – Judge at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court from 1 January 2009 to date – Member of the 2nd civil law chamber since 1 January 2009 to date – President of the 2nd civil law chamber from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018 – President of the conference of the chambers’ presidents from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 – Part Time Judge at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court from 11 September 2001 to 31 Dec. 2008 – Alternate Judge at the Swiss Federal Military Supreme Court from 1 January 2000 to date b. Description of non-judicial legal activities – Lecturer for the Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS) in Civil Litigation, a joint program of the Universities of St. Gallen and Lucerne, from 2011 to date – Practice as Attorney-at-law: with the law firm of Kellerhals Carrard (www.kellerhals-carrard.ch), as associate from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996, as equity partner from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2008; with the law firm of Jolidon, Krneta, Gullotti, Hirt from 1 October 1987 to 31 August 1989; with the law firm of Baker & McKenzie, New York office, from 1 June 1987 to 30 September 1987 – Lawyer in the Legal Department to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland in 1991 1. Text in bold indicates posts or missions held at present. 8 Doc. 15153 Communication c. Description of non-legal professional activities Secretary of the board of directors of Bank EEK AG (a regional bank) from 1 January 1994 to 30 June 2008; member of the board of directors from 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2008. IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights In its jurisprudence the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to be constitutional in nature. Therefore, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court reviews the application of national law while taking into consideration the rights and freedoms as stated in the ECHR. This means that as a judge I need to have a good understanding of the rights and liberties protected by the ECHR and to read and study the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence in detail. In my activity as a judge in the 2nd civil law chamber of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court I am regularly confronted with all aspects of the civil limb of the right to a fair trial covered by Article 6 of the ECHR (right to a court, concept of a 'tribunal', concept of independence and impartiality, fairness of the proceedings, right to a public hearing, length of proceedings). In the context of substantive law, my activity requires me to handle complaints regarding the violation of the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8, mostly in the context of the law of persons [regarding the name of a person], as well as family law in its largest sense, including but not limited to parental rights, children’s’ rights, same sex relationships, child adoption, surrogacy, as well as Article 5 of Protocol No. 7, equality between spouses), the freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9, mostly in the context of proceedings regarding the protection of adults and children), freedom of expression (Article 10, mostly in the context of libel law), freedom of assembly and association (Article 11; mostly in the context of associations), right to marry (Article 12), right to an effective remedy (Article 13), and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14, mostly in connection with article 8 issues), as well as the right to freedom and security (Article 5/1/e and 5/4 [civil limb], mostly in the context of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants). In my capacity as a judge for the Swiss Federal Military Supreme Court, which deals exclusively with criminal matters, I had and have to deal with all aspects of the right to a fair trial (Article 6, criminal limb), the right to liberty and security (Article 5), the principle of ‘no punishment without law’ (Article 7), as well as the right of appeal in criminal matters, the right to compensation for wrongful conviction and the right not to be tried or punished twice (Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Protocol no. 7). V. Public activities a. Public office None b. Elected posts – Burgergemeinde Bern (civic community of the City of Bern): – Member of the Advisory Committee on Strategic Development of the Burgergemeinde Bern from 1 January 2019 to date – Member of the legislative council of the Burgergemeinde Bern from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2008 – Member of the Committee for the Oversight on Finances of the Burgergemeinde Bern from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2008 – Gesellschaft zu Obergerwern (civic community within the Burgergemeinde Bern; successor organisation of the tanners’ guild): – President of the executive committee from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2008 – Secretary of the executive committee from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002 – Member of the executive committee from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1997 9 Doc. 15153 Communication c. Posts held in a political party or movement None VI. Other activities Regular speaker at colloquies and law seminars, usually on the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. VII. Publications and other works (in reverse chronological order with respect to the year of publication) – «Begründungsanforderungen bei der Beschwerde an das Bundesgericht, Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Beschwerden gegen Entscheide eines Handelsgerichts», in: CivPRO Vol. 14, Stämpfli Verlag Bern 2019 (ISBN 978-3-7272-8708-4) [Article on how to present legal arguments in an appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.] – «Die Bedeutung der ZGBR aus der Sicht der II. zivilrechtlichen Abteilung des Bundesgerichts», in: Zeitschrift für Beurkundungs- und Grundbuchrecht, Heft Nr. 3/100: 100 Jahre ZGBR / 100 ans RNRF, 2019 [Article in honour of the 100th anniversary of the publication of a legal periodical; on the usefulness and impact of doctrinal criticism of decisions made by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.] – «Dissenting Opinion – Zwischen Schein und Wirklichkeit», in: "Justice – Justiz – Giustizia" 2018/4 (www.https://richterzeitung.weblaw.ch/rzissues/2018/4/dissenting-opinion-- _70c70243c4.html__ONCE&login=false#) [Article on the issue of dissenting opinions within the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.] – «Der Rechtschutz im Eheschutz», in: Festschrift für Thomas Geiser, Brennpunkt Familienrecht, DIKE Verlag Zürich/St. Gallen, 2017 (ISBN 978-3-03753-8) [Article on the judicial protection in proceedings regarding the protection of the marital union, i.e. of spouses and children in family disputes.] – «Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht der Schweiz», in collaboration with Dr. Urs Möckli, in: Bergmann/Ferid (Hrsg.), Internationales Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht, Verlag für Standesamtswesen, Stuttgart 2017; update in 2018 (ISBN 978-3-8019-1194-2) [Comprehensive description of the Swiss Federal laws regarding the rights of persons, families and children in an international setting.] – «Steuern und familienrechtlicher Grundbedarf», in collaboration with Dr. Martin Kocher, in: ZBJV Bd. 11/2014, Stämpfli Verlag Bern [Article on the impact of taxes in the context of spousal and child support.] – «Prüfung der Urteilsfähigkeit des Testators durch den Notar – insbesondere im Zusammenhang mit Alzheimer-Demenz», in: Aktuelle Themen zur Notariatspraxis, Cosmos Verlag Muri b. Bern (ISBN 978-3-85621-219-3) [Article on the responsibilities of a notary in the context of authenticating last wills and testaments established by parties that might suffer from dementia.] – «Die Beschwerde in Zivilsachen, Ein Handbuch für Beschwerdeführer und Beschwerdegegner», Stämpfli Verlag Bern, 2010 (ISBN 978-3-7272-8734-3) [A comprehensive guide for appellants and respondents in the procedure before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.] – «Kommentar zum Bundesgerichtsgesetz», Co-Author and Editor, Stämpfli Verlag Bern, 1st Edition 2007 (ISBN 978-3-7272-2530-0); 2nd Edition 2015 (ISBN 978-3-7272-2574-1) [Article by article commentary of the Swiss Federal Law on the Procedure before the Swiss Supreme Court.] – «Kommentar zum Gerichtsstandsgesetz», Co-Author and Editor, Stämpfli Verlag Bern, 1st Edition 2001 (ISBN 3-7272-9465-5); 2nd Edition 2005 (ISBN 3-7272-9465-5) [Article by article commentary of the Swiss Federal Law on the Designation of the Competent Court (ratione loci) in Civil Law Matters. This law has been repealed and replaced by the Swiss Federal Law on Civil Procedure in 2011.] Other articles on the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in procedural and civil law matters. VIII. Languages Language Reading Writing Speaking very good fair very good fair very good fair good good good 10 Doc. 15153 Communication a. First language: X X X – German b. Official languages: X X X – English – French X X X c. Other language: X X X – Italian The above rating is given with respect to my capability to read, write and speak within a legal context. I am proficient with legal English, having studied for a post-graduate degree (LL.M.) at the Cornell University School of Law in Ithaca, New York. There I met my future wife who is a US citizen (and also a lawyer). English is the language we speak in our household. My knowledge enables me not only to write in English but also to hold conferences in the English language (e.g. 2017: Chartered Institute of Arbitrators [CIArb] on the subject of the requirements for independence and impartiality of arbitrators; 2018: Georgetown University, Washington DC, on the application of foreign law by national courts; 2018 and 2019: Salzburg University School of Law, Summer School on European Private Law [https://www.uni-salzburg.at/index.php?id= 29085]: Keynote speaker at the opening ceremony). I also have a very good knowledge of the French language. Until the age of five I spoke French at home, my mother’s family coming from the French speaking part of Switzerland (Neuchâtel). However, we lived in the German speaking part of Switzerland (Basle) and we switched to using the German language as soon as I attended the local schools. However, for the last three years of Grammar School (Gymnasium/gymnase/ lycée) I attended a school in the French speaking part of Switzerland and I passed the final exams (baccalaureate/maturité) in French. Finally, approximately one third of the appeals filed with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and therefore some one third of the decisions I participate in are written in French. While I am more at ease writing in English, I easily write legal texts in French. IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. n/a X. Other relevant information Before being appointed to the Swiss Federal Military Supreme Court, I did my (mandatory) military service in the Swiss Army, first in the mountain infantry, and later as a general staff officer with the rank of a full colonel. XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. I confirm that I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. 11 Doc. 15153 Communication Appendix 3 – Andreas ZÜND CURRICULUM VITAE2 I. Personal details Name, forename: Zünd, Andreas Sex: Male Date and place of birth: 8 February 1957, Niederwil, Aargau, Switzerland Nationality: Swiss II. Education and academic and other qualifications – 1986 – Doctoral degree (Dr. iur./PhD), University of Bern – 1984 – Bar exam (advocate), Canton of Aargau – 1982 – Law degree (lic. iur.), University of Bern – 1978–1982 – Studies in Law, University of Bern III. Relevant professional activities a. Description of judicial activities – 2004–present – Judge at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court – Since 2009 – Member of the Second Public Law Division, Swiss Federal Supreme Court – 2010–2016 President of the Second Public Law Division, Swiss Federal Supreme Court (term limit of six years) – 2004–2009 – Member of the Criminal Law Division, Swiss Federal Supreme Court – 2002–2004 – Judge at the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Aargau (civil law insurance matters) – 1996–2004 – Part-time Judge, Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Second Public Law Division, First Civil Law Division, Second Civil Law Division) – 1993–1998 – Pre-trial Judge in criminal military matters – 1989–2002 – Part-time Judge, Court of Appeal of the Canton of Aargau – 1987–1996 – Law clerk at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Second Public Law Division) – 1986–1987 – Law clerk at the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Aargau b. Description of non-judicial legal activities – Editor of scientific publications, most recently the Commentary on Migration Law. Comments in particular on provisions of the Swiss Constitution, the ECHR and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) guiding the Swiss migration laws – Member of the editorial board of Swiss legal journals, including the Revue de droit suisse RDS, and the ASA, Archives de droit fiscal suisse – Expert for the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council and for the Political Institutions’ Committee of the National Council on Migration Law 2. Text in bold indicates posts or missions held at present. 12 Doc. 15153 Communication – Expert for the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs in connection with the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). For a list of expertise see c. IV. lit. b. – Author of various scientific publications. For a list related to human rights see c. VII. lit. b. – Author of numerous conferences. For a list related to human rights see c. IV. lit. c. – Lecturer in Constitutional Law and Human Rights Law at the University of St. Gallen c. Description of non-legal professional activities None IV. Activities and experience in the field of human rights My judicial and professional career has primarily been dedicated to the field of human rights, especially through my work as Judge — and, for six years, President — of the Second Public Law Division of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. This division adjudicates cases concerning fundamental rights under the Swiss constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in migration law, but also in other fields such as freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of language, right to education, and anti- discrimination law. I am also routinely asked to provide expert opinions on human rights issues by parliamentary committees and the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and have sought to contribute to the practical implementation of human rights law through my lectures and publications. a. Swiss Federal Supreme Court: I have served as Judge Rapporteur or President of the Second Public Law Division in a large number of cases involving human rights questions. The following is a sampling of the most significant recent cases: – BGE 144 II 427 Interdependence between taxation and criminal charges, Article 6 ECHR – BGE 144 I 266 Long-term stay, right to respect for private life, Article 8 ECHR – BGE 144 I 1 Free primary school: costs for school events and for special language courses for foreign schoolchildren – BGE 144 I 50 Right to join trade unions; interpretation in light of the Conventions of the International Labour Organisation; access to employers’ premises; Article 11 ECHR – BGE 144 l 214 Sanctions listing by UNSC; guarantees of Article 6 ECHR – BGE 143 I 437 Detention of parents with aim of expulsion, placement of the children; Articles 3 and 8 ECHR – BGE 143 II 361 Free legal assistance in Dublin detention cases: not dependent on chances of success – BGE 143 II 297 Competition law, principle of legality, Article 7 ECHR – BGE 142 I 49 Religious symbols, schoolchildren, freedom of religion, Article 9 ECHR – BGE 142 II 268 Competition law, publication of decisions of the antitrust commission, presumption of innocence, Article 6 ECHR – BGE 140 II 447 Safety in the workplace and freedom to provide services; rule of non-discrimination, Article 2 of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement between Switzerland and the EU – BGE 139 I 306 Obligation of the Swiss Radio and Television Company to preserve fundamental rights in the area of advertising, freedom of expression, Article 10 ECHR – BGE 139 I 330 Family reunification for refugees, Article 8 ECHR – BGE 139 I 206 Requirement of speedy decision in cases of detention with the aim of expulsion, Article 5 ECHR – BGE 139 I 16 Expulsion of foreigners, constitutional norm, practical concordance with constitutional rights and with the ECHR – BGE 139 I 72 Competition law, sanctions, guaranties of Articles 6 and 7 ECHR 13 Doc. 15153 Communication – BGE 138 l 274 Obligation of the Swiss Rail Company to preserve fundamental rights in the area of advertising, freedom of expression, political advertising, Article 10 ECHR b. Expert – 2013 – Expert for the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs on the ratification of the Third Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – 2013 – Expert for the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Swiss National Council on the impact of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Swiss domestic law – 2012 – Expert for the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs on the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – 2002 – Expert for the Political Institutions Committee of the Swiss National Council on Migration Law c. Lectures (last decade, selection) – 2018 – Harmonisation as a Tool of Interpretation in International and Domestic Law, Conference of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic and the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, Commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Supreme Court of the Czechoslovak Republic, Brno / Bratislava, 7 November 2018 – 2017 – Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit des Gerichts (Independence and Impartiality of the Court), University of St. Gallen/Zurich, 21 June 2017 – 2016 – Das Verhältnis zwischen Völkerrecht und Landesrecht (Relation between International Law and Domestic Law), University of Zurich, 7 April 2016 – 2015 – Effektiver Rechtsschutz im Kartellrecht (Effective Remedies in Competition Matters), Berlin, 23 June 2015 – 2014 – Sozialhilfe und Aufenthaltsbeendigung (Social Aid and Expulsion), University of Fribourg, 6 May 2014 – 2014 – 40 Years of the ECHR in Switzerland. Public debate on the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on the Swiss legal system and beyond, University of Geneva, 15 October 2014 – 2014 – Competition Law: Different Court Systems in Europe – Is Access to Justice Guaranteed?, University of St. Gallen, 15 May 2014 – 2014 – Mon Repos, Strasbourg et Luxembourg: La quadrature du triangle – regards croisés sur la jurisprudence en droit des étrangers (The Squaring of the Triangle – A Comparative Look at the Jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, ECtHR and ECJ in Migration Law), University of Neuchâtel, 5 December 2014 – 2013 – Dialogue of Legal Orders Through the Jurisprudence of Supreme Courts, public discussion with Dikgang Moseneke, Deputy Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa, and András Sajó, Judge of the ECtHR, University of Zurich, 19 December 2013 – 2011 – Interpretation of the Sectorial Agreements between Switzerland and the European Union, International Dispute Resolution Conference, University of St. Gallen, 28 October 2011 V. Public activities a. Public office – 2007–2019 – President of the Federal Commission on Working Hours (public transport sector) – 1986–1987 – President of an environmental policy commission, Municipality of Wohlen, Aargau – 1985–1987 – Member of the school authority of the District of Bremgarten, Aargau – 1984–1987 – Member of the Parliament of the Municipality of Wohlen, Aargau 14 Doc. 15153 Communication b. Elected posts – 2010–2016 – President of the Second Public Law Division, Swiss Federal Supreme Court (elected by the plenary court, maximum term) – Since 2004 – Judge of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (elected by the United Federal Assembly) – 2002–2004 – Judge of the Court of Appeal (elected by the Parliament of the Canton of Aargau) – 1996–2004 – Part-time Judge at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (elected by the United Federal Assembly) – 1990–2002 – Part-time Judge at the Court of Appeal (elected by the Parliament of the Canton of Aargau) – 1985–1987 – Member of the school authority of the District of Bremgarten, Aargau (elected by the people of the district) – 1984–1987 – Member of the Parliament of the Municipality of Wohlen, Aargau (elected by the people of the Municipality) c. Posts held in a political party or movement / VI. Other activities Jogging, walks in the forest, classical music VII. Publications and other works The dialogue between highest courts is of special importance to me and my work. I have particularly focused on exchange and collaboration with high-level judicial decision-makers throughout Europe, and I combine a comprehensive knowledge of Swiss law with a great interest in other legal systems. Therefore, I regularly organise and participate in visits, conferences and colloquia organised by constitutional courts and supreme administrative jurisdictions throughout Europe. I have hosted conferences of supreme administrative jurisdictions in Lausanne and presided over discussion on subjects like “International procedural guarantees, especially articles 6 and 7 of the ECHR and Protocol No. 7, Article 4 of the ECHR”, as well as “Protection of human rights, especially data protection in the light of modern electronic technologies”. I have published about 30 books and articles in the fields of human rights law, constitutional law, administrative law, competition law and criminal law. Here is a selection of the most important articles related to human rights: – Harmonisation as a Tool of Interpretation in International and Domestic Law, forthcoming – Kommentar Artikel 69 – 82 and 155 – 122c Ausländer- und Integrationsgesetz (Federal Act on Foreign Nationals and Integration), in Marc Spescha / Andreas Zünd et al. (eds.), Migrationsrecht, 5th edition, Zurich 2019 – Constitution – Démocratie – Etat de droit (Constitution, Democracy, Rule of Law), in Andreas Gross et al. (eds.), Liberté et droits humains, St-Ursanne 2018, pp. 37 – 44 – Staatliche Leistungen und Aufenthaltsbeendigung unter dem FZA (Social Aid and Expulsion under the Free Movement of Persons Agreement), in Astrid Epiney / Teresia Gordzielik (eds.), Personenfreizügigkeit und Zugang zu staatlichen Leistungen, Zurich 2015, pp. 157 – 212 – Das schweizerische Bundesgericht im Dialog mit dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Dialogue between the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights), in Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift EuGRZ 41/2014, Human Rights), in Europäische Grundrechte- Zeitschrift EuGRZ 41/2014, pp. 21 – 26 – Grundrechtsverwirklichung ohne Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit (Realisation of Fundamental Rights without Constitutional Jurisdiction), in Aktuelle Juristische Praxis AJP 22/2013, pp. 1349 – 1357 15 Doc. 15153 Communication – Aufenthaltsbeendende Massnahmen im schweizerischen Ausländerrecht, insbesondere unter dem Aspekt des Privat- und Familienlebens (Measures in Swiss Law to End Residence of Foreigners, Especially Taking into Account the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life), in Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift EuGRZ 40/2013, pp. 1 – 19 – The Implementation of the Free Movement of Persons Agreement between Switzerland and the EU, in European Law Reporter 2013, pp. 23 – 28 – Privatisierung von Polizeiaufgaben (Privatisation of Police Functions), in Sicherheit & Recht 2012, pp. 162 – 184 – Die polizeiliche Generalklausel (The General Police Clause), in Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins (ZBJV) 147/2011, pp. 261 – 293 VIII. Languages Language Reading Writing Speaking very good fair very good fair very good fair good good good a. First language: x x x – German b. Official languages: x x x – English – French x x x c. Other language: x x x – Italian German, French and Italian are my professional working languages. I have been and continue to serve as Judge Rapporteur in cases adjudicated in all three of these languages. IX. In the event that you do not meet the level of language proficiency required for the post of judge in an official language [the second], please confirm your intention to follow intensive language classes of the language concerned prior to, and if need be also at the beginning of, your term of duty if elected a judge on the Court. Though I meet the level of language proficiency in the official languages of the Council of Europe I am eager to continue to enhance my ability to communicate in both languages. X. Other relevant information XI. Please confirm that you will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. I confirm that I will take up permanent residence in Strasbourg if elected a judge on the Court. 16 http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15216 26 January 2021 Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation Report1 Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Rapporteur: Mr Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group Summary The rapporteur draws attention to a number of exacerbating negative tendencies with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the Russian Federation which are having an impact on the fulfilment of commitments and obligations of the Russian Federation. He deplores the crackdown on civil society, extra parliamentary opposition and critical journalists as well as restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on basic freedoms, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association. He calls for an immediate release of Mr Navalny and a meaningful investigation in cooperation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on his poisoning. He regrets the Prosecutor General’s decision to put the Council of Europe School of Political Studies on the list of so called “undesirable organisations” under the pretext of security and calls for its reversal. At the same time, the rapporteur highlights the Assembly’s continuous commitment to dialogue as a means of reaching lasting solutions. He therefore proposes that the Assembly ratifies the credentials of the Russian Federation and return to the assessment of the progress made when a monitoring report is submitted later this year. 1. Reference to Committee: Decision of the Assembly. Reference 4559 of 25 January 2021. F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Doc. 15216 Report Contents Page A. Draft Resolution ...... 3 B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Stefan Schennach, rapporteur ...... 5 1. Introduction ...... 5 2. Background ...... 5 3. Major recent developments and concerns of relevance to the Russian Federation’s compliance with its obligations and commitments in the Council of Europe ...... 6 3.1. Constitutional amendments ...... 6 3.2. Poisoning of Alexei Navalny and his detention upon arrival in Moscow ...... 7 3.3. Crackdown on civil society and political opponents ...... 8 3.4. Electoral law and concerns over elections ...... 10 3.5. Other concerns ...... 10 3.6. Khabarovsk ...... 10 3.7. International questions ...... 10 3.8. Financial obligations with regard to the Council of Europe budget ...... 10 4. Conclusions ...... 11 2 Doc. 15216 Report A. Draft Resolution2 1. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), and Resolution 2063 (2015), and reiterates the recommendations addressed to the Russian authorities therein; furthermore, it refers to its Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020). 2. The Assembly deplores a number of exacerbating negative tendencies with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the Russian Federation which are having an impact on the fulfilment of commitments and obligations of the Russian Federation. 3. The Assembly expresses its concern over a number of recent changes introduced to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the procedure for adoption of the amendments. 4. It has particular concerns in relation to a new Constitutional provision which empowers the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to declare a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights non-executable. This contradicts the obligations of the Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights. It should also be seen against the backdrop of an amendment to Article 83 of the Constitution which allows the Council of Federation (Upper Chamber of the Parliament) to dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court at the request of the President thus making the Constitutional Court vulnerable to political pressure. 5. Furthermore, the newly amended provisions of the Constitution on the protection of territorial integrity and the prohibition of alienation of territories, together with the implementing legislation adopted in 2020, outlaw and make criminally liable any steps aimed at the cessation of territory to another country. This thus makes a solution for the Crimea issue in line with international law, as repeatedly demanded by the Assembly, virtually impossible. 6. The crackdown on civil society, extra-parliamentary opposition and critical journalists as well as restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on basic freedoms, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association, raise utmost concern. In this context, the Assembly deplores the Prosecutor General’s decision to put the Council of Europe School of Political Studies on the list of so called “undesirable organisations” under the pretext of security. 7. The Assembly expresses its concern at the recent adoption by the State Duma of a series of restrictive amendments to legislation with regard to the activities of NGOs and the media, the organisation and conduct of public events, the protection of State and State security, as well as the laws limiting the human rights of LGBTI persons and the ongoing legislative process concerning further changes impacting basic freedoms. 8. Furthermore, the Assembly is extremely worried by the poisoning of Mr Alexei Navalny, the lack of any meaningful investigation by the Russian authorities and the lack of co-operation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is also extremely worried by the arrest of Mr Navalny upon his arrival in Moscow and his subsequent detention, as well as arrests and use of violence and disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators supporting him. 9. At the same time, the Assembly highlights its continuous commitment to dialogue as a means of reaching lasting solutions, as illustrated by the aforementioned resolutions. The Assembly constitutes the most important pan-European platform where political dialogue on the Russian Federation’s obligations under the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) can take place, with the participation of all those concerned, and where the Russian delegation to the Assembly can be held accountable on the basis of the Council of Europe’s values and principles. 10. Consequently, the Assembly resolves to ratify the credentials of the members of the Russian delegation. 11. In return, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to fulfil all recommendations included in Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), Resolution 2063 (2015), Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020), and moreover to: 11.1. address concerns and fulfil recommendations formulated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) in its Opinion No. 981(2020) on the draft amendments to the Constitution related to the execution in the Russian Federation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, and in its forthcoming opinion on remaining amendments and procedure of their adoption, which is expected to be delivered in March 2021; 2. Draft resolution adopted on 26 January 2021. 3 Doc. 15216 Report 11.2. refrain from the violation of basic freedoms and human rights, in particular freedom of expression, assembly and association, and to release Mr Navalny as well as peaceful demonstrators and supporters unduly detained, not only on the day of his arrival, but also in the run up to the planned demonstrations on 23 January 2021 and during the demonstrations themselves; 11.3. abstain from adopting new laws putting further restrictions on activities of civil society, journalists and opposition politicians, and to review the laws already in force, in particular the package of laws adopted on 25 December 2020, as well as the law on foreign agents and undesirable organisations, with a view to bringing them in line with Council of Europe standards. In doing this the Russian Federation should use Council of Europe legal expertise; 11.4. remove from the list of undesirable organisations, the Council of Europe School of Political Studies. 12. The Assembly expects that its clear offer of a meaningful dialogue will be taken up so as to lead to tangible and concrete results. It invites its Monitoring Committee to submit a report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation at its earliest convenience. 4 Doc. 15216 Report B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Stefan Schennach, rapporteur 1. Introduction 1. On 25 January 2021, with the support of more than 30 members of the Parliamentary Assembly present in the Chamber and/or following the proceedings via videoconference belonging to at least five national delegations, Ms Mariia Mezentseva (Ukraine, EPP/CD) challenged the still unratified credentials of the Russian delegation on substantive grounds on the basis of Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly. On the same day, the Assembly agreed to the proposal from the ALDE political group, supported by the Bureau, to hold a current affairs debate on “The arrest and detention of Alexei Navalny in January 2021”. 2. The substantive grounds on which the credentials were challenged refer to serious violations of the basic principles of the Council of Europe enshrined in Article 3 and the Preamble of its Statute (ETS No. 1), the deterioration of the situation in the Russian Federation with regard to the rule of law and democracy, the respect for basic freedoms and human rights, in particular freedom of expression, assembly and association, the arrest and ongoing detention of Mr Navalny and, more generally the compliance of the Russian Federation with its commitments and obligations in the Council of Europe and with recommendations included in Assembly Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), Resolution 2063 (2015), Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020). 3. In line with Article 8.3 of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) was seized for a report on substantial grounds and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for opinion. 4. At its meeting on 25 January 2021, the Monitoring Committee appointed me to be rapporteur. 2. Background 5. Since the return of the Russian Delegation to the Assembly in June 2019, following a three and a half year self-imposed exclusion from the Assembly’s work, the credentials of the delegation have been challenged on substantive grounds on two occasions: immediately after the return in June 2019, and subsequently in January 2020. Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020) adopted on these occasions expressed concerns over a number of exacerbating negative tendencies with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights having an impact on the fulfilment of the Russian Federation’s obligations and commitments. Stressing its commitment to political dialogue, the Assembly resolved to ratify the delegation’s credentials. They also invited the Monitoring Committee to present a report on the honouring of commitments and obligations by the Russian Federation at its earliest convenience. 6. The last report prepared by the Monitoring Committee in the framework of the monitoring procedure dates back to 2012. In 2016, an Information Note on the functioning of democratic institutions in the Russian Federation was prepared and declassified by the Committee. 7. The Monitoring Committee resumed its work with regard to the Russian Federation immediately after the delegation’s return by organising a series of hearings with the participation of different stakeholders, in particular representatives of Russian civil society and extra-parliamentary opposition as well as other Council of Europe monitoring bodies, including the Department for the Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Monitoring Committee of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities. 8. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, representatives of the Russian delegation from both the majority and opposition in the Russian Parliament, were invited and took an active part in the discussions whenever the Russian Federation was on the agenda. 9. The current monitoring co-rapporteurs were appointed in November 2019 (Mr Axel Schäfer, Germany, SOC) and in January 2020 (Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Netherlands, EPP/CD). Their monitoring visit to the country was scheduled for March 2020 but had to be cancelled at the last minute due to the pandemic situation in Europe. Since then, regrettably, no monitoring visit could be organised because of the ongoing sanitary crisis. In accordance with long-standing practice in the Monitoring Committee, direct political dialogue is a key element of the monitoring procedure and constitutes a necessary condition for the preparation of a report. As a result, no monitoring report on the Russian Federation has been finalised and submitted to the Assembly. 5 Doc. 15216 Report 10. The co-rapporteurs, however, continue their work and closely follow the developments with regard to the state of implementation of recommendations to the Russian Federation included in the above-mentioned resolutions. They acquire information from a variety of sources including online meetings with civil society. They have made a number of statements which are available on the Assembly website and they systematically report to the Monitoring Committee. 11. A number of reports under preparation in other Assembly committees refer to specific aspects of the Russian Federation’s obligations and commitments. I draw particular attention to the reports prepared by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, namely: Political prisoners in the Russian Federation; Poisoning of Alexei Navalny; The continuing need to restore human rights and the rule of law in the North Caucasus region, and other reports which are not country-specific. 3. Major recent developments and concerns of relevance to the Russian Federation’s compliance with its obligations and commitments in the Council of Europe 3.1. Constitutional amendments 12. The major development in the Russian Federation in 2020 was the adoption of the constitutional amendments proposed by President Putin in January 2020. Both the content of the amendments and the procedure for their adoption raised concerns as to compliance with democratic standards. 13. Following the request by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) delivered, in June 2020, an opinion on the draft amendments to the Constitution related to the execution in the Russian Federation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights. It concluded that the power of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to declare a judgment non-executable contradicts the obligations of the Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, this concern should be seen against the backdrop of another amendment, namely to Article 83 of the Constitution, empowering the Council of Federation (Upper Chamber of the Parliament) to dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court at the request of the President. In the Venice Commission’s opinion these amendments would make the Court vulnerable to political pressure. Regrettably, the Venice Commission’s recommendations have not been addressed by the Russian authorities, and the relevant revised Constitution’s articles are in force thus undermining the authority of the European Court of Human Rights. 14. In May 2020, the Monitoring Committee requested the Venice Commission’s opinion on the remaining amendments and the procedure for their adoption. Regrettably, due to pandemic crisis preventing Venice Commission’s experts from visiting Moscow, the opinion is not expected to be delivered before March 2021. However, even without a legal assessment, a number of concerns may be raised. 15. As a result of the amendments, the Constitution outlaws any steps aimed at the cessation of territory to another country, thus making virtually impossible a solution for the Crimea issue in line with international law, as demanded by the Assembly. A new Paragraph 2.1 is added to Article 67 reading as follows: “The Russian Federation shall ensure protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Actions aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation and incitement to such actions shall not be permitted”. 16. On 22 July 2020, the Duma adopted amendments to the law on “Countering Extremist Activities” aimed at consolidating the amendments to the Constitution on the protection of territorial integrity and the prohibition of alienation of territories. According to the new law, calls “for alienation of territories” will be sanctioned first through the Code of Administrative Offences and, if repeated, they will constitute a criminal liability with 6 to 10 years in prison. 17. On 8 December 2020, the President of the Russian Federation signed laws adopted by the parliament introducing amendments to the Criminal Code providing for punishment of “calls to violate the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation (Article 280.1 of the Criminal Code) and actions aimed at alienating part of the territory of the Russian Federation (Article 280.2 of the Criminal Code). According to these amendments, a person who has appealed in public for actions to be taken aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, may face criminal persecution. 18. The remaining constitutional amendments covered a variety of political, economic, and social areas. The law on amendments was adopted unanimously by the Duma (which introduced an additional amendment paving the way to a possible extension of President Putin’s mandate by two additional terms) on 11 March 2020 and by the Council of Federation on the same day, also unanimously. On 12 and 13 March 2020 the 6 Doc. 15216 Report Law was approved by the legislative councils of the 85 subjects of the Russian Federation and on 14 March 2020, the Law was sent to the Constitutional Court which issued, on 16 March 2020, an opinion finding that the amendments were in conformity with the Constitution. 19. While the revision of the paragraphs concerned of the Constitution did not require a referendum, President Putin’s draft law submitted to the Duma in January 2020 provided for a different procedure, completing the adoption in the Parliament and in regional parliaments by a consultative “All-Russian vote” unforeseen in the Federal Constitutional Law on the Referendum in order to gain more legitimacy. It had not been known before and did not meet requirements for a referendum. It was initially scheduled for 22 April 2020 but due to the Covid-19 pandemic it was postponed to 26 June – 1 July 2020 and spread over the week. 20. All issues of the most importance were put in one package for a simple “yes” or “no” answer for them to be treated together which was highly problematic. Furthermore Golos, the respected election watchdog, was very critical about the campaign, and in particular the lack of safeguards ensuring a level playing field for opponents to the amendments. The organisation and administration of the vote itself was also criticised for giving the authorities more control over elections and not ensuring necessary transparency thus limiting independent observers` abilities to track voter fraud. The voting lasted a whole week and from the first day of voting, Russians could cast ballots, not only in regular polling stations but also in makeshift mobile locations set up on park benches, car trunks and shopping trolleys, as evidenced by numerous videos and photos posted on the internet. The ballots were subsequently moved and kept in polling stations overnight which opened up a possibility for mass tampering. In its assessment of the vote, Golos noted “multiple voting, ballot stuffing” and “violating voter secrecy”. It stated that “a significant portion of the votes were collected by voting directly at enterprises and institutions, de facto under the control of their leadership”. 21. All the aforementioned changes to the Russian State system have taken place with unprecedented speed without any meaningful public debate or consultations. 3.2. Poisoning of Alexei Navalny and his detention upon arrival in Moscow 22. The poisoning of Mr Navalny, leader of the Anti-Corruption Foundation, on 20 August 2020 raised alarm and utmost concern inside and outside the Russian Federation. Mr Navalny fell into a coma on board a domestic Russian flight from Tomsk, where he was campaigning ahead of the local elections, to Moscow. After an emergency landing in Omsk he received immediate treatment for suspected poisoning. Local laboratories did not confirm poisoning. On 22 August 2020 at the request of his family he was air-lifted to Berlin where he stayed in the Charite Hospital until 22 September 2020. Toxicological analysis conducted by several specialised laboratories in Germany, France and Sweden as well as by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) revealed that he was poisoned by a military-grade chemical nerve agent of the Novichok family, developed in the former Soviet Union and banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. 23. The monitoring co-rapporteurs have issued a statement calling for a full investigation of the case as demanded by the international community. The Assembly’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights has been seized to prepare a report on the subject. 24. On 15 October 2020, the European Union in the absence of the Russian investigation or co-operation with the OPCW, imposed sanctions against six Russian individuals and one entity involved in the crime. No responsibility for the attack has been established by the Russian authorities and nobody has been brought to justice. 25. An investigation led by the independent investigative platform Bellingcat, with the involvement of Mr Navalny, revealed that the failed assassination attempt was co-ordinated by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and that the latter is running an illegal chemical weapons programme in violation of the Convention. 26. Mr Navalny’s detention on 17 January 2021 at the airport upon his arrival in Moscow on charges of a breach of the terms of a suspended sentence from 2014 raises further alarm. On 18 January 2021, following an impromptu hearing inside the police station in the absence of his lawyer, he was ordered to remain in custody for 30 days. 27. In its ruling of 15 November 2018, the European Court of Human Rights decided that a number of the Russian court proceedings against Alexei Navalny including the 2014 proceedings which were used as the pretext for his most recent arrest, breached his rights, were politically motivated and aimed at suppressing political pluralism. Therefore, they cannot constitute any legal basis for further detention. 7 Doc. 15216 Report 28. Over fifty people peacefully awaiting his arrival at the airport in Moscow were detained. 29. Immediately after his arrest, Mr Navalny’s team called for countrywide rallies to be held on 23 January 2021 to protest against his detention. In the run-up to this date, the Russian authorities had been taking preventive measures to stop the demonstrations. Law enforcement officers had been harassing and intimidating opposition figures, activists and journalists at their homes across the Russian Federation. Several of Navalny’s closest associates, including his press secretary Ms Kira Yarmysh, and employees of Anti- Corruption Foundation, had been arrested in Moscow. During the demonstrations which took place across Russia in more than 100 cities, over 3 000 people were detained, including Mr Navalny’s wife. In Moscow, at least 40 000 people joined an unauthorised and peaceful rally. As illustrated by online evidence, disproportionate force and unjustified violence was used by police forces to disperse the protesters. 30. Despite Mr Navalny’s detention, his team continues to expose serious corruption among the Russian top authorities as illustrated by the two-hour video report on the alleged secret palace of the President posted on YouTube on 20 January and viewed more than 44 million times since then. 3.3. Crackdown on civil society and political opponents 31. The situation of civil society operating in the field of democracy, rule of law and human rights, extra parliamentary opposition and critical journalists has been systematically deteriorating over the last years. The recent developments in this area raise utmost concern. 32. Between 10 and 23 November 2020, a series of bills amending legislation with regard to the activities of the NGOs, media, the organisation and conduct of public events, protection of State secrets and State security, as well as corresponding amendments to the administrative and criminal codes, were introduced to the State Duma. Some of these draft laws have already been adopted (see below), others are still undergoing legislative procedure. On 8 December 2020, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights requested a Venice Commission opinion on their compatibility with international human rights standards. 33. The law on “Foreign agents” adopted in 2012 was criticised very severely in the monitoring report in 2012, as well as by the international community. Instead of being revoked, it was further strengthened in 2014 (the Ministry of Justice could now put NGOs on the list of “foreign agents” without any registration on their part), in 2017, 2019 (the new provision gave the Ministry of Justice the power to recognise as “foreign agents” not only organisations, but also individuals receiving any amount of foreign funding from abroad; the criteria for defining an individual as a foreign agent being extremely broad and could potentially be applied to bloggers, journalists, students receiving foreign grants and other social media users), and, most recently, in December 2020. 34. On 23 and 25 December 2020, the Duma and the Federation Council respectively approved amendments to the law on Foreign agents which expand the scope of individuals and groups that can be designated “foreign agents”, introduce new restrictions as well as registration and reporting requirements. They also oblige the media to note the designation whenever they mention labelled individuals or groups. Furthermore, individuals labelled foreign agents will be banned from joining the civil service or holding a municipal government position. 35. The amendments to the Criminal Code introduced on 23 December 2020, provide for a punishment of up to five years in prison for individuals or organisations labelled as foreign agents who fail to inform official entities about their status and/or refuse to report their activities to the Russian authorities. 36. It should be stressed that already by early 2016, the Justice Ministry had labelled more than 100 organisations “foreign agents”. As a result, some organisations had to discontinue their work or shut down. Among them were St-Petersburg’s Anti-Discrimination Center Memorial and the Committee against Torture. And only last year, the Ministry of Justice added 12 organisations to its list of “foreign agents” including three human rights organisations, a group working on Aids prevention and the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) founded by Alexei Navalny. 37. Furthermore, in 2015, the law on undesirable organisations was adopted. It gives prosecutors the power to extrajudicially declare foreign and international organisations “undesirable” when they are deemed by the authorities as “representing a threat to the defence or security of the State, or to public order or public health in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order, morality rights and legitimate interests of the others. “There is no requirement in the law for the officials to substantiate their decision, nor any provision for judicial review at the stages of finding and putting the organisation on the list. Only once officially declared “undesirable”, can an organisation challenge this decision in court. 8 Doc. 15216 Report 38. “Undesirable organisations” are banned or limited from engaging in any activities inside the Russian Federation. Organisations that do not disband as well as Russians who maintain ties to them, are subject to high fines and significant jail time. The label, likewise in the case of “foreign agents” aims not only to prevent international NGOs from conducting their activities on the territory of the Russian Federation, but also to prevent the citizens of the Russian Federation from participating in the activities of the NGOs themselves, both in the Russian Federation and abroad. 39. On 25 December 2020, in an incomprehensible move, the Russian Prosecutor General decided to put the Association of Council of Europe’s Schools of Political Studies on the list of “undesirable organisations”. The Council of Europe Schools of Political Studies were established to “train future generations of political, economic, social and cultural leaders in countries in transition”. The first ever school of political studies was created in Moscow in 1992. 40. The monitoring co-rapporteurs have deplored this decision and called on the Russian authorities to revoke it. 41. Concerning numerous cases of persecution of journalists, governments’ critics or human rights defenders, the case of prominent journalist Ilya Azar illustrates a common pattern. He was detained in Moscow on 26 May 2020 and sentenced to 15 days of arrest for repeated violations of the law on rallies by holding a single-person protest against the arrest on extortion charges of Mr Vladimir Voronstov, a former police officer and founder of a Telegram channel exposing abuses in the Russian Federation’s enforcement system. In the following days, the police also shortly detained several other prominent journalists who were protesting in Moscow and St-Petersburg over his incarceration. The Organization for Security and Co- operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on freedom of the media had called for their immediate release. On 28 May, around 20 people were detained, including six opposition municipal deputies. All of them held single-person protests in support of Mr Azar. Reportedly, another four individuals were detained in St- Petersburg. Amid a public outcry in the Russian Federation and abroad, the Moscow City Court reduced Mr Azar`s imprisonment term from 15 days to 10 days. Mr Azar was released on 7 June 2020. 42. Numerous other examples of persecution and harassment illustrate the plight of civil society, and, more generally, of critics of the government, in the Russian Federation. In July 2020, Mr Navalny’s “Anti-Corruption Foundation” was about to shut down as a result of the heavy court fine imposed over one of its investigations. The conviction came because the organisation refused to delete a video documentary, released in 2017 exposing many facets of political corruption in the Russian Federation. Moreover, Mr Navalny has been placed under arrest multiple times for charges that have been denounced by the international community as illegitimate. In its judgement of 9 April 2019, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that these detentions took place in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. 43. In another emblematic prosecution which raised outcry in the Russian Federation and abroad: on 26 June 2020, an acclaimed Russian theatre and film director, Mr Kirill Serebrennikov, and his co-defendants were found guilty and handed suspended prison sentences on embezzlement charges in a case that critics say was politically motivated and meant to send a chilling message to potential government critics. They all had campaigned against constitutional amendments. 44. On 6 July 2020, journalist Ms Svetlana Prokopyeva was convicted in Pskov for justifying terrorism. She was condemned in connection with her comment linking the suicide terrorist attack of a teenager in Arkhangelsk, to a political climate under President Putin. More than a dozen reporters were detained for picketing in her support. The OSCE and media rights groups such as Reporters without Borders criticised the case and called it a violation of freedom of expression. 45. On 7 July 2020, Mr Ivan Safronov, a former journalist was detained on treason charges liable up to 20 years in prison. The revised Article 275 under which he was charged, is very broad, vague and unspecific and it is easy to imprison journalists on the grounds of revealing State secrets. The law does not specify what information is classified, leaving it up to various government agencies. According to lawyers, this law can be used to target anyone with international contacts, including scholars, journalists, researchers, and human rights activists. “The case against Mr Ivan Safronov is an absolutely new level of repression against journalists in this country” wrote Mr Andrei Soldatov, a prominent investigative journalist in a post on Facebook. 46. Twenty eight other journalists were detained for picketing in his defence in front of FSB building. All protests were peaceful, and the demonstrators held single-person pickets, distancing themselves from each other. 9 Doc. 15216 Report 47. There were reports of undue pressure on lawyers of activists. According to reports by Agora International Human Rights Group, it has become common practice for judges to remove lawyers from court hearings without proper legal grounds. The report also documented a trend of law enforcement authorities using physical force to prevent lawyers from being present during searches or interrogations. 3.4. Electoral law and concerns over elections 48. Soon after the All-Russian vote, and despite heavy criticism of the administration of the voting, spread over one week, on 21 July 2020, the Duma approved an amendment to the electoral code that allows voting over as many as three days during future elections. The decision on whether to hold multiday elections is to be made by electoral officials. 49. The new voting system was used during the regional and local elections in September 2020. Voting started on 11 September and lasted for three days, with 13 September as the main election day. 50. Elections organised in Crimea were not recognised by the European Union as held in violation of international law. 3.5. Other concerns 51. The 2016 parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation were held according to a mixed system: 225 deputies were elected in single-member constituencies (including 4 constituencies in Crimea) and 225 deputies on party lists in a nationwide constituency also including the territory of Crimea. In 2019, following the challenge of the credentials of the Russian delegation on procedural grounds (Article 7) questioning its legitimacy, the Assembly’s Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs requested the Venice Commission’s opinion in this respect. While the Venice Commission concluded that the Assembly’s obligation not to recognise an annexation does not necessarily entail the obligation to deny credentials on procedural grounds to the whole delegation of the annexing State, it recalled that other options were possible as indeed provided by the rules of procedure of the Assembly. In my opinion the Assembly should agree that no members of the Russian delegation elected in Crimea can have their credentials ratified. 3.6. Khabarovsk 52. Among other developments in the Russian Federation over the last year, I should mention demonstrations and protests in Khabarovsk in support of the then Governor, Sergiey Furgal, arrested on charges which were widely perceived as politicised. On 25 July 2020, an unprecedented demonstration with the participation of 50 000 (about 1/10 of the city population) was held calling for the Governor’s reinstatement and the trial in Khabarovsk not in Moscow. Subsequently, a few protests in support of Furgal also took place in other cities including Novosibirsk, Vladivostok and Omsk. 53. The protests have been continuing. The last demonstration gathered over 100 people on 9 January 2021. The demands were not addressed. 3.7. International questions 54. Unfortunately, no progress has been made with regard to implementing the demands of the international community with regard to Eastern Ukraine, Crimea and the occupied Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. 3.8. Financial obligations with regard to the Council of Europe budget 55. With regard to the financial obligations towards the Council of Europe, upon its return to the Assembly in July 2019, the Russian Federation paid all due contributions to the ordinary budget and partial agreements for the second part of 2017, 2018 and 2019. 56. However, the Russian Federation has not reimbursed unpaid interests over that period amounting to over 13 million euro in 2019. The Russian Federation has blocked this reimbursement following disputes within the Committee of Ministers on the status of this reimbursement and its allocation. 10 Doc. 15216 Report 4. Conclusions 57. In June 2019, when the Assembly adopted Resolution 2287 (2019) on “Strengthening the decision- making process of the Parliamentary Assembly concerning credentials and voting”, which paved the way for the Russian delegation’s return to the Assembly, its intention was clear. The reason why the majority of members voted in favour of this text and then following the challenge of the Russian Delegation’s credentials in favour of Resolution 2292 (2019) was to relaunch a political and meaningful dialogue. 58. The dialogue has been relaunched as well as the co-operation in the Monitoring Committee, where the Russian representatives take an active part. However, we have to determine whether this dialogue is likely to bring about some progress in the state of implementation of the Russian Federation’s compliance with its obligation and commitments. 59. The brief overview which I have presented in the current report is not optimistic. However, I think it would not be appropriate to abandon the path we chose in June 2019 at this stage. I think that the Monitoring Committee should continue its work with regard to the Russian Federation. The co-rapporteurs should carry out a fact-finding visit as soon as possible and prepare a substantial report as soon as possible. The Monitoring Committee should carefully follow developments in the Russian Federation, with a view to assessing the situation and the country’s compliance with democratic standards and the Russian Federation’s commitments and obligations. 60. I also stress the importance of full co-operation on the part of the Russian authorities with all relevant Assembly rapporteurs, who should be able to carry out their fact-finding visits as soon as the pandemic situation allows. The Russian authorities should also fully co-operate with the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, enabling her visit to Crimea when sanitary conditions, due to the pandemic, allow. 61. With a view to pursuing a political dialogue I therefore propose that the Assembly ratifies the credentials of the Russian Federation and return to the assessment of the progress made when a monitoring report is submitted later this year. 11 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2363 (2021)1 Provisional version Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation Parliamentary Assembly 1. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), and Resolution 2063 (2015), and reiterates the recommendations addressed to the Russian authorities therein; furthermore, it refers to its Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020). 2. The Assembly deplores a number of exacerbating negative tendencies with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the Russian Federation which are having an impact on the fulfilment of commitments and obligations of the Russian Federation. 3. The Assembly expresses its concern over a number of recent changes introduced to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the procedure for adoption of the amendments. 4. It has particular concerns in relation to a new Constitutional provision which empowers the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to declare a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights non-executable. This contradicts the obligations of the Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights. It should also be seen against the backdrop of an amendment to Article 83 of the Constitution which allows the Council of Federation (Upper Chamber of the Parliament) to dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court at the request of the President thus making the Constitutional Court vulnerable to political pressure. 5. Furthermore, the newly amended provisions of the Constitution on the protection of territorial integrity and the prohibition of alienation of territories, together with the implementing legislation adopted in 2020, outlaw and make criminally liable any steps aimed at the cessation of territory to another country. This thus makes a solution for the Crimea issue in line with international law, as repeatedly demanded by the Assembly, virtually impossible. 6. The crackdown on civil society, extra-parliamentary opposition and critical journalists as well as restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on basic freedoms, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association, raise utmost concern. In this context, the Assembly deplores the Prosecutor General’s decision to put the Council of Europe School of Political Studies on the list of so called “undesirable organisations” under the pretext of security. 7. The Assembly expresses its concern at the recent adoption by the State Duma of a series of restrictive amendments to legislation with regard to the activities of NGOs and the media, the organisation and conduct of public events, the protection of State and State security, as well as the laws limiting the human rights of LGBTI persons and the ongoing legislative process concerning further changes impacting basic freedoms. 1. Assembly debate on 28 January 2021 (7th Sitting) (see Doc. 15216, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach; and Doc. 15218, opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, rapporteur: Ms Ingjerd Schou). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2021 (7th Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2363 (2021) 8. Furthermore, the Assembly is extremely worried by the poisoning of Mr Alexei Navalny, the lack of any meaningful investigation by the Russian authorities and the lack of co-operation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is also extremely worried by the arrest of Mr Navalny upon his arrival in Moscow and his subsequent detention, as well as arrests and use of violence and disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators supporting him. 9. At the same time, the Assembly highlights its continuous commitment to dialogue as a means of reaching lasting solutions, as illustrated by the aforementioned resolutions. The Assembly constitutes the most important pan-European platform where political dialogue on the Russian Federation’s obligations under the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) can take place, with the participation of all those concerned, and where the Russian delegation to the Assembly can be held accountable on the basis of the Council of Europe’s values and principles. 10. It has to be emphasised that by virtue of the obligation of States and international organisations under international law not to recognise the consequences of the illegal annexation of a territory, the ratification of the credentials of the Russian delegation by the Assembly would in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 11. Consequently, the Assembly resolves to ratify the credentials of the members of the Russian delegation. 12. On this occasion, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to fulfil all recommendations included in Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), Resolution 2063 (2015), Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020), and moreover to: 12.1. address concerns and fulfil recommendations formulated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) in its Opinion No. 981(2020) on the draft amendments to the Constitution related to the execution in the Russian Federation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, and in its forthcoming opinion on remaining amendments and procedure of their adoption, which is expected to be delivered in March 2021; 12.2. refrain from the violation of basic freedoms and human rights, in particular freedom of expression, assembly and association, and to release Mr Navalny as well as peaceful demonstrators and supporters unduly detained, not only on the day of his arrival, but also in the run up to the planned demonstrations on 23 January 2021 and during the demonstrations themselves; 12.3. abstain from adopting new laws putting further restrictions on activities of civil society, journalists and opposition politicians, and to review the laws already in force, in particular the package of laws adopted on 25 December 2020, as well as the law on foreign agents and undesirable organisations, with a view to bringing them in line with Council of Europe standards. In doing this the Russian Federation should use Council of Europe legal expertise; 12.4. remove from the list of undesirable organisations, the Council of Europe School of Political Studies. 13. The Assembly expects that its clear offer of a meaningful dialogue will be taken up so as to lead to tangible and concrete results. It invites its Monitoring Committee to submit a report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation at its earliest convenience. 2 http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15218 27 January 2021 Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation Committee Opinion1 Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs Rapporteur: Ms Ingjerd SCHOU, Norway, Group of the European People's Party A. Conclusions of the committee 1. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs (Committee on Rules of Procedure) is of the opinion that the proposal contained in the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) to ratify the credentials of the Russian parliamentary delegation (Doc. 15216) is in accordance with the Parliamentary Assembly's Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1). 2. However, it has to be emphasised that by virtue of the obligation of States and international organisations under international law not to recognise the consequences of the illegal annexation of a territory, the ratification of the credentials of the Russian delegation by the Assembly would in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. B. Proposed amendment Amendment A (to the draft resolution) After paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph: “It has to be emphasised that by virtue of the obligation of States and international organisations under international law not to recognise the consequences of the illegal annexation of a territory, the ratification of the credentials of the Russian delegation by the Assembly would in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.” C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Ingjerd Schou, rapporteur for opinion 1. Introduction 1. At the opening of the Assembly’s part-session, on 25 January 2021, Ms Mariia Mezentseva (Ukraine, EPP/CD), supported by the required number of members of the Assembly, challenged the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation on substantive grounds, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, on accounts of the deterioration of the situation in the Russian Federation 1. Reference to Committee: Assembly decision, Reference 4559 of 25 January 2021. Reporting Committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee). See Doc. 15216. Opinion approved by the committee on 27 January 2021. F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Doc. 15218 Committee Opinion with regard to the rule of law and democracy, the respect for basic freedoms and human rights, in particular freedom of expression, assembly and association. In particular, she referred to the gradual and continuous suppression of political opposition, the arrest and ongoing detention of Mr Navalny and, more generally the compliance of the Russian Federation with its commitments and obligations in the Council of Europe and with recommendations included in Assembly Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), Resolution 2063 (2015), Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020). 2. The Assembly decided to refer the challenge to the Monitoring Committee for report and, in keeping with Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Procedure, to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for opinion. 3. On 26 January 2021, the Monitoring Committee adopted a report and a draft resolution. The draft resolution proposes “to ratify the credentials of the members of the Russian delegation” and called the Russian Federation to implement in return a number of actions. 4. The Committee on Rules of Procedure is asked therefore to consider the compatibility of the above decision with the Rules of Procedure, in particular Rule 8 as well as with the Statute of the Council of Europe. 2. On the compatibility of the proposed decision with the Assembly's Rules of Procedure 2.1. Compliance of the motion to challenge the credentials with formal requirements 5. The committee points out that a motion to challenge the credentials of a delegation must comply with certain formal conditions in order to be admissible. Rule 8.1 provides that “[t]he unratified credentials of a national delegation as a whole may be challenged on the substantial grounds set out in paragraph 2 by: at least thirty members of the Assembly present in the Chamber, belonging to at least five national delegations”, and that “[t]he authors shall state the reasons for the challenge”. 6. This is the first time that a challenge of credentials has taken place at the opening sitting of a hybrid session. Following the request to challenge the credentials by Ms Mezentseva, members present in the Chamber supported the request by standing up while another 26 votes were cast through the remote electronic voting system, which brings to 38 the total amount of votes cast by representatives of more than five national delegations. No irregularities were observed. It could therefore be concluded that the request has gathered the required votes. 2.2. Analysis of substantial grounds in light of the scope of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure 7. Rule 8.2 provides that: “The substantive grounds on which credentials may be challenged are: a. serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of, and the Preamble to, the Statute; or b. persistent failure to honour obligations and commitments and lack of co-operation in the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.” 8. In its previous opinions the Committee on Rules of Procedure expressed its concern that any procedure for challenges to credentials should be based on a duly substantiated request. As was announced in the plenary, the challenge of the credentials of the Russian delegation relates to, inter alia: – systematic suppression of the political opposition in Russia; – persistent violation of human rights in Crimea and Donbass; – constitutional amendments entrenched in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and which open the possibilities for the Russian Constitutional Court to declare that decisions of interstate bodies adopted on the basis of provisions of international treaties which the Russian Federation is a party to which collide with the Constitution may not be executed in the Russian Federation; – the fact that some members of the delegation were elected in the nationwide constituency which incorporated an illegally annexed territory. 2 Doc. 15218 Committee Opinion 9. The reasons given to challenge the credentials constitute prima facie legitimate grounds able to fall under the scope of Rule 8 in that they contain a presentation of the facts and circumstances leading to support the assumption of persistent grave violation of Article 3 of the Statute and of the Russian Federation’s accession commitments to the Organisation. 10. However, it is not the task of the Committee on Rules of Procedure to enter into substantive considerations, the analysis of the substantial grounds being under the scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee according to its terms of reference. 11. The rapporteur notes that the Monitoring Committee's report includes a detailed description of facts leading the rapporteur and the Monitoring Committee to support the proposal to confirm ratification of the Russian delegation credentials. 2.3. Additional observations 12. As an obiter dictum, I would like to address the last argument raised by Ms Mezentseva related to the composition of the delegation. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, which according to its terms of reference has the authority to address questions related to challenging credentials on procedural grounds, had already discussed the implication which a composition of a delegation may have for the challenge of credentials on substantive grounds (Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure) with regard to two issues in particular: the presence in a delegation of a member against whom the European Union has implemented restrictive measures, and members elected in a nationwide constituency which includes an illegally annexed territory. 13. With regard to the first issue, the experts invited to the committee meeting held on 2 October 2019 concluded that, although the Assembly is not explicitly required to take into account any restrictive measures adopted by the European Union in dealing with a challenge to the credentials of members of a national delegation on procedural grounds, the Assembly would be fully justified in taking into account the existence of such restrictive measures when challenging the credentials of members of a national delegation on substantive grounds, under Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure, insofar as the Rule refers to a serious violation of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Preamble and Article 3 of the Statute, and that these restrictive measures were adopted by the European Union in response to such a serious violation. There is no direct obligation by the Council of Europe to take into account the European Union’s decisions. However, the values and principles shared by the two organisations are somewhat similar, and the European Union’s decision is a factor to be taken into consideration because it highlights the existence of the violations of international law and their seriousness, which justifies the European Union restrictive measures. 14. The second question was considered in light of Opinion No. 955/2019 which the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)2 delivered upon the request by the committee and in which it stated that, when verifying the credentials of parliamentarians who have been elected in a nationwide constituency which covers a territory that may not be recognised as forming part of the organising State, “the impact of the inclusion of the annexed territory on the final results of the election should be examined. The Assembly should consider this impact paying due regard to the principle of proportionality and determine whether the credentials should be ratified or refused”. Moreover, the Assembly's obligation not to recognise an annexation has an impact on its verification of the credentials of the delegation of the annexing State. 15. The Committee on Rules of Procedure considered whether ratifying the credentials of a national delegation which includes parliamentarians elected by citizens of an illegally annexed territory: – would run counter to the obligation not to recognise the consequences of an internationally wrongful act; – would be tantamount to recognition of the consequences of that internationally wrongful act – the illegal election of parliamentarians in that constituency; – would give it any legal effect and could entail implicit recognition by the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 16. The Venice Commission replied in the negative: clearly, the validation of the credentials of members elected on the basis of an illegal election cannot lead to a recognition of the annexation of the annexed territory by the annexing State which organised the elections. 2. Report on the compliance with Council of Europe and other international standards of the inclusion of a not internationally recognised territory into a nationwide constituency for parliamentary elections, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 121st Plenary Session, (Venice, 6-7 December 2019), CDL-AD(2019)030-e. 3 Doc. 15218 Committee Opinion 17. I believe it is important to make these conclusions explicit in the opinion in order to highlight the link that might exist between substantive considerations and the composition of a delegation, as well as the fact that the ratification of the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation will in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 4 http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15216 – Collection of written amendments 27/01/2021 (Final version) Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation Contents Page A. Draft Resolution ...... 2 F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Doc. 15216 (Draft Resolution) A. Draft Resolution 1. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1990 (2014), Amendment 6 Resolution 2034 (2015), and Resolution 2063 (2015), and Tabled by Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Ms Lesia reiterates the recommendations addressed to the Russian VASYLENKO, Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, authorities therein; furthermore, it refers to its Resolution Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Mr Arminas 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020). LYDEKA, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, Ms Maryna BARDINA, Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ In the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 1, insert the following words: ", as well as to the commitments undertaken by the Russian Federation upon accession and contained in Assembly Opinion 193 (1996) on Russia's request for membership of the Council of Europe" 2. The Assembly deplores a number of exacerbating negative tendencies with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the Russian Federation which are having an impact on the fulfilment of commitments and obligations of the Russian Federation. 3. The Assembly expresses its concern over a number of recent changes introduced to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the procedure for adoption of the amendments. 4. It has particular concerns in relation to a new Constitutional provision which empowers the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to declare a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights non- executable. This contradicts the obligations of the Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights. It should also be seen against the backdrop of an amendment to Article 83 of the Constitution which allows the Council of Federation (Upper Chamber of the Parliament) to dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court at the request of the President thus making the Constitutional Court vulnerable to political pressure. 5. Furthermore, the newly amended provisions of the Amendment 10 Constitution on the protection of territorial integrity and the (If adopted, amendment 2 falls) prohibition of alienation of territories, together with the Tabled by Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Mr implementing legislation adopted in 2020, outlaw and Jacek PROTASIEWICZ, Mr Oleksandr make criminally liable any steps aimed at the cessation of MEREZHKO, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms territory to another country. This thus makes a solution for Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena the Crimea issue in line with international law, as KHOMENKO, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms repeatedly demanded by the Assembly, virtually Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, impossible. Mr Rustem UMEROV, Mr Arminas LYDEKA, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Mr Emanuelis 2 (Draft Resolution) Doc. 15216 ZINGERIS, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK In the draft resolution, paragraph 5, replace the last sentence with the following sentence: "This amendment to the Russian Constitution not only ignores multiple demands of this Assembly with regard to the solution for the Crimea issue, but it is in a contradiction with the international commitments of the Russian Federation and international law." Amendment 2 (Falls if amendment 10 is adopted) Tabled by Mr Rustem UMEROV, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Mr Dmytro NATALUKHA, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, Mr Kakhaber KUTCHAVA, Ms Tamar TALIASHVILI, Ms Maria JUFEREVA-SKURATOVSKI, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ In the draft resolution, paragraph 5, replace the final sentence with the following sentence: "The Assembly recalls its position on the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and does not recognise any alteration to the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine)." 6. The crackdown on civil society, extra-parliamentary opposition and critical journalists as well as restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on basic freedoms, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association, raise utmost concern. In this context, the Assembly deplores the Prosecutor General’s decision to put the Council of Europe School of Political Studies on the list of so called “undesirable organisations” under the pretext of security. 7. The Assembly expresses its concern at the recent adoption by the State Duma of a series of restrictive amendments to legislation with regard to the activities of NGOs and the media, the organisation and conduct of public events, the protection of State and State security, as well as the laws limiting the human rights of LGBTI persons and the ongoing legislative process concerning further changes impacting basic freedoms. 8. Furthermore, the Assembly is extremely worried by the Amendment 7 poisoning of Mr Alexei Navalny, the lack of any Tabled by Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Ms Lesia meaningful investigation by the Russian authorities and VASYLENKO, Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Mr the lack of co-operation with the Organisation for the Arminas LYDEKA, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Mr Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is also extremely Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Ms Laima Liucija worried by the arrest of Mr Navalny upon his arrival in ANDRIKIENĖ, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Mr Moscow and his subsequent detention, as well as arrests Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, 3 Doc. 15216 (Draft Resolution) and use of violence and disproportionate force against Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena peaceful demonstrators supporting him. KHOMENKO, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, Ms Maryna BARDINA, Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ In the draft resolution, paragraph 8, replace the words "as well as arrests and use of violence and disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators supporting him", with the following words: "charging him with breaching the conditions of a suspended sentence in a case (Case of Navalny V. Russia, Application no. 101/15) where the European Court of Human Rights found that the Russian courts had, in effect, fabricated the crime of which he was convicted. We are deeply concerned with arrests and use of violence and disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators supporting him" Amendment 8 Tabled by Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Mr Arminas LYDEKA, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, Ms Maryna BARDINA, Mr Rustem UMEROV, Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ In the draft resolution, after paragraph 8, insert the following paragraph: "The Assembly calls on the Russian authorities to re-open and continue their investigation into the murder of Mr Boris Nemtsov. On 16 June 2019, the Assembly repeatedly flagged the failure of the Russian authorities to investigate the death of Boris Nemtsov, listing a number of "serious concerns" over its independence and effectiveness." 9. At the same time, the Assembly highlights its continuous Amendment 5 commitment to dialogue as a means of reaching lasting Tabled by the Committee on Rules of solutions, as illustrated by the aforementioned resolutions. Procedure, Immunities and Institutional The Assembly constitutes the most important pan- Affairs European platform where political dialogue on the In the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, insert Russian Federation’s obligations under the Statute of the the following paragraph: Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) can take place, with the participation of all those concerned, and where the "It has to be emphasised that by virtue of the Russian delegation to the Assembly can be held obligation of states and international accountable on the basis of the Council of Europe’s organisations under international law not to values and principles. recognise the consequences of the illegal annexation of a territory, the ratification of the credentials of the Russian delegation by the Assembly would in no way constitute 4 (Draft Resolution) Doc. 15216 recognition, even implicit, of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation." 10. Consequently, the Assembly resolves to ratify the Amendment 3 credentials of the members of the Russian delegation. Tabled by Mr Rustem UMEROV, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Mr Kakhaber KUTCHAVA, Ms Tamar TALIASHVILI, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, Mr Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER In the draft resolution, paragraph 10, after the words "the Assembly resolves", add the following word: "not" 11. In return, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to Amendment 11 fulfil all recommendations included in Resolution 1990 (If adopted, amendment 1 falls) (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), Resolution 2063 (2015), Tabled by Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Mr Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020), and Jacek PROTASIEWICZ, Ms Lesia moreover to: VASYLENKO, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Mr Arminas LYDEKA, Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Mr Rustem UMEROV, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK In the draft resolution, at the beginning of paragraph 11, delete the following words: "In return," Amendment 1 (Falls if amendment 11 is adopted) Tabled by Mr Claude KERN, Mr Jacques MAIRE, Mr Damien COTTIER, Mr Titus CORLĂŢEAN, Mr Fabien GOUTTEFARDE, Ms Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO, Mr Olivier FRANÇAIS, Ms Nicole DURANTON, Ms Nicole TRISSE In the draft resolution, paragraph 11, replace the words "In return", with the following words: "On this occasion" 11.1. address concerns and fulfil recommendations formulated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) in its Opinion No. 981(2020) on the draft amendments to the Constitution related to the execution in the Russian Federation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, and in its forthcoming opinion on remaining amendments and procedure of their 5 Doc. 15216 (Draft Resolution) adoption, which is expected to be delivered in March 2021; 11.2. refrain from the violation of basic freedoms and human Amendment 9 rights, in particular freedom of expression, assembly and Tabled by Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Ms Lesia association, and to release Mr Navalny as well as VASYLENKO, Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, peaceful demonstrators and supporters unduly detained, Ms Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Mr Arminas not only on the day of his arrival, but also in the run up to LYDEKA, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Mr the planned demonstrations on 23 January 2021 and Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Mr Dmytro during the demonstrations themselves; LUBINETS, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Mr Rustem UMEROV, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, Ms Maryna BARDINA, Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ In the draft resolution, in paragraph 11.2, after the words "to release Mr Navalny", insert the following words: "and all political prisoners declared by the Russian Memorial Society and the Helsinki Committee," 11.3. abstain from adopting new laws putting further restrictions on activities of civil society, journalists and opposition politicians, and to review the laws already in force, in particular the package of laws adopted on 25 December 2020, as well as the law on foreign agents and undesirable organisations, with a view to bringing them in line with Council of Europe standards. In doing this the Russian Federation should use Council of Europe legal expertise; 11.4. remove from the list of undesirable organisations, the Council of Europe School of Political Studies. 12. The Assembly expects that its clear offer of a meaningful Amendment 4 dialogue will be taken up so as to lead to tangible and Tabled by Mr Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Mr concrete results. It invites its Monitoring Committee to Rustem UMEROV, Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO, submit a report on the honouring of obligations and Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO, Ms Mariia commitments by the Russian Federation at its earliest MEZENTSEVA, Ms Lesia ZABURANNA, Ms convenience. Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA, Ms Olena KHOMENKO, Mr Dmytro LUBINETS, Mr Kakhaber KUTCHAVA, Ms Tamar TALIASHVILI, Mr Kęstutis MASIULIS, Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ, Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Ms Lesia VASYLENKO, Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK In the draft resolution, paragraph 12, after the first sentence, insert the following sentence: "The Assembly reserves its rights to annul the ratified credentials of the Russian delegation at its June 2021 part-session if no progress is made with regard to the implementation of the demands and recommendations of the Assembly as expressed in this resolution." 6 c1 Vote on Resolution Assembly's voting results Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation 107 in favor, 36 against, 24 abstentions All participants in the vote Voting choice Member Country Political group Abstention Ms Nerea AHEDO Spain ALOE Against Ms Gokay AKBULUT Germany UEL In favour Mr Ziya ALTUNYALDIZ Turkey NR Against Ms Luise AMTSBERG Germany soc Abstention Ms Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENE Lithuania EPP/CD Abstention Ms lwona ARENT Poland EC/DA In favour Ms Nigar ARPADARAI Azerbaijan EC/DA Abstention Ms Sibel ARSLAN Switzerland soc Against Ms Monica BABUC Republic of Moldova soc In favour Mr Viorel Riceard BADEA Romania EPP/CD In favour Mr Jose BADIA Monaco EPP/CD In favour Ms Theodora BAKOYANNIS Greece EPP/CD Abstention Ms Marijana BALIC Croatia EPP/CD Abstention Mr Vlad BATRINCEA Republic of Moldova soc In favour Ms Petra BAYR Austria soc In favour Mr Olivier BECHT France ALOE Abstention Mr Martin BELUSKY Slovak Republic NR In favour Mr Fourat BEN CHIKHA Belgium soc In favour Ms Marina BERLINGHIERI Italy soc In favour Mr Peter BEYER Germany EPP/CD In favour Ms Margreet De BOER Netherlands soc Abstention Ms Zdravka BUSIC Croatia EPP/CD In favour Ms Maria Luisa BUSTINDUY Spain soc In favour Mr Dara CALLEARY Ireland ALOE In favour Ms Laura CASTEL Spain NR In favour Mr Ahmet Onal <;EVIKOZ Turkey soc f Voting choice Member Country Political group In favour Ms Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN Norway soc In favour MsAima COLO Bosnia and Herzegovina EPP/CD In favour Mr Titus COR LA lEAN Romania soc In favour Mr Zsolt CSENGER-ZALAN Hungary EPP/CD In favour Ms Marie-Christine DALLOZ France EPP/CD Abstention Ms Jennifer DE TEMMERMAN France ALOE In favour Ms Susanne EBERLE-STRUB Liechtenstein ALOE Abstention Lady Diana ECCLES United Kingdom EC/DA In favour Mr Espen Barth EIDE Norway soc In favour Mr Mehmet Mehdi EKER Turkey NR In favour Mr Yunus EMRE Turkey soc Against Ms Annicka ENGBLOM Sweden EPP/CD In favour Ms Christiana EROTOKRITOU Cyprus soc In favour Mr Franz Leonhard ESSL Austria EPP/CD In favour Ms Tarja FILATOV Finland soc In favour Ms Dubravka FILIPOVSKI Serbia EPP/CD In favour Lord George FOULKES United Kingdom soc In favour Mr Olivier FRAN<;:AIS Switzerland ALOE In favour Ms Beatrice FRESKO-ROLFO Monaco ALOE In favour Mr Pierre-Aiain FRIDEZ Switzerland soc In favour Mr Tural GANJALIYEV Azerbaijan EC/DA Against Mr Andre GATTOLIN France ALOE In favour Mr Paul GAVAN Ireland UEL Abstention Mr Zbigniew GIRZYNSKI Poland EC/DA In favour Mr Carlos Alberto GON<;:ALVES Portugal EPP/CD Against Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO Ukraine EC/DA In favour Lord Leslie GRIFFITHS United Kingdom soc In favour Mr01afur~&GUNNARSSON Iceland UEL In favour Ms Zita GURMAI Hungary soc In favour Mr Antonio GUTIERREZ Spain soc Abstention Mr Marcin GWOZDZ Poland EC/DA In favour Mr Domagoj HAJDUKOVIC Croatia soc In favour Mr Sabir HAJIYEV Azerbaijan soc ·. In favour Mr Thomas HAMMARBERG Sweden soc In favour Ms Tatevik HAYRAPETYAN Armenia EPP/CD Abstention Mr Alfred HEER Switzerland ALOE Voting choice Member Country Political group In favour Mr Frank HEINRICH Germany EPP/CD Against Mr John HOWELL United Kingdom EC/DA In favour Mr Andrej HUNKO Germany UEL In favour Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV Azerbaijan ALOE Against Mr Fridon INJIA Georgia NR In favour Mr Kamal JAFAROV Azerbaijan NR In favour Mr Momodou Malcolm JALLOW Sweden UEL Against Ms Carmen JEITLER-CINCELLI Austria EPP/CD Against Ms Gyde JENSEN Germany ALOE Against Ms Maria JUFEREVA-SKURATOVSKI Estonia ALOE In favour Mr Josip JURATOVIC Germany soc In favour Ms Marietta KARAMANLI France soc Against Mr Arin KARAPET Sweden EPP/CD In favour Mr Axel KASSEGGER Austria EC/DA In favour Mr Georgios KATROUGKALOS Greece UEL In favour Mr Claude KERN France ALOE Against Ms Olena KHOMENKO Ukraine EC/DA In favour Mr Kimma KILJUNEN Fin land soc In favour Mr Norbert KLEINWAECHTER Germany EC/DA Against Mr lrakli KOBAKHIDZE Georgia soc Abstention Mr Frantisek KOPRIVA Czech Republic ALOE In favour Mr Kostadin KOSTADINOV North Macedonia soc In favour Ms Elvira KOVACS Serbia EPP/CD In favour Mr Tiny KOX Netherlands UEL In favour Ms Borjana KRISTO Bosnia and Herzegovina EPP/CD Against Mr Kakhaber KUTCHAVA Georgia soc Against Ms Mariam KVRIVISHVILI Georgia soc In favour Mr Jaroslav KYTYR Czech Republic ALOE In favour Mr Christophe LACROIX Belgium soc In favour Mr Tomasz LATOS Poland EC/DA Abstention Ms Suzana LEP SIMENKO Slovenia EPP/CD Against Ms lnese LTBit:JA-EGNERE Latvia EPP/CD Against Mr lan LIDDELL-GRAINGER United Kingdom EC/DA In favour Mr Tony LLOYD United Kingdom soc In favour Mr Reinhold LOPATKA Austria EPP/CD In favour Mr Pere LOPEZ Andorra soc Voting choice Member Country Political group· In favour Ms Josee LORSCHE Luxembourg soc In favour Mr George LOUCAIDES Cyprus UEL In favour Mr Dmytro LUBINETS Ukraine EPP/CD In favour Mr Jacques MAIRE France ALOE In favour Mr Emanuel MALLIA Malta soc Abstention Ms Marianne MARET Switzerland EPP/CD In favour MsAda MARRA Switzerland soc In favour Mr Matern von MARSCHALL Germany EPP/CD In favour Mr Edmon MARUKYAN Armenia ALOE Against Baroness Doreen MASSEY United Kingdom soc In favour Ms Emilie Enger MEHL Norway ALOE Against Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO Ukraine soc Against Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA Ukraine EPP/CD In favour Mr Carmela MIFSUD BONNICI Malta EPP/CD Abstention Mr Daniel MILEWSKI Poland EC/DA In favour Ms Elisabeth MOTSCHMANN Germany EPP/CD In favour Mr Simon MOUTQUIN Belgium soc Abstention Mr Arkadiusz MULARCZYK Poland EC/DA Against Ms Mariella MULARONI San Marino EPP/CD Abstention Mr Killion MUNYAMA Poland EPP/CD In favour Mr Zsolt NEMETH Hungary EPP/CD In favour Mr Andreas NICK Germany EPP/CD In favour Mr Marco NICOLINI San Marino UEL In favour Ms Snjezana NOVAKOVIC BURSAC Bosnia and Herzegovina NR In favour Mr L:arko OBRADOVIC Serbia soc In favour Mr Ulrich OEHME Germany EC/DA In favour Ms Carina OHLSSON Sweden soc In favour Ms Ria OOMEN-RUIJTEN Netherlands EPP/CD Against Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA Ukraine ALOE In favour Mr Halil OZ$AVLI Turkey NR In favour Mr Hi ~yar OZSOY Turkey UEL In favour Ms Biljana PANTIC PILJA Serbia EPP/CD In favour Mr George PAPANDREOU Greece soc I' ' 'In favour Mr Christian PETRY Germany soc Against Mr Paulo PISCO Portugal soc Abstention Mr Aleksander POCIEJ Poland EPP/CD Voting choice Member Country Political group Against Mr Mihail POPSOI Republic of Moldova EPP/CD In favour Mr Roberto RAMPI Italy soc Against Mr Urmas REITELMANN Estonia EC/DA Against Mr Gonzalo ROBLES Spain EPP/CD In favour Mr Ruben RUBINYAN Armenia EPP/CD In favour Ms Selin SAYEK BQKE Turkey soc Against Mr Axel SCHAFER Germany soc In favour Ms lngjerd SCHOU Norway EPP/CD In favour Mr Frank SCHWABE Germany soc In favour Mr Samad SEYIDOV Azerbaijan EC/DA Against Mr Pavel STANEK Czech Republic ALOE In favour Ms Petra STIENEN Netherlands ALOE Abstention Mr Davor lvo STIER Croatia EPP/CD Against Ms Susana SUMELZO Spain soc In favour Ms Aleksandra TOMIC Serbia EPP/CD In favour Mr Zoran TOMIC Serbia NR Against Mr Rustem UMEROV Ukraine EPP/CD In favour Mr Gaik VARTANEAN Republic of Moldova soc Against Ms Lesia VASYLENKO Ukraine EPP/CD Abstention Mr Martin VICKERS United Kingdom EC/DA In favour Ms Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN Finland EPP/CD Against Mr Sergiy VLASENKO Ukraine EPP/CD In favour Mr Liviu VOVC Republic of Moldova EPP/CD Abstention Mr Christoph WENAWESER Liechtenstein ALOE In favour Mr Markus WIECHEL Sweden EC/DA In favour Ms Martine WONNER France ALOE Abstention Ms Serap YA$AR Turkey NR Against Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO Ukraine EPP/CD In favour Ms Zeynep YILD IZ Turkey NR Against Ms Lesia ZABURANNA Ukraine ALOE Against Mr Emanuelis ZINGER IS Lithuania EPP/CD In favour Ms Naira ZOHRABYAN Armenia EC/DA In favour Mr Stefan ZRINZO AZZOPARDI Malta soc 2021 ORDINARY SESSION First part 25-28 January 2021 TEXTS ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY Provisional versions F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | assembly.coe.int Table of contents Recommendations Recommendation 2193 (2021) The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 15123 and addendum) Recommendation 2194 (2021) Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States (doc. 15205) Resolutions Resolution 2357 (2021) Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (January-December 2020) (Doc. 15211) Resolution 2358 (2021) The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Doc. 15123 and addendum) Resolution 2359 (2021) Judges in Poland and in the Republic of Moldova must remain independent (Doc. 15204) Resolution 2360 (2021) Modification of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure – follow-up to Resolution 2319 (2020) on the Complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations (Doc. 15093) Resolution 2361 (2021) Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations (Doc. 15212) Resolution 2362 (2021) Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States (Doc. 15205) Resolution 2363 (2021) Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation (Doc. 15216) Resolution 2364 (2021) Ethnic profiling in Europe: a matter of great concern (Doc.15199) Recommendations 2193 to 2194 http://assembly.coe.int Recommendation 2193 (2021)1 Provisional version The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Parliamentary Assembly 1. Referring to its Resolution 2358 (2021) on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly welcomes the measures taken by the Committee of Ministers to fulfil its tasks arising under Article 46.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”) and improve the efficiency of its supervision of the implementation of judgments of the Court. In particular it welcomes the use of the procedures provided for in Article 46, paragraphs 3 to 5, of the Convention in the case of Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan. 2. As the implementation of Court’s judgments still presents many challenges, the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 2.1. continue to use all available means (including interim resolutions) to fulfil its tasks arising under Article 46.2 of the Convention; 2.2. use once again the procedures provided for in Article 46, paragraphs 3 to 5, of the Convention, in the event of implementation of a judgment encountering strong resistance from the respondent State; however, this should continue to be done sparingly and in very exceptional circumstances; 2.3. give priority to leading cases pending for over five years; 2.4. consider transferring leading cases examined under standard procedure and pending for over ten years to enhanced supervision procedure; 2.5. continue to take measures aimed at ensuring greater transparency of the process of supervision of the implementation of Court judgments and a greater role for applicants, civil society and national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights in this process; 2.6. continue to organise thematic debates on the execution of the Court’s judgments during its meetings and consider organising special debates on leading cases pending for over ten years; 2.7. continue to increase the resources of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; 2.8. continue to step up synergies, within the Council of Europe, between all the stakeholders concerned, in particular the Court and its Registry, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Secretary General, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) and the Human Rights Trust Fund (HRTF); 2.9. regularly inform the Assembly about judgments of the Court whose implementation reveals complex or structural problems and requires legislative action; 1. Assembly debate on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting) (see Doc. 15123 and addendum, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Recommendation 2193 (2021) 2.10. rapidly finalise its evaluation of the reform of the Convention system following the 2010 Interlaken high-level conference. 2 http://assembly.coe.int Recommendation 2194 (2021)1 Provisional version Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States Parliamentary Assembly 1. Referring to its Resolution 2362 (2021) “Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States”, the Parliamentary Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers: 1.1. fully implement its decision on “the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe”, adopted at its 129th session, in Helsinki on 17 May 2019; 1.2. call on the member States to implement its recommendations CM/Rec(2007)14 on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe and CM/Rec(2018)11 on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe; 1.3. take stock of the progress achieved in implementing these two recommendations; 1.4. organise regular exchanges of views with NGOs working in the field of human rights protection and facilitate these organisations’ access to information on the Council of Europe’s activities and to events that it organises; 1.5. continue to strengthen the synergy between all the stakeholders concerned within the Council of Europe, in particular the Secretary General, the Commissioner for Human Rights, the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations, the Assembly and, where appropriate, relevant expert bodies, and establish a working group composed of representatives of these entities; 1.6. give priority to judgments arising from systemic problems concerning NGO rights and freedoms embodied in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, the Convention) when supervising the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; 1.7. establish an alert mechanism for receiving warnings of possible new restrictions on the right of association and other NGO rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention in member States, and for assessing this information and responding accordingly; 1.8. continue to promote European and international standards to protect the civil society space and exchange information on good practices in this area, particularly in co-operation with other international organisations such as the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union. 1. Assembly debate on 27 January 2021 (6th Sitting) (see Doc. 15205, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Ms Alexandra Louis). Text adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2021 (6th Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolutions 2357 to 2364 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2357 (2021)1 Provisional version Progress of the Assembly’s monitoring procedure (January- December 2020) Parliamentary Assembly 1. The Parliamentary Assembly acknowledges the work carried out by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council Of Europe (Monitoring Committee) in fulfilling its mandate as defined in Resolution 1115 (1997) (modified) on the “Setting up of an Assembly committee on the honouring of obligations and commitments by member states of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee)”. In particular it welcomes the committee’s work in accompanying the 11 countries under a monitoring procedure stricto sensu (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Poland, the Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine), and the 3 countries engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue (Bulgaria, Montenegro and North Macedonia) in their efforts to fully comply with the obligations and commitments they entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe, as well as the monitoring of the membership obligations of all other member States through its periodic review process. It recalls that, on 28 January 2020, on the basis of a report presented by the Monitoring Committee, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2316 (2020) on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Poland” in which it decided to open a full monitoring procedure in respect of Poland. 2. The Assembly is aware that the exceptional circumstances caused by the pandemic crisis have affected the monitoring process in 2020 by preventing co-rapporteurs from conducting visits to the countries under their responsibility and maintaining direct political dialogue with stakeholders. Moreover, due to the absence of plenary sessions which are a necessary pre-condition for an in-depth and balanced political debate on regular monitoring reports, no monitoring reports have been prepared under ordinary procedure. 3. It should be commended that despite objective constraints imposed on their work, monitoring co- rapporteurs have closely followed developments in their respective countries using all available means including videoconferences with a view to keeping abreast of developments in the countries under their responsibility as illustrated by numerous public statements they have made over the reference period. 4. In response to the new crackdown on political opposition and civil dissent in Turkey, the Monitoring Committee prepared a report under urgent procedure which was the basis of the Assembly resolution addressing challenges and shortcomings ranging from restrictions of election rights to the weakening of the rule of law or limited freedom of expression and media freedom in Turkey. 5. The Monitoring Committee followed the developments regarding the military hostilities which broke out on 27 September 2020 in the Nagorno Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It initiated a current affairs debate on the subject, organised exchanges of views with the participation of parliamentarians from both sides and monitoring rapporteurs on Armenia and Azerbaijan issued statements calling for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. 1. Assembly debate on 25 January 2021 (2nd Sitting) (see Doc. 15211, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), rapporteur: Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen). Text adopted by the Assembly on 25 January 2021 (2nd Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2357 (2021) 6. The Assembly welcomes the adoption and publication by the Monitoring Committee of internal working methods for the selection of countries for periodic review reports thus ensuring an impartial and fully transparent selection process. 7. The Monitoring Committee contributed to the debate on the Covid-19 pandemic which was organised at the Enlarged Standing Committee meeting on 13 October 2020, by preparing an opinion on the report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on “Democracies facing the Covid-19 pandemic”. 8. The Assembly welcomes the positive developments and the progress made during the reporting period in a number of countries under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, in particular in: 8.1. Albania: the agreement between all political stakeholders on electoral reform and the will expressed by the authorities to address, in line with European standards, the serious shortcomings noted in the draft amendments to the Law on Audiovisual Media Service; 8.2. Armenia: progress in the fight against corruption reflected by the improvement in the ranking established by the NGO Transparency International, from 105 to 77 out of 177 countries; the adoption of the 2020-2022 strategy to reform police forces, which foresees creating a new Ministry of Interior responsible for law enforcement agencies; the declared intention of the Armenian National Assembly to increase the transparency of political financing, and the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse (CETS No. 201, Lanzarote Convention); 8.3. Azerbaijan: the acquittal of Mr Ilgar Mammadov and Mr Rasul Jafarov in April 2020 while regretting that it had not been done within the deadline for the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgment; the release, on humanitarian grounds of 176 prisoners aged over 65 in need of special care due to their age and state of health, including two prisoners, convicted following the 2015 Nardaran events in unfair trials which raised concerns in the international community, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, thus addressing concerns expressed by the Council of Europe Commissioner on Human Rights with regard to the protection of the human rights and health of people detained in prisons in Council of Europe member States during the sanitary crisis; 8.4. Bosnia and Herzegovina: the return of a Bosnian delegation to the Assembly in 2020, after a full year of absence, due to the inability of political forces to reach an agreement on the formation of a government at the State-level; the holding of postponed local elections on 15 November 2020 and the political agreement signed in June 2020 that allowed local elections to be held in Mostar on 20 December for the first time since 2008, a requirement made both by the European Court of Human Rights in its Baralija judgment and by the Assembly in its Resolution 2201 (2018) “The honouring of obligations and commitments by Bosnia and Herzegovina”; 8.5. Bulgaria: the declared will of the authorities to reform the Constitution with a view to efficiently fighting corruption and ensuring the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law as well as its hitherto co-operation with the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) in this respect; 8.6. Georgia: the political agreement of March 2020 between all political stakeholders on a more proportional election system, which can contribute to a more pluralist and representative composition of the Georgian Parliament; 8.7. Republic of Moldova: the continuous co-operation of the Moldovan authorities with the Council of Europe and the smooth organisation of the presidential election despite a polarised environment and the challenging sanitary context. The Assembly takes notes of the election, on 15 November 2020, of Maia Sandu, the first woman to become President of the Republic of Moldova – with a clear majority of votes; 8.8. Montenegro: the peaceful shift of power following the general elections that took place in August, which constitutes a major political change since the independence, and was made possible thanks to the responsible attitudes shown by both the new majority and the new opposition in the aftermath of the elections; 8.9. North Macedonia: the ability of the four main political parties, despite their diverging views and different ethnic backgrounds, to build consensus in order to postpone the date of the early parliamentary elections (to 15 July) given the Covid-19 pandemic and allow the parliament to fulfil its legislative functions; the revision of the much awaited Law on the Public Prosecutor's Office, aimed at providing a sustainable solution for the cases of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes Related to and 2 Resolution 2357 (2021) Arising from the Content of the Illegal Interception of Communications; the noticeable efforts made by the authorities to revise the legislative frameworks to fight corruption, while expecting a consistent practical application of these new rules; 8.10. Poland: the efforts of all political actors to organise democratic elections despite the Covid-19 pandemic and the, albeit belated, agreement between the stakeholders on the postponement of these elections, including the new dates and the conditions for their organisation under pandemic conditions; 8.11. the Russian Federation: the role played in peace brokering over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 8.12. Serbia: the resumption of the EU-facilitated Belgrade-Pristina dialog after a 20-month halt and the establishment of a mini-Schengen zone to increase co-operation with Albania and North Macedonia; 8.13. Turkey: the intention expressed by the Turkish authorities to expand freedom of expression while preparing the Human Rights Action Plan and the continuous dialogue and co-operation established with the Council of Europe; 8.14. Ukraine: the efforts by the Ukrainian authorities to establish and ensure the functioning of the institutions to fight corruption in the country as well as the cease-fire agreement following the agreement of the Trilateral Contact Group dated 27 July 2020, which enacted additional measures to strengthen the regime of a full and comprehensive ceasefire. 9. At the same time, the Assembly expresses its concern about developments and remaining shortcomings in a number of countries under a monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue, and in particular: 9.1. Albania: the delays in establishing a functional Constitutional Court as well as the ongoing deep political polarisation in the country; 9.2. Armenia: the violence that erupted following the signature of the trilateral statement between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia on 9 November 2020, which resulted in the storming of institutional buildings and in physical aggression against the President of the National Assembly, that left him hospitalised; the rapid changes in the composition of the Constitutional Court without the opinion of the Venice Commission being fully taken into account; 9.3. Azerbaijan: reports of large-scale repression of government opponents and restrictions on freedom of expression, including internet access, under the pretext of safety measures against the Covid-19 pandemic, other outstanding concerns including, inter alia, lack of independence of justice, lack of pluralism, violation of the rule of law and human rights, as well as restrictions put on freedoms of assembly, association, expression, and religion; 9.4. Bosnia and Herzegovina: the continuing verbal attacks against the General Framework Agreement, including threats to declare self-determination by the Republika Srpska; continuous rhetoric questioning the legitimacy of some State-level institutions established under the General Framework Agreement, including the refusal to implement judgements issued by State-level courts; the lack of any progress with regard to the implementation of the Sedjić and Finci judgment; the lack of any progress with regard to the implementation of the recommendations made by the European Union’s group of experts in the 2019 Priebe report; the lack of any improvement in the field of freedom of expression and in the field of freedom of peaceful assembly in relation to the “Justice for David” movement; the absence of progress in terms of transitional justice and reconciliation; 9.5. Bulgaria: no substantial progress in the main outstanding areas of concern including high-level corruption and media freedom; 9.6. Georgia: the shortcomings noted during the last parliamentary elections while deeply regretting the decision of opposition parties to boycott the newly elected parliament; 9.7. Republic of Moldova: the slow pace of the reform of the judiciary, and slow progress in the fight against corruption, in particular insufficient progress made in the field of corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors, and, in this context, political migration of members of parliament which triggered political instability, notwithstanding allegations of political corruption; 9.8. Montenegro: the limited progress achieved in the four key areas identified by Resolution 2030 (2015): the independence of the judiciary, trust in the electoral process, the situation of the media and the fight against corruption; the re-appointment of presidents of courts for more than the two-terms limit set by the Constitution and the law; the failure to revise the electoral framework before the general 3 Resolution 2357 (2021) elections; no progress with regard to the composition and independence of the Judicial Council, nor in reviewing the disciplinary framework for judges; no substantial progress in the reform of the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns; no improvement in the situation of journalists; 9.9. North Macedonia: the situation of the media which remains unchanged, in particular issues such as the financial sustainability of independent media, self-regulation, transparency of media advertising by state institutions, political parties and public enterprises, and the public service broadcaster’s independence; 9.10. Poland: the refusal of the Polish authorities to execute judgements of its domestic courts and of the Court of Justice of the European Union which they do not like, contrary to its international obligations including to the Council of Europe; 9.11. Russian Federation: a number of outstanding concerns, including, inter alia, lack of pluralism, independence of the judiciary, restrictive environment for activities of political extra-parliamentary opposition, civil society, human rights activists and journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion as well as a number of problematic laws including the Foreign Agents Law, the Law on Undesirable Organisations or anti-extremist legislation, ratification of amendments to the Constitution that introduce major restrictions on application of international law and implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights; the lack of progress with regard to implementing the demands of the international community with regard to Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, the occupied Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia and the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova; 9.12. Serbia: limited progress, if any, in the outstanding areas of concern; issues raised with regard to general elections held on 21 June 2020 including the boycott by several opposition political parties which resulted, despite a last-minute lowering of the electoral threshold, in the formation of a new parliament without a viable opposition (with the exception of some members from minority parties); the management of the Covid-19 pandemic in times of elections including the lifting of restrictive lockdown measures during the election campaign and their unexpected reintroduction after the repeat election of 1 July which triggered clashes with – and disproportionate use of violence by – the police; restrictions to media freedom and attacks against journalists, as well as financial investigations launched against NGOs and human rights activists; 9.13. Turkey: the new crackdown on political opposition and civil dissent, the restrictions of freedom of expression and media freedom; the dismissal of mayors on alleged terror-related charges and their replacement by government-appointed trustees, the adoption of amendments to the 1969 Attorneyship law which undermine the independence of the bar associations and further deteriorate the rule of law; 9.14. Ukraine: the persistent shortcomings in the reforms of the judiciary and the justice system and the still limited results in the fight against the widespread corruption in the country; the recurrent attacks on journalists. 10. Consequently, the Assembly urges all the countries which are under the monitoring procedure or engaged in a post-monitoring dialogue to step up their efforts to fully honour their membership obligations and accession commitments to the Council of Europe. In particular, it calls on: 10.1. Albania: to foster the freedom of media and to ensure that all Venice Commission recommendations concerning the amendments to the Law on Audio-visual Media are fully addressed; and calls on all political forces to fully implement the new electoral framework which will allow for the conduct of genuinely democratic elections on 25 April 2021; 10.2. Armenia: to continue pursuing the democratic path it has chosen, and to solve the political crisis that followed the signature of the trilateral statement within the framework of a democratic state that respects the rule of law; 10.3. Azerbaijan: to address the outstanding concerns included in past Assembly resolutions, including, inter alia, lack of pluralism, violation of the rule of law and human rights as well as the restrictions put on freedoms of assembly, association, expression, and religion; and to refrain from war rhetoric; 10.4. Bosnia and Herzegovina: to refrain from any attack against the General Framework Agreement; to implement the Sedjić and Finci judgment; to implement the recommendations contained in the Priebe report; to end acts of intimidation against journalists, and to respect freedom of peaceful assembly, 4 Resolution 2357 (2021) notably in relation to the ‘Justice for David’ movement; to engage in a genuine reconciliatory process, in the spirit of the common statement signed by the Collegial Presidency during the 25th Anniversary of the General Framework Agreement; 10.5. Bulgaria: to step up its efforts in addressing outstanding concerns identified in Resolution 2296 (2019) “Post-monitoring dialogue with Bulgaria” including high level corruption, media freedom, human rights of minorities, hate speech and violence against women and to make full use of the Council of Europe’s legal expertise in the process of the adoption of a new Constitution; 10.6. Georgia: to fully and transparently investigate all allegations of electoral misconduct during the October 2020 parliamentary elections; the Assembly urges all political parties to take up the seats they won in the new parliament and not to undermine its democratic functioning; 10.7. the Republic of Moldova: to ensure that all political stakeholders engage in an inclusive dialogue and make the necessary political compromises to ensure the functioning of democratic institutions in line with Council of Europe standards for the benefit of all citizens; to adopt, without further delay, the expected legal and constitutional amendments, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission; to improve the independence, accountability and efficiency of the judiciary; to upgrade the election legislation in line with the August 2020 Venice Commission opinion, in particular to better regulate funding of election campaigns; to take meaningful action to fight corruption and conduct a thorough investigation into the 2014 bank scandal; 10.8. Montenegro: all political stakeholders to demonstrate that Montenegro is not only able to manage a democratic shift of majority, but also capable of confirming its European path and complying with its obligations, notably in the four key areas determined by Resolution 2030 (2015) “The honouring of obligations and commitments by Montenegro”; 10.9. North Macedonia: to pursue its efforts to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, in line with the recommendations of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO); to launch the reforms needed to improve the situation of the media with due consultation of all stakeholders; to further implement Resolution 2304 (2019) on the “Post-monitoring dialogue with North Macedonia”, notably to increase the sustainability and functioning of democratic institutions, consolidate the electoral framework and pursue inclusive policies aiming at securing the rights of minorities; 10.10. Poland: to fully implement Resolution 2316 (2020) on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Poland”, in particular regarding the independence of the judiciary and respect for the rule of law; to respect the reproductive autonomy of women and guarantee unhindered and timely access to sexual and reproductive health services; 10.11. Russian Federation: to address, without further delay a number of outstanding concerns, including, inter alia, lack of pluralism, independence of the judiciary, restrictive environment for activities of political extra-parliamentary opposition, civil society, human rights activists and journalists, restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, association and religion as well as a number of problematic laws including the Foreign Agents Law, the Law on Undesirable Organisations or anti- extremist legislation; to implement the demands of the international community with regard to Eastern Ukraine, Crimea, the occupied Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova; 10.12. Serbia: to foster an inclusive dialogue with all political parties in order to ensure pluralism of views when preparing the reforms expected in the framework of the monitoring procedure, in particular the revision of the Constitution to enhance independence of the judiciary; to strengthen the position and action of independent institutions; to review the election legislation on the basis of a consensus of the main political forces in order to build trust in election processes and ensure fair election conditions in the future; to improve the situation of the media, investigate attacks on journalists and create conditions allowing civil society and independent media to express critical views and ensure a sound scrutiny of public institutions leading to the necessary checks and balances in a democratic society; to take a firm stand against hate speech which nurtures hostility against journalists, human activists and political opponents; 10.13. Turkey: to implement Resolution 2347 (2020) “New crackdown on political opposition and civil dissent in Turkey: urgent need to safeguard Council of Europe standards” and notably to: refrain from systematic prosecution and investigation of dissenting voices – including opposition politicians, human rights defenders, journalists, academics – and protect their fundamental freedoms; reinstate the dismissed mayors and make the expected legal changes in the election legislation, in line with the June 5 Resolution 2357 (2021) 2020 opinion of the Venice Commission; to release Osman Kavala and implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; to amend and/or ensure strict interpretation of the Anti-terror Law and the Penal Code so as to ensure that their implementation and interpretation comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights; 10.14. Ukraine: to take all necessary actions to strengthen the structures necessary to fight corruption in the country, including by restoring the effective functioning of the e-declaration system and clarifying the legal status of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine while at the same time refraining from any actions that could have a lasting detrimental effect on the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Ukraine; to ensure the effective investigation of all attacks against journalists; and to ensure the compliance with the obligations to protect the linguistic rights of national minorities. 11. With regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Assembly calls on all parties involved to refrain from inflammatory rhetoric hindering political dialogue, Armenia and Azerbaijan to implement as soon as possible the provisions of the trilateral statement related to humanitarian issues, all parties involved to immediately put in action the exchange of prisoners of war and bodies, to respect cultural heritage; it invites the Monitoring Committee to explore avenues to contribute at parliamentary level to an atmosphere conducive to the peace process. The Assembly expresses its serious concern about reports and allegations of violations of humanitarian and human rights law by all sides during this conflict and allegations of degradations to some religious sites and monuments, as well as destruction of private property, and expects these reports to be fully investigated and any violations to be remedied and the perpetrators prosecuted. 12. The Assembly invites the Monitoring Committee to further reflect on possible ways of adapting its working methods to the constraints imposed by the pandemic crisis with a view to improving the efficiency of the parliamentary monitoring procedures under challenging circumstances. 13. The Assembly invites all monitoring rapporteurs to resume visits to the countries under their responsibility as soon as the travel restrictions due to the pandemic are lifted and calls on all countries concerned to facilitate the organisation of such visits without undue delay. 6 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2358 (2021)1 Provisional version The implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Parliamentary Assembly 1. Although primary responsibility for supervision of the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”), signed nearly 70 years ago, lies with the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 46.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No 5, “the Convention”), since its Resolution 1226 (2000), the Parliamentary Assembly has significantly contributed to this process, as stressed in its recent Resolution 2277 (2019) on the “Role and mission of the Parliamentary Assembly: main challenges for the future”. 2. The Assembly recalls in particular its Resolutions 2178 (2017), 2075 (2015), 1787 (2011), 1516 (2006) and Recommendations 2110 (2017) and 2079 (2015) on the “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”, in which it promoted national parliaments’ involvement in this process. It also recalls that the implementation of a Court judgment, required by Article 46.2 of the Convention, may relate not only to the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court, but also to the adoption of other individual measures (aimed at restitutio in integrum for applicants) and/or general measures (aimed at preventing fresh violations of the Convention). 3. Since last examining this question in 2017, the Assembly notes further progress in the implementation of Court judgments, notably a constant reduction in the number of judgments pending before the Committee of Ministers (5 231 at the end of 2019) and the adoption of individual and general measures in many complex cases, which are still pending. This shows the efficiency of the reform of the Convention system started in 2010 after the high-level conference in Interlaken and the impact of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, which entered into force in June 2010, in response to the extremely critical situation of the Court and over 10 000 judgments pending before the Committee of Ministers at that time. The Assembly welcomes the measures taken by the Committee of Ministers to make its supervision of the implementation of Court judgments more efficient and the synergies that have been developed in this context within the Council of Europe as well as between its bodies and national authorities. 4. However, the Assembly remains deeply concerned over the number of cases revealing structural problems pending before the Committee of Ministers for more than five years. The number of such cases has only slightly decreased over the last three years. The Assembly also notes that the Russian Federation (including illegally annexed Crimea and temporarily occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions), Turkey, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Italy, Greece, the Republic of Moldova, Azerbaijan and Bulgaria have the highest number of non-implemented Court judgments and still face serious structural or complex problems, some of which have not been resolved for over ten years. This might be due to deeply rooted problems such as persistent prejudice against certain groups in society, inadequate management at national level, lack of necessary resources or political will or even open disagreement with the Court’s judgment. 1. Assembly debate on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting) (see Doc. 15123 and addendum, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Constantinos Efstathiou). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting). See also Recommendation 2193 (2021). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2358 (2021) 5. The Assembly is particularly concerned with the increasing legal and political difficulties surrounding the implementation of the Court’s judgments and notes that any national legislative or administrative measure cannot add further obstacle to this process. The Assembly stresses the inadmissibility of member States to legitimise the possibility of non-implementation of the Court’s decisions. 6. The Assembly further expresses its concern for the obstacles to the implementation of the Court’s judgments delivered in inter-States cases or showing inter-State features. It calls on all States Parties to the Convention involved in the process of implementation of such judgments not to hinder this process and to fully co-operate with the Committee of Ministers. 7. The Assembly once again condemns the delays in implementing the Court's judgments and recalls that the legal obligation for the States Parties to the Convention to implement the Court’s judgments is binding on all branches of State authority and cannot be avoided through the invocation of technical problems or obstacles which are due, in particular, to the lack of political will, lack of resources or changes in national legislation, including the Constitution. 8. Thus, almost 70 years after the signing of the Convention, the Assembly invites all States Parties to the Convention to reaffirm their primordial commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular though full, effective and swift implementation of the judgments and the terms of friendly settlements handed down by the Court. For this purpose, it strongly calls on States Parties to the Convention to: 8.1. co-operate, to that end, with the Committee of Ministers, the Court and the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as well as with other relevant Council of Europe bodies; 8.2. submit action plans, action reports and information on the payment of just satisfaction to the Committee of Ministers in a timely manner; and to provide replies to submissions made by applicants, national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (NHRIs) and NGOs under Rule 9 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers’ for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlements; 8.3. provide for effective domestic remedies to address violations of the Convention; 8.4. pay particular attention to cases raising structural or complex problems identified by the Court or the Committee of Ministers, especially those pending for over ten years; 8.5. not to adopt laws or other measures that would hinder the process of implementation of the Court’s judgments; 8.6. take into account the relevant opinions of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) when taking measures aimed at implementing the Court’s judgments; 8.7. provide sufficient resources to relevant Council of Europe bodies and national stakeholders responsible for implementing Court judgments, including government agents’ offices, and encourage them to co-ordinate their work in this area; 8.8. strengthen the role of civil society and NHRIs in the process of implementing the Court's judgments; 8.9. condemn statements discrediting the Court’s authority and attacks against government agents working for the implementation of the Court’ and NGOs working for the promotion and the protection of human rights. 9. In light of the Venice Commission’s opinion 981/2020 of 18 June 2020, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to change the recent amendments to Articles 79 and 125.5.b of the constitution. 10. Referring to its Resolution 1823 (2011) “National parliaments: guarantors of human rights in Europe”, the Assembly calls on the national parliaments of Council of Europe member States to implement the “Basic principles for parliamentary supervision of international human rights standards”, included in the appendix to the latter resolution. In this context, it stresses once again the need to establish parliamentary structures to monitor compliance with international human rights obligations, and in particular those stemming from the Convention and the Court’s case law. 11. The Assembly calls on Council of Europe member States which have not yet ratified Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention to do so rapidly. 2 Resolution 2358 (2021) 12. In view of the urgent need to speed up implementation of the Court's judgments, the Assembly resolves to remain seized of this matter and to continue to give it priority. 3 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2359 (2021)1 Provisional version Judges in Poland and in the Republic of Moldova must remain independent Parliamentary Assembly 1. The Parliamentary Assembly refers to its previous resolutions on upholding the rule of law and the situation with regard to the judiciary in the member States of the Council of Europe, in particular Resolution 1685 (2009) “Allegations of politically motivated abuses of the criminal justice system in Council of Europe member States”, Resolution 2098 (2016) and Recommendation 2087 (2016) “Judicial corruption: urgent need to implement the Assembly’s proposals” and Resolution 2188 (2017) “New threats to the rule of law in Council of Europe member States: selected examples”. 2. The Assembly reiterates that respect for the rule of law is one of the core values of the Council of Europe, is closely interlinked with democracy and respect for human rights and can only be achieved in a conducive environment. Corruption and conflicts of interest are always detrimental to its full realisation. 3. With regard to the Republic of Moldova, the Assembly is concerned about the proximity of part of the judiciary to the political authorities, which raises questions about the effectiveness of efforts to combat abuse of power and corruption. 4. As regards Poland, the Assembly notes that many judges have been subjected to various forms of harassment in recent months. In particular, disciplinary or pre-disciplinary proceedings have been brought against judges who have spoken in public about the independence of the judiciary, criticised ongoing reforms, taken part in activities to bring public attention to issues concerning the rule of law or submitted preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) or to the Polish Supreme Court. Others have been threatened or effectively demoted. The Assembly condemns the campaign of intimidation waged by the political authorities against certain critical judges and against the justice system in general as well as the lack of protective measures for judges subject to that campaign. Such conduct is unworthy of a democracy and a law-governed State. 5. Access to justice before independent and impartial courts is one of the main indicators for assessing respect for the rule of law in a given country, as pointed out in the “Rule of Law Checklist” produced by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), and which was endorsed by the Assembly in Resolution 2187 (2017). This essential right is safeguarded by Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”). In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) has repeatedly emphasised that for a body to be considered as independent – notably of the executive and of the parties to the case – regard must be had to the manner of appointment of its members, the duration of their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressures and the question of whether the body presents an appearance of independence. 6. The Assembly also refers to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers, which states that the independence of judges is an “inherent element of the rule of law, and indispensable to judges’ impartiality and to the functioning of the judicial system” and that it is “a guarantee of respect for human rights 1. Assembly debate on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting) (see Doc. 15204, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Andrea Orlando). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 2021 (3rd Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2359 (2021) and fundamental freedoms, allowing every person to have confidence in the justice system”. Where judges consider that their independence is threatened, they should be able to have recourse to a council for the judiciary or another independent authority, or they should have effective means of remedy. Councils for the judiciary seek to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and of individual judges; not less than half the members of such councils should be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary. 7. The Assembly points out that these principles have been reaffirmed in the documents of specialised Council of Europe bodies such as the Venice Commission, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) and the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE). 8. The Assembly notes that its Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) also examines the issue of the independence of judges in Council of Europe member States in the course of its work and refers to its most recent resolutions – Resolution 2308 (2019) “The functioning of democratic institutions in the Republic of Moldova”, and Resolution 2316 (2020) “The functioning of democratic institutions in Poland”. 9. Having regard to the findings of Resolution 2308 (2019), concerning the Republic of Moldova, which is the subject of an Assembly monitoring procedure, the Assembly is concerned that several attempts to reform the judiciary have not been successful and that corruption, including within the judiciary, remains a widespread phenomenon in this country. It takes note of the latest political changes and the political will on the part of the government to prioritise reform of the justice system, and welcomes the high-level consultations between the authorities and representatives of the Council of Europe. 10. The Assembly accordingly calls on the authorities of the Republic of Moldova to: 10.1. continue the reform of the judiciary, the Superior Council of Magistracy and the prosecution service in line with the recommendations of Council of Europe organs and bodies and in particular to finalise the adoption of the amendments to Article 122 of the Constitution; 10.2. take the necessary steps to implement the new strategy for reform of the judiciary, taking into account the Council of Europe experts’ assessment; to this end, the Moldovan authorities should prioritise the issue of the evaluation of judges and prosecutors and make full use of the procedures already available for ensuring the integrity of the judiciary; 10.3. significantly step up their efforts to combat corruption among judges and prosecutors and, to this end, implement the GRECO recommendations; 10.4. continue co-operating with the Venice Commission and with the other Council of Europe organs and bodies. 11. With regard to Poland, the Assembly notes that in view of the concerns which it expressed in Resolution 2316 (2020) concerning the changes in the functioning of the justice system introduced since late 2015, it has opened a monitoring procedure in respect of this country. Poland is the only European Union member State currently undergoing this procedure. The Assembly remains concerned about the events that followed the adoption of the said resolution, notably the entry into force of the law of 20 December 2019, new disciplinary proceedings against judges and proceedings with a view to lifting their immunity, even for things done in the performance of their judicial duties, and further cases of judges being harassed. 12. The Assembly notes that the concerns expressed in Resolution 2316 (2020) remain valid: 12.1. the “constitutional crisis” has not been resolved and the Constitutional Tribunal seems to be firmly under the control of the ruling authorities, preventing it from being an impartial and independent arbiter of constitutionality and the rule of law; 12.2. given the current composition of the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) and the judgment handed down by the CJEU on 19 November 2019, the NCJ can no longer be regarded as an autonomous body independent of the legislature and the executive; 12.3. the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court does not meet the requirements of independence and impartiality set out in the CJEU judgment of 19 November 2019, as the objective circumstances in which that court was formed, its characteristics and the means by which its members have been appointed are capable of giving rise to legitimate doubts, in the minds of subjects of the law, as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors; the same reasoning may be applied to the Supreme Court’s Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs; 2 Resolution 2359 (2021) 12.4. the powers of the Minister of Justice with respect to the appointment and dismissal of court presidents, disciplinary proceedings against judges and the internal organisation of courts, remain excessive, particularly in view of his powers as Prosecutor General. 13. The Assembly also remains concerned about the reaction of the Polish authorities to the Supreme Court resolution of 23 January 2020 and calls on the Polish authorities to fully abide by this resolution. It is concerned about the legal chaos which the “reform” of the judiciary has meant for citizens in Poland and abroad affected by the decisions of the Polish courts, whose validity has been called into question by the serious doubts over the legitimacy of the procedure for appointing certain judges, including judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court, as well as the appointment of the latter’s First President. It considers that the entry into force of the Law of 20 December 2019 will deter judges from exercising their rights to respect for private life and freedom of expression and association, as enshrined in Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention respectively, and may prevent them from raising doubts as to whether the composition of a court might render proceedings void on grounds of nullity. 14. Accordingly, the Assembly calls on the Polish authorities to: 14.1. refrain from applying the provisions of the Law of 20 December 2019; 14.2. review the changes made to the functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal and the ordinary justice system in the light of Council of Europe standards relating to the rule of law, democracy and human rights; following the findings of the Venice Commission included in its Opinion No. 977/2020 of 22 June 2020 concerning in particular the amendments to the Law on Ordinary Courts introduced since 2017, it would be advisable to: 14.2.1. revert to the previous system of electing judicial members of the National Council of the Judiciary or adopt a reform of the justice system which would effectively ensure its autonomy from the political power; 14.2.2. review the composition, internal structure and powers of the Disciplinary Chamber and the Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court; 14.2.3. review the procedure for the election of the first President of the Supreme Court; 14.2.4. reinstate the powers of the assemblies of judges with respect to the appointment, promotion and dismissal of judges; 14.3. refrain from taking any legislative or administrative measures or other initiatives which might pose a risk to the rule of law and, in particular, to the independence of the judiciary; 14.4. co-operate fully with Council of Europe organs and bodies, including the Venice Commission, and with the institutions of the European Union, on issues related to reform of the judiciary; 14.5. institute a constructive and sustainable dialogue on justice reform with all stakeholders, including opposition parties, representatives of the judiciary, bar associations, civil society and academic experts. 15. The Assembly highlights and recalls the judgments handed down by the CJEU in the cases concerning the early retirement of Supreme Court judges (C-619/18) and ordinary court judges (C-192/18) and the legitimacy of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court (C-585, C-624 and C-625/18), which have made it possible to remedy certain violations of the principles of judicial independence. In particular, it notes with satisfaction that, following the CJEU’s judgment of 24 June 2019 (case C-619/18), the judges of the Supreme Court were reinstated in their posts, and calls on the authorities to comply fully and as soon as possible with the other two judgments handed down by the CJEU and with its order of 8 April 2020 (case C-791/19) on provisional measures mainly concerning the suspension of the application of the relevant provisions on the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. 16. The Assembly refers to its Resolution 2178 (2017) on the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and calls on Poland and the Republic of Moldova to fully implement these judgments and to give political priority to those judgments which reveal a pressing need for wide-ranging reform of the judicial system. As regards Poland, this is valid despite the progress it has realised in the implementation of the Court’s judgments concerning excessive length of judicial proceedings. 17. Fully aware of the diversity of legal systems and cultures in Council of Europe member States, the Assembly calls on the Moldovan and Polish authorities to promote a political and legal culture conducive to the implementation of the rule of law and in particular to the independence of the judiciary, in law and in practice. 3 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2360 (2021)1 Provisional version Modification of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure – follow-up to Resolution 2319 (2020) on the Complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations Parliamentary Assembly 1. At its January 2020 part-session, by adopting Resolution 2319 (2020), the Parliamentary Assembly decided to introduce a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations. This decision completes three years of reflection by the Assembly aimed at intensifying and structuring the political dialogue with the Committee of Ministers and providing for joint action by the two statutory organs of the Council of Europe in order to strengthen the Organisation's ability to react more effectively in situations where a member State violates its statutory obligations or does not respect the fundamental principles and values upheld by the Council of Europe. 2. The Assembly takes note of the Ministers' Deputies' decision of 5 February 2020 to agree on "a complementary procedure for the application of Article 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, as a consequence of a serious violation by a member State of fundamental principles and values of the Organisation under Article 3 of the Statute". 3. Consequently, the Assembly decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as follows: 3.1. as regards the conditions for initiating and dealing with a proposal for a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations: 3.1.1. in Rule 24.2.c. on motions tabled by members which are published as official documents of the Assembly, complete the footnote by specifying "including motions tabled under Rule 54 and motions for a recommendation to initiate a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations"; 3.1.2. after Rule 25.2 on the tabling of motions for recommendations and resolutions, insert the following new rule: “A motion for recommendation to initiate a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations shall be presented in both official languages and signed by at least one fifth of the component members (representatives and substitutes) of the Assembly, belonging to at least three political groups and fifteen national delegations”; 1. Assembly debate on 26 January 2021 (4th Sitting) (see Doc. 15093, report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, rapporteur: Sir Edward Leigh). Text adopted by the Assembly on 26 January 2021 (4th Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2360 (2021) 3.1.3. in Rule 25.2, second sentence, add a footnote stating that "This provision shall apply to a motion for dismissal (Rule 54) and to a motion to initiate a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations.”; 3.1.4. in Rule 25.3., add a footnote stating that "A motion for dismissal (Rules 54.2 and 54.3) or a motion to initiate a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations (Rule 25.[3]) shall be published within twenty-four working hours.”; 3.1.5. in Rule 26 on reference to committees, add a footnote stating that: "The provisions of Rules 26.1 and 26.3 shall not apply to a motion for dismissal (Rules 54.2 and 54.3) – which shall be automatically referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs –nor to a motion to initiate a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations (Rule 25.[3]), which shall be automatically referred to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report.”; 3.1.6. in Rule 27.1 on the agenda, add a footnote stating that "The report of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on the initiation of a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations shall also be placed on the agenda.”; 3.1.7. in Rules 51.1 and 52.1 on urgent procedure in the Assembly and in the Standing Committee, add a footnote stating that: "A motion to initiate a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations cannot be the subject of a request for urgent procedure"; 3.2. with regard to establishing the conditions for voting on an Assembly decision on the initiation of a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations, insert the following new rule after Rule 41.a: "[The following majorities are required:] for the adoption of a draft recommendation on the initiation of a complementary joint procedure between the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly in response to a serious violation by a member State of its statutory obligations, a majority of two thirds of the votes cast and a number of votes in favour equivalent to at least one third of the total number of members of the Assembly authorised to vote;". 4. The Assembly decides that the amendments to the Rules of Procedure set out in this resolution shall enter into force upon their adoption. 2 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2361 (2021)1 Provisional version Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations Parliamentary Assembly 1. The pandemic of Covid-19, an infectious disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has caused much suffering in 2020. By December, more than 65 million cases had been recorded worldwide and more than 1.5 million lives had been lost. The disease burden of the pandemic itself, as well as the public health measures required to combat it, have devastated the global economy, laying bare pre-existing fault- lines and inequalities (including in access to health care), and causing unemployment, economic decline and poverty. 2. Rapid deployment worldwide of safe and efficient vaccines against Covid-19 will be essential in order to contain the pandemic, protect health-care systems, save lives and help restore global economies. Although non-pharmaceutical interventions such as physical distancing, the use of facemasks, frequent hand washing, as well as shutdowns and lockdowns, have helped slow down the spread of the virus, infection rates are now rising again across most of the globe. Many Council of Europe member States are experiencing a second wave which is worse than the first, while their populations are increasingly experiencing “pandemic fatigue” and are feeling demotivated about following recommended behaviours to protect themselves and others from the virus. 3. Even rapidly deployed, safe and effective vaccines, however, are not an immediate panacea. Following the festive season at the end of the year 2020 and the beginning of 2021, with its traditional indoor gatherings, infection rates will likely be very high in most member States. In addition, a correlation has just been scientifically established by French doctors between outdoor temperatures and the disease incidence rate on hospitalisations and deaths. The vaccines will no doubt not be sufficient to bring down infection rates significantly this winter – in particular when taking into account that demand far outstrips supply at this point. A semblance of “normal life” will thus not be able to resume even in the best of circumstances until mid to late 2021 at the earliest. 4. For the vaccines to be effective, their successful deployment and sufficient uptake will be crucial. However, the speed at which the vaccines are being developed may pose a difficult to combat challenge to building up trust in them. An equitable deployment of Covid-19 vaccines is also needed to ensure the efficacy of the vaccine. If not widely enough distributed in a severely hit area of a country, vaccines become ineffective at stemming the tide of the pandemic. Furthermore, the virus knows no borders and it is therefore in every country’s interest to co-operate on ensuring global equity in access to Covid-19 vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine nationalism have the capacity to derail the so-far surprisingly fast and successful Covid-19 vaccine effort, by allowing the SARS-CoV-2 virus to mutate and thus blunt the world’s most effective instrument against the pandemic so far. 5. International co-operation is thus needed now more than ever in order to speed up the development, manufacturing and fair and equitable distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. The Covid-19 Vaccine Allocation Plan, also known as COVAX, is the leading initiative for global vaccine allocation. Co-led by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Vaccine Alliance (Gavi) and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the initiative pulls funding from subscribing countries to support the research, development and 1. Assembly debate on 27 January 2021 (5th Sitting) (see Doc. 15212, report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Ms Jennifer De Temmerman). Text adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2021 (5th Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2361 (2021) manufacturing of a wide range of Covid-19 vaccines and negotiate their pricing. Adequate vaccine management and supply chain logistics, which require international co-operation and preparations by member States, will also be needed in order to deliver the vaccines against the virus in a safe and equitable way. In this regard, the Parliamentary Assembly draws attention to guidance for countries on programme preparedness, implementation and country-level decision-making developed by WHO. 6. Member States must already now prepare their immunisation strategies to allocate doses in an ethical and equitable way, including deciding on which population groups to prioritise in the initial stages when supply is short, and how to expand vaccination as availability of one or more Covid-19 vaccines improves. Bioethicists and economists largely agree that persons over 65 years old and persons under 65 with underlying health conditions putting them at a higher risk of severe illness and death, health-care workers (especially those who work closely with persons who are in high-risk groups), and people who work in essential critical infrastructure should be given priority vaccination access. Children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, for whom no vaccine has so far been authorised, should not be forgotten. 7. Scientists have done a remarkable job in record time. It is now for governments to act. The Assembly supports the vision of the Secretary General of the United Nations that a Covid-19 vaccine must be a global public good. Immunisation must be available to everyone, everywhere. The Assembly thus urges member States and the European Union to: 7.1. with respect to the development of Covid-19 vaccines: 7.1.1. ensure high quality trials that are sound and conducted in an ethical manner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention on human rights and biomedicine (ETS No. 164, Oviedo Convention) and its Additional Protocol concerning Biomedical Research (CETS No. 195), and which progressively include children, pregnant women and nursing mothers; 7.1.2. ensure that regulatory bodies in charge of assessing and authorising vaccines against Covid-19 are independent and protected from political pressure; 7.1.3. ensure that relevant minimum standards of safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines are upheld; 7.1.4. implement effective systems for monitoring the vaccines and their safety following their roll-out to the general population, also with a view to monitoring their long-term effects; 7.1.5. put in place independent vaccine compensation programmes to ensure compensation for undue damage and harm resulting from vaccination; 7.1.6. pay special attention to possible insider trading by pharmaceutical executives, or pharmaceutical companies unduly enriching themselves at public expense, by implementing the recommendations contained in Resolution 2071 (2015) on Public health and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry: how to guarantee the primacy of public health interests? 7.1.7. overcome the barriers and restrictions arising from patents and intellectual property rights, in order to ensure the widespread production and distribution of vaccines in all countries and to all citizens; 7.2. with respect to the allocation of Covid-19 vaccines: 7.2.1. ensure respect for the principle of equitable access to health care as laid down in Article 3 of the Oviedo Convention in national vaccine allocation plans, guaranteeing that Covid-19 vaccines are available to the population regardless of gender, race, religion, legal or socio-economic status, ability to pay, location and other factors that often contribute to inequities within the population; 7.2.2. develop strategies for the equitable distribution of Covid-19 vaccines within member States, taking into account that the supply will initially be low, and prepare for how to expand vaccination programmes when the supply expands; follow the advice of independent national, European and international bioethics committees and institutions, as well as of WHO, in the development of these strategies; 7.2.3. ensure that persons within the same priority groups are treated equally, with special attention to the most vulnerable people such as older persons, those with underlying conditions and health care workers, especially those who work closely with persons who are in high-risk 2 Resolution 2361 (2021) groups, as well as people who work in essential infrastructure and in public services, in particular in social services, public transport, law enforcement, and schools, as well as those who work in retail; 7.2.4. promote equity in access to Covid-19 vaccines between countries by supporting international efforts such as the Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT Accelerator) and its COVAX Facility; 7.2.5. refrain from stockpiling Covid-19 vaccines which undermines the ability of other countries to procure vaccines for their populations, ensure stockpiling does not translate to escalating prices for vaccines from those who stockpile to those who cannot, conduct auditing and due diligence to ensure rapid deployment of vaccines at minimum cost based on need not market power; 7.2.6. ensure that every country is able to vaccinate their health-care workers and vulnerable groups before vaccination is rolled out to non-risk groups, and thus consider donating vaccine doses or accept that priority be given to countries which have not yet been able to do so, bearing in mind that a fair and equitable global allocation of vaccine doses is the most efficient way of beating the pandemic and reducing the associated socio-economic burdens; 7.2.7. ensure that Covid-19 vaccines whose safety and effectiveness has been established are accessible to all who require them in the future, by having recourse, where necessary, to mandatory licences in return for the payment of royalties; 7.3. with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1. ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2. ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated; 7.3.3. take early effective measures to counter misinformation, disinformation and hesitancy regarding Covid-19 vaccines; 7.3.4. distribute transparent information on the safety and possible side effects of vaccines, working with and regulating social media platforms to prevent the spread of misinformation; 7.3.5. communicate transparently the contents of contracts with vaccine producers and make them publicly available for parliamentary and public scrutiny; 7.3.6. collaborate with non-governmental organisations and/or other local efforts to reach out to marginalised groups; 7.3.7. engage with local communities in developing and implementing tailored strategies to support vaccine uptake; 7.4. with respect to Covid-19 vaccination for children: 7.4.1. ensure balance between the rapid development of vaccination for children and duly addressing safety and efficacy concerns and ensuring complete safety and efficacy of all vaccines made available to children, with a focus on the best interest of the child, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; 7.4.2. ensure high quality trials, with due care for relevant safeguards, in accordance with international legal standards and guidance, including a fair distribution of the benefits and risks in the children who are studied; 7.4.3. ensure that the wishes of children are duly taken into account, in accordance with their age and maturity; where a child’s consent cannot be given, ensure that agreement is provided in other forms and that it is based on reliable and age appropriate information; 7.4.4. support UNICEF in its efforts to deliver vaccines from manufacturers that have agreements with the COVAX Facility to those who need them most; 3 Resolution 2361 (2021) 7.5. with respect to ensuring the monitoring of the long-term effects of the COVID-19 vaccines and their safety: 7.5.1. ensure international co-operation for timely detection and elucidation of any safety signals by means of real-time global data exchange on adverse events following immunisation (AEFIs); 7.5.2. use vaccination certificates only for their designated purpose of monitoring vaccine efficacy, potential side-effects and adverse events; 7.5.3. eliminate any gaps in communication between local, regional and international public health authorities handling AEFI data and overcome weaknesses in existing health data networks; 7.5.4. bring pharmacovigilance closer to health-care systems; 7.5.5. support the emerging field of adversomics research which studies inter-individual variations in vaccine responses based on differences in innate immunity, microbiomes and immunogenetics. 8. With reference to Resolution 2337 (2020) on Democracies facing the Covid-19 pandemic, the Assembly reaffirms that, as cornerstone institutions of democracy, parliaments must continue to play their triple role of representation, legislation and oversight in pandemic circumstances. The Assembly thus calls on parliaments to exercise these powers, as appropriate, also in respect of the development, allocation and distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. 4 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2362 (2021)1 Provisional version Restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States Parliamentary Assembly 1. The Parliamentary Assembly recalls its Resolution 2226 (2018) and Recommendation 2134 (2018) “New restrictions on NGO activities in Council of Europe member States”, Resolution 2096 (2016) and Recommendation 2086 (2016) “How can inappropriate restrictions on NGO activities in Europe be prevented?”, its previous Resolutions 1660 (2009), 1891 (2012), 2095 (2016) and 2225 (2018) and Recommendations 2085 (2016) and 2133 (2018) on the situation of human rights defenders in Council of Europe member States, as well as its Resolutions 2300 (2019), 2060 (2015) and 1729 (2010) and Recommendations 2162 (2019), 2073 (2015) and 1916 (2010) on the protection of “whistle-blowers”. 2. The Assembly recalls that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are a key component of an open and democratic civil society and make an essential contribution to the development and realisation of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. To ensure the proper functioning of civil society, the Council of Europe’s member States are required to ensure respect for the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression embodied in Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5, the Convention); these rights are inextricably linked and may only be limited on grounds specified in the Convention. 3. The Assembly also recalls that the Council of Europe has extensive experience of preparing guidelines on legislation relating to NGOs, notably in Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 on the legal status of non- governmental organisations in Europe and the Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) of 17 December 2014. It welcomes the adoption by the Committee of Ministers of Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11 on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe and of its declaration on this subject adopted in Helsinki on 17 May 2019. 4. More than two years after its Resolution 2226 (2018), the Assembly is concerned to note that the civil society space continues to shrink in several Council of Europe member States, particularly in the case of NGOs working in the field of human rights. The restrictive legislation and regulations previously criticised by various Council of Europe bodies, including the Venice Commission, the Expert Council on NGO Law of the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations and the Assembly itself, are still being applied, particularly in Azerbaijan, the Russian Federation and Turkey. Moreover, certain NGOs are the subject of smear campaigns and their activists suffer threats and reprisals. 5. The Assembly is concerned that certain member States’ legislation imposing excessive reporting and public disclosure obligations on NGOs receiving funding from abroad, in order to stigmatise these organisations, has still not been repealed, despite the criticisms levelled at them by various Council of Europe bodies. It is particularly concerned that some other member States have produced draft laws that appear to be based on the aforementioned legislation. The Assembly reiterates, in this context, that the right to seek, 1. Assembly debate on 27 January 2021 (6th Sitting) (see Doc. 15205, report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Ms Alexandra Louis). Text adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2021 (6th Sitting). See also Recommendation 2194 (2021). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2362 (2021) secure and use financial and material resources is essential to the existence and operation of any association and an inherent part of the right to freedom of association, as emphasised in the Venice Commission’s report of March 2019 on the funding of associations. When they impose obligations on NGOs for the purpose of combating terrorism or money laundering or preventing foreign political influence, States must draw a clear distinction between “reporting obligations” and “public disclosure obligations” and ensure that any requirements regarding information and transparency are proportionate to the size of the association and the scope of its activities. 6. Referring to its Resolution 2356 (2020) “Rights and obligations of NGOs assisting refugees and migrants in Europe”, the Assembly condemns the various attacks on NGOs assisting refugees and migrants and on their donors. It reiterates its concern about new regulations which make it more difficult for these NGOs to operate and criminalise certain of their members’ activities. 7. Referring to its Resolution 2338 (2020) “Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on human rights and the rule of law, the Assembly is concerned about the impact of restrictive measures adopted by Council of Europe member States during this period and highlights their deleterious effect on the functioning of civil society. It emphasises that even though, in accordance with the Convention, public health may constitute a legitimate purpose justifying restrictions on the rights to respect for private life (Article 8), freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly and association (Article 11), any restrictions on the aforementioned rights must be “prescribed by law”, “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 8. The Assembly supports the work of the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination in preparing the report on “Preserving national minorities in Europe” and urges support for NGOs working in the field of national minorities protection. 9. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned negative developments, the Assembly is pleased to note that certain member States have amended their legislation concerning NGOs in line with the recommendations of various Council of Europe bodies. Moreover, the majority of member States have established an environment that is conducive to civil society activities and the authorities have taken steps to ensure that NGOs are financed in an equitable fashion and can participate more fully in the legislative process and public debate. 10. The Assembly therefore urges all the member States to: 10.1. comply with international legal standards with regard to the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression; 10.2. fully implement Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)14 of the Committee of Ministers on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe and Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)11 on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe; 10.3. fully and rapidly implement the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights concerning violations of NGOs’ right to freedom of association; 10.4. repeal and/or amend legislation that interferes with NGOs’ ability to work freely and independently and ensure that such legislation conforms to international human rights instruments, in particular Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention; 10.5. refrain from enacting new legislation entailing unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on NGO activities; in this context, the Covid-19 pandemic should not be used to justify the imposing of such restrictions; 10.6. where appropriate, make use of the expertise of the Council of Europe, and in particular of the Venice Commission and of the Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations and its Expert Council on NGO Law; 10.7. ensure that NGOs can seek, secure and use financial and material resources of both domestic and foreign origin, without suffering discrimination or encountering unjustified obstacles, in line with the recommendations included in the Venice Commission “Report on the funding of associations”; 10.8. ensure that NGOs enjoy effective legal protection, and in particular, in the event of a dispute with the authorities, that judicial scrutiny conforms to the safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Convention); 10.9. ensure that NGOs are fully involved in consultations on new legislation concerning them as well as on other important subjects and in relevant public debates; 2 Resolution 2362 (2021) 10.10. ensure that civil society continues to benefit from its own space, particularly by refraining from all forms of harassment, whether judicial, administrative or fiscal, negative public statements and smear campaigns aimed at NGOs, and acts of intimidation against civil society activists. 3 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2363 (2021)1 Provisional version Challenge, on substantive grounds, of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Russian Federation Parliamentary Assembly 1. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), and Resolution 2063 (2015), and reiterates the recommendations addressed to the Russian authorities therein; furthermore, it refers to its Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020). 2. The Assembly deplores a number of exacerbating negative tendencies with regard to democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the Russian Federation which are having an impact on the fulfilment of commitments and obligations of the Russian Federation. 3. The Assembly expresses its concern over a number of recent changes introduced to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the procedure for adoption of the amendments. 4. It has particular concerns in relation to a new Constitutional provision which empowers the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to declare a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights non-executable. This contradicts the obligations of the Russian Federation under the European Convention on Human Rights. It should also be seen against the backdrop of an amendment to Article 83 of the Constitution which allows the Council of Federation (Upper Chamber of the Parliament) to dismiss the judges of the Constitutional Court at the request of the President thus making the Constitutional Court vulnerable to political pressure. 5. Furthermore, the newly amended provisions of the Constitution on the protection of territorial integrity and the prohibition of alienation of territories, together with the implementing legislation adopted in 2020, outlaw and make criminally liable any steps aimed at the cessation of territory to another country. This thus makes a solution for the Crimea issue in line with international law, as repeatedly demanded by the Assembly, virtually impossible. 6. The crackdown on civil society, extra-parliamentary opposition and critical journalists as well as restrictions imposed by the Russian authorities on basic freedoms, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of association, raise utmost concern. In this context, the Assembly deplores the Prosecutor General’s decision to put the Council of Europe School of Political Studies on the list of so called “undesirable organisations” under the pretext of security. 7. The Assembly expresses its concern at the recent adoption by the State Duma of a series of restrictive amendments to legislation with regard to the activities of NGOs and the media, the organisation and conduct of public events, the protection of State and State security, as well as the laws limiting the human rights of LGBTI persons and the ongoing legislative process concerning further changes impacting basic freedoms. 1. Assembly debate on 28 January 2021 (7th Sitting) (see Doc. 15216, report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee), rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach; and Doc. 15218, opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, rapporteur: Ms Ingjerd Schou). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2021 (7th Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2363 (2021) 8. Furthermore, the Assembly is extremely worried by the poisoning of Mr Alexei Navalny, the lack of any meaningful investigation by the Russian authorities and the lack of co-operation with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is also extremely worried by the arrest of Mr Navalny upon his arrival in Moscow and his subsequent detention, as well as arrests and use of violence and disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators supporting him. 9. At the same time, the Assembly highlights its continuous commitment to dialogue as a means of reaching lasting solutions, as illustrated by the aforementioned resolutions. The Assembly constitutes the most important pan-European platform where political dialogue on the Russian Federation’s obligations under the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1) can take place, with the participation of all those concerned, and where the Russian delegation to the Assembly can be held accountable on the basis of the Council of Europe’s values and principles. 10. It has to be emphasised that by virtue of the obligation of States and international organisations under international law not to recognise the consequences of the illegal annexation of a territory, the ratification of the credentials of the Russian delegation by the Assembly would in no way constitute recognition, even implicit, of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. 11. Consequently, the Assembly resolves to ratify the credentials of the members of the Russian delegation. 12. On this occasion, the Assembly calls on the Russian Federation to fulfil all recommendations included in Resolution 1990 (2014), Resolution 2034 (2015), Resolution 2063 (2015), Resolution 2292 (2019) and Resolution 2320 (2020), and moreover to: 12.1. address concerns and fulfil recommendations formulated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) in its Opinion No. 981(2020) on the draft amendments to the Constitution related to the execution in the Russian Federation of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, and in its forthcoming opinion on remaining amendments and procedure of their adoption, which is expected to be delivered in March 2021; 12.2. refrain from the violation of basic freedoms and human rights, in particular freedom of expression, assembly and association, and to release Mr Navalny as well as peaceful demonstrators and supporters unduly detained, not only on the day of his arrival, but also in the run up to the planned demonstrations on 23 January 2021 and during the demonstrations themselves; 12.3. abstain from adopting new laws putting further restrictions on activities of civil society, journalists and opposition politicians, and to review the laws already in force, in particular the package of laws adopted on 25 December 2020, as well as the law on foreign agents and undesirable organisations, with a view to bringing them in line with Council of Europe standards. In doing this the Russian Federation should use Council of Europe legal expertise; 12.4. remove from the list of undesirable organisations, the Council of Europe School of Political Studies. 13. The Assembly expects that its clear offer of a meaningful dialogue will be taken up so as to lead to tangible and concrete results. It invites its Monitoring Committee to submit a report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by the Russian Federation at its earliest convenience. 2 http://assembly.coe.int Resolution 2364 (2021)1 Provisional version Ethnic profiling in Europe: a matter of great concern Parliamentary Assembly 1. Worldwide mass protests following the killing of George Floyd on 25 May 2020 in Minneapolis have again increased public awareness of the urgent need to strengthen the fight against racism. Institutional racism, racist violence and abuse have been reported for years throughout Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly is concerned about the persistence of racist behaviour in European societies and stresses that there can be no impunity for manifestations of racism. 2. Police forces play an important role for the cohesion of society, by protecting the population from security threats and contributing to ensuring peaceful living together. Besides other important functions, they play a key role in guiding victims of domestic violence seeking protection and justice. Since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic they have also ensured the respect of lockdown and other restrictive measures taken to tackle it. The attitude of police officers towards the population and methods used to carry out their tasks are of utmost importance to ensure trust and overall support. They should be exemplary and held accountable for actions. 3. Activities of surveillance, investigation, controls and identity checks are routinely performed by police forces, border guards and law enforcement officers throughout Europe on a daily basis. However, some of the methods employed are in contradiction with international human rights standards. Ethnic or racial profiling occurs where people are stopped, checked or investigated without any reasonable and objective grounds, because of their colour, appearance or perceived nationality, ethnicity, origin or religion. Artificial intelligence also demonstrates and amplifies this type of partiality and bias. Ethnic profiling is discriminatory in its nature and, therefore, illegal, but despite this is a widespread and evidenced phenomenon across Europe. 4. Ethnic profiling can have a negative impact on both the persons being checked and society at large. It contributes to promoting a distorted view and to stigmatising parts of the population. It can also reflect deeply- rooted racism. Ethnic profiling is counterproductive as it reduces the efficiency of investigative work, making the work of the police more predictable and subject to prejudice. 5. The Assembly recalls its Resolution 1968 (2004) “Tackling racism in the police”, in which it already stressed that racist behaviour and practices within the police against visible minorities have a negative impact on public opinion and can increase prejudice. It also recalls its Resolution 2275 (2019) “The role and responsibilities of political leaders in combating hate speech and intolerance”, in which it stressed that politicians have both a political obligation and a moral responsibility to refrain from using hate speech and stigmatising language, and to condemn promptly and unequivocally its use by others, as silence may be interpreted as approval or support. 6. The Assembly commends the work of the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which has consistently condemned the use of ethnic profiling and called on member States to prevent its use. The Assembly, which participates in the ECRI’s work through its representatives, reiterates its full support for the commission in this context. 1. Assembly debate on 28 January 2021 (7th Sitting) (see Doc. 15199, report of the Committee on Equality and Non- Discrimination, rapporteur: Mr Boriss Cilevičs). Text adopted by the Assembly on 28 January 2021 (7th Sitting). F - 67075 Strasbourg Cedex | [email protected] | Tel: +33 3 88 41 2000 | pace.coe.int Resolution 2364 (2021) 7. In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on the Council of Europe member States to take determined action to tackle ethnic profiling and to: 7.1. clearly condemn and prohibit ethnic profiling in national legislation, if it is not yet the case; 7.2. strengthen the fight against racial discrimination, particularly during crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic; 7.3. follow up the relevant ECRI recommendations and take measures to ensure their full implementation, notably General Policy Recommendation No. 11 on combating racism and racial discrimination in policing; 7.4. promote awareness-raising activities on preventing and combating ethnic profiling, encourage dialogue between law-enforcement bodies and minority communities at all levels, as well as pertinent NGOs, and create frameworks for this dialogue if needed; 7.5. call for the adoption of codes of conduct by police forces with content aiming at preventing racist behaviours and ethnic profiling, when it is not yet the case, and ensure their implementation; 7.6. provide adequate resources to the police to carry out its tasks, including with regard to the recruitment of staff, and ensure diversity in the recruitment of police forces so as to reflect the diversity of the population; 7.7. organise regularly training on preventing and combating racism for all police officers, including specific training on preventing and combating ethnic profiling, applying an intersectional lens; 7.8. set up independent police complaints mechanisms, where it is not yet the case, and ensure that they are sufficiently staffed and have the means to follow up on sanctions delivered; 7.9. support victims of racial discrimination and victims of police abuse and misconduct, including in their process to seek justice; 7.10. systematise, where this is not yet the case, the delivery of receipts following stop and search operations and ensure that police officers can be clearly identified when performing this type of task; 7.11. launch studies on the policing practices at national level to gain an overview of the use of ethnic profiling, collect disaggregated data, publish the results of these studies and take relevant follow-up measures; 7.12. support national human rights institutions and equality bodies which play an essential role in the fight against racism and discrimination, including ethnic profiling, on any grounds. 8. The Assembly invites national parliaments to: 8.1. hold debates on the need to prevent and combat ethnic profiling and racism in law-enforcement agencies; 8.2. hold debates on ECRI’s general policy recommendations and country specific recommendations, their implementation and launch parliamentary initiatives to implement them. 9. The Assembly calls on political leaders, as well as leaders of law-enforcement and police forces, to firmly condemn the use of ethnic profiling and call for an end to this practice. 10. The Assembly welcomes the adoption of the general recommendation on preventing and combating racial profiling by law Enforcement officials by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and reaffirms its support to the work of the committee and of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2