Strasbourg, 15 September 2011                                                            CDLR(2011)47

                                                                                         Item C.7. of the agenda

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

HUMAN RIGHTS AT LOCAL LEVEL

For guidance

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the Directorate General of

Democracy and Political Affairs

Directorate of Democratic Institutions

This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.

Human rights at local level

REPORT by the CDLR Rapporteur[1]

Introduction

It is recalled that the current attention to the issue of human rights at local level in the CDLR was initiated by the request from the Ministers Deputies to provide possible comments on Congress Recommendation 280 (2010) on the Role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights (Appendix 1). The CDLR adopted its comments in October 2010 (Appendix 2) and agreed to add the issue of the human rights at local level to the draft agenda of the 17^th session of the Ministerial Conference.

This report has been drawn up by the CDLR Rapporteur to provide a basis for the CDLR at its meeting in September 2011 to prepare the discussion of human rights at local level at the 17^th session of the Ministerial Conference on 3-4 November 2011 in Kyiv.

The protection of human rights is, of course, core business for the Council of Europe. The report aims both to provide some analytical elements on the specific topic of human rights at local level as well as to take a more operational perspective on the work that could usefully be done through the bodies of the Council of Europe, intergovernmental and other.

Given that the ministers responsible for local and regional government have competences encompassing responsibility for the legal framework, institutional structure, financing and supervision of local and regional government, it is clear they have an important role to play in the issue of “human rights at local level” at domestic level and also, should the Committee of Ministers so wish, at Council of Europe level.

As regards other Council of Europe bodies, notably the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress and the Conference of International NGOs, it must of course be underlined that they themselves, within the limits of the Statute and Committee of Ministers Resolutions, set their (political) agenda and decide the activities they undertake. This is only different in as far as monitoring is concerned, where the Congress has a specific mandate in respect of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, but no wider or other mandate. It is thus understood by all that the Congress cannot and does not intend to monitor, or on its monitoring visits to assess, the implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities and that it will not duplicate the activities of Council of Europe monitoring bodies.

Before going into the more operational aspects of possible further work on human rights at local level, it is useful to recall some important legal and institutional aspects of the question of human rights at local level.

I.         Legal and institutional aspects of human rights at local level

The question of human rights at local level touches on two important areas of work of the Council of Europe, both of which are at the heart of its mission. As in the field of human rights, the Council of Europe has developed an important pan-European “acquis” on local and regional government and it could therefore be said that the challenge of “human rights at local level” is to put into perspective these two important strands of work[2].

Though it could be thought surprising, it is nonetheless true that even today the issue of human rights at local level is still to a considerable extent a “terra incognita” for many of the 800 million Europeans, their local authorities and governments. Surprising, because, after all, it is so obvious that ensuring the day-to-day enjoyment of human rights depends strongly on the actions of local and regional authorities. It is through local and regional authorities that the great majority of public services are delivered and many of these public services are in fact essential for giving everyday meaning to human rights. One may think of housing, health-care, as well as education, policing and the conclusion of marriages to give but a few examples. Inversely, it is very difficult to imagine a situation of human rights being ensured and enjoyed where there are no local and regional authorities to provide the necessary services. 

However, if one looks at the legal protection of human rights as provided by the Council of Europe, only two types of actors appear to be of relevance: states and individuals. Firstly, human rights are guaranteed in the form of treaties between states and secondly the principal object these treaties aim to protect is, albeit in different ways and notwithstanding also the existence of some collective rights, the individual human being.

The centre-piece of the pan-European legal acquis in the field of human rights is without doubt the European Convention on Human Rights to which all 47 member States of the Council of Europe are party. This convention and its protocols protect the civil and political rights of the individual, rights such as the right to life, the freedoms of expression and association, the right to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture and of the death-penalty and non-discrimination. It also includes the obligation for states to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions that will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

Furthermore, all states have recognised the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights to hear and decide cases brought by individuals asserting that their human rights have been violated. The status of this convention as a pan–European cornerstone for the protection of human rights, the rule of law and democracy will be further enhanced when the European Union accedes to this instrument, a development currently actively pursued.

Of course, the Council of Europe’s acquis on human rights is not limited to the ECHR but extends to the field of social and economic rights as laid down in the European Social Charter, as well as to the rights of persons belonging to national minorities provided for in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Another instrument, less often mentioned in this context but important nonetheless, is the Convention for the participation of foreigners in public life at local level and for which the CDLR has a particular responsibility.

As said before, we must remember that international human rights are guaranteed by international treaties between states, and only states. This fact goes a long way to explaining the reasons why the role of local and regional authorities in the field of human rights has not yet been examined in depth from an international perspective. As a matter of international law, the state is one single entity and its internal administrative divisions a matter of its own sovereign power. It is for this reason that only states can be held to account before the European Court of Human Rights, only states are obliged to submit reports under the Social Charter, the Framework Convention and other international treaties and only states can be the subject of collective complaints under the Social Charter. Furthermore, it is well established as a matter of law that a state appearing before the Court of Human Rights cannot defend itself by claiming that a violation was committed by a local or regional authority. The state, as represented by the central government, is held liable under international law for the acts of all parts and levels of that state. Equally, a state cannot successfully defend itself before the European Court of Human Rights by arguing that the issues which are being complained about are as a matter of national or constitutional law outside its competence.

Thus, broadly speaking, the approach of international human rights law is that the institutional arrangements between different levels of government within a state are largely irrelevant. The individual’s rights are to be protected, against or by which part of the state is not to the point. Clearly, this approach easily combines with the rule of international law that leaves the division of competences between different levels of government to the state’s sovereign decision.

Should that approach be called into question?

Before trying to formulate an answer to this question, it is, having looked at human rights, time to examine a little more closely local and regional government, an area where the Council of Europe also has a considerable acquis.

As concerns local government, the Council of Europe’s main standards are set out in the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The core concept in that instrument is the concept of local self-government, defined as follows:

“Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.” (Article 3 paragraph 1).

By providing that local authorities must have “a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility” the Charter ensures that notably central government (but the same may apply to higher regional authorities) may not limit the role of local authorities to mere executors of the decisions taken and policies elaborated without them. Of course, the degree and extent of competences entrusted to local authorities may and indeed does vary across Europe, also because of entirely objective factors such as the size of local authorities.

The Charter further provides, in Article 3 paragraph 3:

“Public responsibilities shall generally be exercised, in preference, by those authorities which are closest to the citizen. Allocation of responsibilities to another authority should weigh up the extent and nature of the task and requirements of efficiency and economy."

Thus, the Charter in fact sets out the principle of subsidiarity. As the level closest to the citizens, local authorities are deemed to be best able to respond to the needs and priorities of the population, unless the size or nature of the task is such that it requires to be treated within a larger territorial area or there are overriding considerations of efficiency or economy.

In light of what was highlighted above, namely that as a matter of international law the institutional arrangements between different levels of government within a state are the sovereign domain of that state, it is easy to see the fundamental importance of the Charter’s provisions, because they actually do limit this sovereign freedom by the principle of local self-government and the principle of subsidiarity.

The question is now whether these principles have any bearing on the issue of human rights.  So far we have seen that in legal terms the issue of local self-government has not been developed looking at the issue of human rights and that the protection of human rights has been developed without regard for the question of division of competences between different levels of government. Can it be that, upon reflection, these two simply have nothing to do with each other?

Let us have a closer look, by examining the role of the state. What is the role of the state in the field of human rights? Here we have to recognise the two possible faces of the state: the role of protector of human rights and the role of possible perpetrator of human rights violations. The law of human rights both poses prohibitions on the state in the way it conducts public affairs and imposes duties on the state to take measures in order to make the enjoyment of human rights possible. The state is not allowed to resort to torture or to abolish the freedom of expression, whilst it must also ensure there is a functioning judiciary, a system of education, a system of health care, protection against discrimination and so forth.

As regards the role of local authorities, it may be assumed that nobody would seek to argue that, as part of their right “to regulate and administer a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility”, local authorities should have the right to introduce torture as a practice, to suppress the freedom of expression or to introduce the death penalty. Such things have been outlawed and there is no reason why local and regional authorities should not conform to this.

In passing, it may be noted that there may be particularly thorny legal questions in the context of a federal state to ensure the respect of such minimum standards of human rights where, according to the constitution, the policy area concerned is under the exclusive competence of local or regional authorities. This is a question that may also need to be examined.

However, it is suggested that the main role of local and regional authorities comes out not when thinking of them as potential perpetrators of human rights violations, but when looking at all those measures that states, as a result of their international obligations, need to take in order to ensure the enjoyment of human rights, or what we would legally call positive obligations.

Such positive obligations arise from all the Council of Europe’s human rights instruments and it is these obligations that underlie, even though this is not explicitly recognised, very many of the functions and services provided by the state in general and by local and regional authorities in particular. This is also the area where there is most state discretion: international standards prohibit torture in all cases, but do not specify exactly the level of health care to be given, exactly what types and levels of language education should be provided, or the type of housing that is to be offered. It is therefore here that the actual enjoyment of human rights is most dependent on the efforts and choices made and it is here that for local and regional authorities “regulating and managing a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility” has most meaning. After all, it is they who are at the front-line of providing the great majority of public services in our member States. It is probably here that the connection between human rights and local and regional administration is clearest and strongest.

From the above it also follows that the ministers responsible for local and regional government with a remit encompassing the legal framework, institutional structure, financing and supervision of local and regional government have an important role to play in the issue of “human rights at local level”.

It is also clear that, to answer the question raised above, there is no need to change the approach of international human rights law in order to recognise a role for local and regional government in the field of human rights.

Following these more legal and institutional reflections, it is time to turn to the operational perspective

II.       Human rights at local level – what is to be done by the Council of Europe?

The paragraphs above demonstrate clearly the link between human rights and local and regional (self-)government. It also shows that at the level of the individual state, local and regional authorities as well as ministers responsible for local and regional government have an important role to play. Indeed, as always it is at domestic level that the main work has to be done.

So what then of the role of the Council of Europe?

As set out in the introduction, the starting point for reflection must be that the various Council of Europe bodies decide for themselves if and what attention to give to the question of human rights at local level and how to go about it. Furthermore, it is clearly understood that the range of possible activities does not include monitoring or assessment of the implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities nor duplication of the activities of Council of Europe monitoring bodies.

What should be done by the intergovernmental sector? That question, the apporteur suggests, should be discussed by Ministers at the 17^th session of the Ministerial Conference in Kyiv. Indeed, that would be the central question for them to address under that item on the agenda and their discussions could result in recommendations to the Committee of Ministers.

In that approach it would be essential, of course, for Ministers to have at their disposal relevant information, notably concerning what has and is already being done in the area.

Without aiming to present an exhaustive list, it is suggested that Ministers attention should be drawn to the following:

1.            As concerns the development of new standards, a draft for a Recommendation and Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on principles of good governance at local level were approved by the CDLR and sent to the Committee of Ministers for adoption. These principles crucially include as one of them “Human rights, cultural diversity and social cohesion”.

At Kyiv Ministers could, depending on developments, welcome their adoption, or encourage the Committee of Ministers to adopt them.

2.            The Ministers at their 15^th session in Valencia launched the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at local level, based on the principles of good governance at local level which are at the heart of the texts mentioned above.

Ministers could be given a presentation by one of the first cities in Europe to receive the European Level for Governance Excellence on the way this principle has been benchmarked in practice.

3.       The Congress could be invited to provide information and make a presentation of its work on “the new local dimension of human rights”, including on its most recent report on human rights indicators which is currently still being prepared.

4.       Ministers could be given a presentation of the joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission on Intercultural Cities.

5.       Ministers could also be given a presentation by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union on the projects it is carrying out concerning human rights at local level.

6.       Finally, it is suggested that to consider the question of possible follow-up to Congress Recommendation 280 (Appendix 1).

In this Recommendation the Congress recommended that the Committee of Ministers call on member States to take a range of steps and measures. In its comments on this Recommendation, requested by the Committee of Ministers, the CDLR recommended (Appendix 2):

“that the Ministers’ Deputies invite the Congress to enter into a concrete dialogue with the CDLR to explore the issues and policy proposals it raises with a view to identifying concrete action that could be undertaken, both at the level of the Council of Europe and by member States, including their local and regional authorities.”

In anticipation of such further dialogue the CDLR launched a survey among member States to see to what extent the measures envisaged by the Congress in its Recommendation 280 correspond to the existing situation in member States.

The results of this survey are appended (Appendix 3). They appear to show that few of the measures recommended by the Congress correspond to current practice in member States. This suggests there would still be quite a gap to bridge between what the Congress recommends and actual practice.

Meanwhile, the Committee of Ministers, on 6 July 2011, adopted its reply to the Congress in response to Recommendation 280 (Appendix 4). Whilst expressing interest and support for some of the measures recommended by the Congress, the Committee of Ministers does not envisage moving towards making any kind of recommendation to member States nor to take other action further to this Recommendation.

The suggestion by the CDLR to “invite the Congress to enter a concrete dialogue with the CDLR to explore the issues and policy proposals it raises with a view to identifying concrete action that could be undertaken, both at the level of the Council of Europe and by member States, including their local and regional authorities” is not referred to in the CM’s reply. This raises the question whether a such dialogue is to be pursued.

In order to clarify this matter it is suggested that Ministerial Conference raises the question before the Committee of Ministers.

 

APPENDIX 1

Recommendation 280 (2010)¹

Role of local and regional authorities
in the implementation of human rights

1. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe recalls that:

a. the primary aim of the Council of Europe is to create, throughout the European continent, a common area based on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

b. democracy and human rights are interdependent. Democracy, including at the local and regional level, cannot exist without an unconditional respect for human rights;

c. local and regional authorities must comply with the human rights duties which stem from the international commitments of the member states, albeit only within their local/regional competences;

d. local and regional authorities are not only agents of central government: they secure human rights at the same time as they fulfil local self-government;

e. good governance is rights-based governance. Complying with human rights duties is a challenge with the potential of strengthening democracy at the local level.

2. The Congress has a distinctive role to play within the Council of Europe, as it provides a forum where elected representatives can discuss common problems, share their experience and develop policies. It works to strengthen democracy through its monitoring activities.

3. In order to better secure the concrete implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities, the Congress recommends that the Committee of Ministers call on all member states to:

a. ensure that the allocation of financial resources to local and regional authorities is set at an appropriate level to ensure the proper implementation of human rights, and that monitoring compliance with these rights can be effectively carried out;

b. involve representatives of local and regional authorities in the drafting of national human rights strategies, policies and indicators, in order to have their input and make them aware of their responsibilities in the implementation of human rights;

c. encourage local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights through awareness-raising initiatives and through local and regional action plans;

d. encourage the setting-up of independent complaints mechanisms at local and regional level and, in particular, to create independent bodies, such as local or regional ombudspersons, able to find remedies in cases where human rights are not fully respected, in particular in the delivery of local public services;

e. involve civil society organisations in the planning and implementation of activities for the protection of human rights at all levels.

1. Debated and adopted by the Congress on 17 March 2010, 1st Sitting (see Document CG(18)6, explanatory memorandum), rapporteur: L.O. Molin (Sweden, L, EPP/CD).

4. The Congress notes that the best way to secure the effective protection of human rights is to take action on the basis of a regular, comprehensive and accurate review of the situation. Therefore, the Congress asks the Committee of Ministers to invite member states to consider ways of encouraging local and regional authorities to create appropriate structures and procedures in order to facilitate effective monitoring of the human rights situation at local and regional level. There is no standard solution for implementing human rights at local and regional level, but a criterion of good governance should be to provide citizens with sufficient support and advice to exercise their rights.

5. The Congress also asks the Committee of Ministers to urge member states to ensure that local and regional authorities comply with the principle of non-discrimination in the implementation of human rights.

6. The Congress stresses that education and benchmarking are crucial to the improvement of the situation of human rights in Europe at all levels. It recommends that the Committee of Ministers:

a. encourage a systematic multi-level dialogue between the political levels of all member states in order to promote the human rights dimension in local self-governance;

b. foster respect for human rights through the training of local and regional elected representatives and their staff.

APPENDIX 2

Comments of the CDLR to the Ministers’ Deputies on

Congress Recommendation 280 (2010)

“The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights”

1. The CDLR examined Congress Recommendation 280 (2010) – “The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights” at its plenary meeting on 12-14 October 2010.

2. In order to be able to do so a request had to be made by the CDLR Bureau to the Chair of the Ministers’ Deputies for an extension of the original deadline (which would not have allowed for a plenary discussion). The CDLR thanks the Ministers’ Deputies for making a plenary discussion of this important matter possible.

3. The CDLR is pleased to note that the object of the Recommendation, the role of local authorities in the implementation of human rights, is connected directly not only to the core values for which the Council of Europe stands, but also to several of the specific challenges identified by Ministers in the Utrecht Agenda for delivering good local and regional governance. This issue is at the core of the Council of Europe’s mission. The CDLR believes the time has come work out in concrete terms the role and actions the Council of Europe and its various bodies can usefully play to deliver added value to members States and its citizens in this area.

4. In so doing it is important to draw on previous work, in particular the 2007 edition of the Forum for the Future of Democracy on the link between human rights and democracy, as well as to ensure synergies with current activities, including the Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level. The twelve principles of good democratic governance on which the latter is based include human rights, cultural diversity and social cohesion. The CDLR is currently conducting a feasibility study to see whether these twelve principles could be the subject of a recommendation by the Committee of Ministers to member States. The Congress is associated to this reflection through its participation in the meetings of the CDLR and its sub—Committee (LR-GG). 

5. In Recommendation 280 the Congress makes a number of recommendations to the Committee of Ministers, asking it to call on, invite and urge members States to take a variety of steps and broad-ranging measures pertaining to the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights.

6. The CDLR recommends that the Ministers’ Deputies invite the Congress to enter into a concrete dialogue with the CDLR to explore the issues and policy proposals it raises with a view to identifying concrete action that could be undertaken, both at the level of the Council of Europe and by member States, including their local and regional authorities. The Bureaux of the Congress and the CDLR could work out the concrete modalities for joint work and report back to the Deputies. The work thus conducted could also serve as a useful contribution to the preparation of 17th session of the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government (Kyiv, November 2011).

7. The CDLR also noted with interest a further initiative of the Congress in the field of human rights at local level, namely the adoption by the Standing Committee of the Congress on 18 June 2010 of Resolution 307 on Procedures for monitoring the obligations and commitments entered into by the Council of Europe member States in respect of their ratification of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (CETS No 122). The CDLR also noted that the Ministers’ Deputies took note of this Resolution at their 1090th meeting on 7 July 2010.

8. The Resolution henceforth stipulates that within the monitoring effort, the European Convention on Human rights (CETS No 5) and the revised Social Charter (CETS No 163) may also be taken into account, in as much as they entail obligations in respect of local and regional authorities.

9. The CDLR considers that it would be of great interest for the Congress and the CDLR to join efforts to examine which obligations these instruments entail in respect of local and regional authorities.

10. Such a dialogue seems all the more pertinent because the Resolution envisages that the implementation of the recommendations (resulting from the monitoring by the Congress) shall, inter alia, be followed up by the intergovernmental entities of the Council of Europe in the area of local and regional democracy. 

11. The dialogue on this issue could be usefully combined with the one proposed in respect of Recommendation 280.

APPENDIX 3

Provisional summary of replies to the

questionnaire to member States

further to Congress Recommendation 280 (2010) on

the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights

I.         GENERAL

A.        CENTRAL GOVERNMENT[3]

1. Does your government have a policy view on or approach to the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights, including making them aware of their responsibilities?

If so, please briefly describe the main features.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X	Human rights coordinators at all federal ministries and all provincial government offices
Azerbaijan	X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Belgium - WA
Croatia		X	County human rights coordinating bodies; County and municipal commissions for gender equality
Czech Rep		X	LA’s implement specific central policy on national minorities, Roma and gender equality
Denmark		X
Estonia		X	HR addressed in many specific strategic documents
Finland		X	Public authorities at all levels shall guarantee the observance of basic rights and liberties and human rights. A new national action plan is foreseen and will associate local and regional authorities.
France		X	Policy view not formally laid down, but local authorities are bound by international obligations on human rights and may, within their areas of competence take initiatives to promote human rights
Georgia		X
Ireland		X	No specific policy, but local authorities must act in manner compatible with ECHR.
Latvia		X	No specific policy, but local authorities must respect human rights
Lithuania	X		This approach is reflected in Government’s strategic planning documents
Luxemburg		X	Some specific topics (e.g. social assistance, foreigners voting, integration),
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	But implementation of human rights through specific projects: FRA project
Norway		X	LA’s are bound by Norway’s international obligations in the field of human rights
Slovak Rep		X	There is Governmental council for Human Rights, National minorities and Gender Equality on which reps from LRA’s also sit
Slovenia		X	LA’s role clearly incorporated in policy views on HR topics such as Roma and national minorities
Spain	X		Role of Autonomous Communities and municipalities is part of the Human Rights Plan adopted in 2008
Switzerland		X	Centre de competence DH established 2011 – also for expert advice to LRA’s.
Turkey		X	But “Strategy on human rights” including LRA’s is being developed; Provincial and District human rights councils have been established

A2.      Is or has the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights been the subject of any report, study or analysis carried out by your government?

If so, what were the main findings or conclusions?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X	But measures at local and provincial level are included in state reports to UN and studies for FRA
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Croatia		X
Czech Rep	X		For specific topics: Roma, gender equality
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France		X	But there are many reports, studies and analyses of a sectoral nature touching on human rights
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X	Implementation of human rights is analysed by ministries according to their competence
Luxemburg		X
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X
Norway		X
Slovak Rep		X
Slovenia		X
Spain			As part of Human Rights Action Plan 2008
Switzerland	X		Report on Federalism as opportunity and challenge for implementation of human rights is being prepared.;
Turkey

A3.      Is or has the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights been a subject of discussion between your government and associations and/or representatives of local and regional government?

if so, which are the (main) points or issues addressed?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Often  - has produced many measures
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Croatia		X	Office for human rights meets with county coordinators
Czech Rep	X		On specific topics
Denmark		X	Not recently
Estonia	X		Education and securing basic public services have been discussed
Finland	X		Ongoing discussion of issues (health, social security) within local authorities’ competence. New and targeted dialogue related to preparation of national action plan on human rights.
France		X	Specific topics related to human rights can be raised in general framework of institutional dialogue
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia	X		Matters of adaptation of human rights are discussed with local authorities and their association
Lithuania	X		In the drafting of legal acts
Luxemburg	X		On specific topics mentioned above
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	Work with pilot cities
Norway		X
Slovak Rep		X
Slovenia	X		Occasionally, when it affect local government Act, Act on local finance
Spain		X
Switzerland		X
Turkey		X

B.        ASSOCIATIONS OF LOCAL OR REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

Do the associations of local and regional authorities in your country have a policy view on or approach to the role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights?

If so, which are the (main) points or issues in this approach/policy view?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X	Ass does inform LA’s about access to social services, housing etc local housing
Belgium - GS –		X
Croatia		X
Czech Rep	X
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland	X		Association and local authorities have programmes and actions on equal treatment.
France			Associations take an interest in human rights, e.g. a recent agreement between the AMF (Association of Mayors of France) and the HALDE (High authority against discrimination)
Georgia	X		On specific topics: persons with disabilities and IDP’s.
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X
Luxemburg		X	But association is aware of LRA role
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	But developing tools on specific issues (non-discrimination, integration) and Roma platform. ELDW
Norway		X	Human rights issues mainstreamed into sectoral policies
Slovak Rep	X		implementation of human rights defined in the associations’ statutes
Slovenia		X	But encouraging LA’s to promote – working groups, dissemination of information
Spain		X
Switzerland		X
Turkey		X

C.         LOCAL OR REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

Are you aware of individual local and regional authorities in your country that have a policy on or approach to the implementation of human rights within their sphere of competence? If so, please give some brief information.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Graz human rights council; Salzburg: HR coordinators in Provincial offices
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		Different LA’s e.g. as concerns children’s rights
Belgium - GS –		X	Some LA’s have a youth Council
Croatia	X		Zagreb – protection of vulnerable groups
Czech Rep	X		On specific topics
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland	X		Association and local authorities have programmes to promote the integration of immigrants and on the reception of asylum seekers.
France	X		e.g. Paris and Bordeaux on non-discrimination and equality; more generally local authorities contribute to the realisation of human rights in the areas of their competence (e.g. social assistance, housing)
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X
Luxemburg		X	But there is a general awareness
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	But Min of Int is working on it with LA’s
Norway	X		e.g. 100 Mayors signed CoE Declaration against trafficking, 40 LRA’s adhered to CEMR’s Charter on Equality between Women and Men in Local Life, LA’s in Troms county work on implementation UN Convention on Childeren’s Rights
Slovak Rep		X
Slovenia	-	-
Spain	X		Several Autonomous Communities include human rights in their Statutes; special policies and practices e.g. in Barcelona and Zaragoza.
Switzerland	-	-
Turkey		X

II.       FUNDING

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 3a)

1. In the allocation of financial resources to local and regional authorities (e.g. in the allocation of grants and/or the calculation of equalisation funding) is the proper implementation of human rights taken into account explicitly?

If so, in which way?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Croatia		X
Czech Rep		X
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France		X
Georgia		X
Ireland		X
Latvia		X
Lithuania		X
Luxemburg		X
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X	Central government earmarking not deemed desirable
Norway		X
Slovak Rep	X		Grants for inter alia  enforcement, support and protection of human rights, prevention of discrimination, inter-ethnical/religious dialogue
Slovenia	X		Grants  for national minorities and Roma
Spain		X
Switzerland		X
Turkey		X	General grants system

2. If not, have proposals to this effect ever been made, by the government, or by associations of local and regional authorities.

3. In the allocation of financial resources to local and regional authorities, is the cost of effectively carrying out the monitoring of compliance with human rights taken into account?

4.  If not, have proposals to this effect ever been made by the government or by associations of local and regional authorities?

III.      AWARENESS RAISING

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 3c)

Does your government encourage local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights? In which way?

-       for example through awareness-raising initiatives or

-       through local and regional action plans

-       through other instruments (please specify)?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Various facilities
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		By different agencies and authorities of the region
Belgium - GS –		X	But some specific campaign (e.g. on children)
Croatia	X		Not directly, but county coordinators and OHR raise awareness
Czech Rep	X		Gvt Council for Roma, grants for social workers/Roma mediators
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland	X		A national human rights action plan is to be developed. Association and Ministry of Social affairs have given recommendations on prevention of domestic violence
France		X	promotional work and awareness raising is carried out by independent bodies (HALDE, Asce)
Georgia		X	HR awareness raising entrusted to Public Defender’s Office
Ireland		X	Support given to local authorities in sectoral programmes; awareness campaigns on voter registration held nationally; Irish Human Rights Commission provides training and education, including to local authorities
Latvia		X
Lithuania	X		Through local and regional action plans
Luxemburg		X	No need in general – some on specific topics
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands			Local Antidiscrimination Offices
Norway		X
Slovak Rep	X		LA’s can get grants
Slovenia		X
Spain	X		Through the Human Rights Action Plan
Switzerland	X		Centre (see above) supports LA’s in HR field
Turkey	X		Awareness raising initiatives and training programmes

IV.       INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS MECHANISMS

(See Congress Recommendation 280(210) under 3d)

Does you country have independent complaints mechanisms at local and regional level, for example ombudspersons, able to find remedies in cases where human rights are not fully respected, including in the delivery of public services at the local and regional level?

If the local level is of a too small scale, how are such complaints mechanisms organised?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Office of Ombudspersons will have competence on human rights; also provincial ombudspersons
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		Regional ombudsman and several local Ombudsservices
Belgium - GS –			Ombudsman – may deal with HR issues
Croatia		X	National ombudsman and specialised ombuds
Czech Rep		X	National ombudsman and courts
Denmark		X	Parliamentary Ombudsman
Estonia		X	Only Talinn; National Chancellor of Justice (=ombudsman) and Equal treatment commissioner
Finland		X	Parliamentary Ombudsman and courts
France	X		Local authorities may establish mediation and counseling mechanisms; also unified national mechanism exists (Le Defenseur des droits)
Georgia		X	Public Defender has jurisdiction over LRA’s
Ireland		X	Protection mechanisms at national level: Irish Human Rights Commission, Equality Authority, Equality Tribunal and Office of the Ombudsman
Latvia		X	(national)Ombudsman, Administrative Courts, Constitutional Court
Lithuania		X	There is a Parliament Ombudsman for the investigation of activities of officials of municipal institutions and agencies
Luxemburg		X	Country is small – just one national Mediator
Malta	-	-
Monaco
Netherlands	X		Local anti-discrimination offices; also National Ombudsman; Children’s Ombudsman; Equal treatment commission: maybe: national Committee of Human Rights
Norway	X		Some municipalities have ombudspersons for certain administrative areas; also three national Ombudspersons: Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ombudsman for Children, Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud
Slovak Rep		X	Slovak National Center for Human Rights, Ombudsman and Centre of legal support: all have regional offices
Slovenia	X		Municipal complaints commissions; ombudsman healthcare (not all municipalities)

Spain	X		Big cities have (compulsory) Special Committee governing suggestions and complaints, some municipalities have an Ombudsman and there are regional Ombudsmen in 13 Autonomous Regions
Switzerland	?	?	There are mediators; recourse can be had, ultimately, the Tribunal Federal
Turkey	X		Provincial and district committees of human rights

V.        MONITORING AT LOCAL AND REGIONAL LEVEL

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 4)

Does your country have ways of encouraging local and regional authorities to create appropriate structures and procedures in order to facilitate the monitoring of the human rights situation at local and regional level?

If not, has your country considered such an approach?

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria		X	No need
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -		X
Belgium - GS –		X
Croatia		X	Monitoring done by county-coordinators
Czech Rep		X
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France		X	National bodies (HALDE and Asce) draw up reports and make recommendations
Georgia		X	Carried out by public defender
Latvia		X
Ireland		X
Lithuania		X	As part of the administrative supervision, the government representative in the county watches over implementation of human rights by local authorities
Luxemburg		X	Would be disproportionate to size of country
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X
Norway		X
Slovak Rep		X	support of monitoring concentrated on not-for-profit sector
Slovenia		X
Switzerland	-	-
Spain		X
Turkey		X

VI.       CITIZEN ADVISORY SERVICES

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 4)

Does your country have arrangements to provide citizens with sufficient support and advice to exercise their rights?

If so, please briefly describe the main features.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Provincial ombudspersons
Azerbaijan	X		Ombudsman, state and local bodies according to their activity
Belgium - FL -	X		By ombudspersons
Belgium - GS –	X		Ombudsman
Croatia	-	-
Czech Rep	X		General responsibility and some LRA’s have specialized body
Denmark	X		Municipalities may establish and finance a position of consultative local citizen advisor
Estonia		X
Finland		X
France	X		National and local web-sites as well as mediation and other mechanisms provide citizens with information
Georgia	X		Task of Public Defender
Ireland	X		Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) and Office of the Ombudsman
Latvia	X		Local Authorities’ can be asked to give information about mechanisms for the protection of rights; Ombudsman and other s give information on web-pages
Lithuania	X		Local authorities provide primary legal aid guaranteed by the State. Citizens can ask their municipal juridical unit for help.
Luxemburg	X		National Mediator
Malta	-	-
Monaco
Netherlands	X		Mechanisms under IV give advice
Norway	X		Mechanisms under IV give advice
Slovak Rep			“Ombudspot”-network of extrajudicial customer centers
Slovenia	X		All state and local organs obliged to give information necessary to implement human rights; Free legal assistance for those who cannot afford
Spain	X		Charter of Rights of Citizens to Justice and 2008 Human Rights Plan
Switzerland	-	-
Turkey	?		District and Provincial Committees of Human Rights

.           ENSURING NON-DISCRIMINATION

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 5)

Do arrangements exist in your country to ensure that local and regional authorities comply with the principle of non-discrimination in the implementation of human rights?

If so, please briefly describe them.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		Under general anti-discrimination law and supervision
Azerbaijan		X
Belgium - FL -	X		Supervision by Flemish region; citizen can go to court
Belgium - GS –	X		General principle of non-discrimination applies
Croatia	X		Anti-discrimination act applies to local and regional authorities
Czech Rep	X		HR Charter and Anti-discrimination Act applies to all LRA’s
Denmark	-	-
Estonia	X		LA’s under jurisdiction Equal treatment commissioner
Finland	X		Local and regional authorities must apply and respect the law
France	X		Protection provided by Le Defenseur des droits (see also iv above)
Georgia	X		LRA’s subject to the law
Ireland	X		LA’s must comply with national equality legislation
Latvia	X		Administrative appeal, court, Ombudsman
Lithuania	X		Non-discrimination principles defined in legal acts
Luxemburg	X		Law applies to LA’s; no specific mechanism
Malta	-	-
Monaco
Netherlands			Discriminatory decisions may be quashed by Royal Decree
Norway	X		Non-discrimination is monitored by national authorities within the framework of the legal system
Slovak Rep			Under anti-discrimination Act; General Direction for Human Rights and Equal Treatment of Governmental Office has main function
Slovenia		X	Principle of non-discrimination only at state level
Spain		X
Switzerland	-	-
Turkey	X		District and Provincial Committees of Human Rights

VIII.   TRAINING

(See Congress Recommendation 280(2010) under 6b)

Is training on human rights provided to local and regional elected representatives and the staff of local and regional authorities? If so, please briefly describe the arrangements and content.

	YES	NO	INFO
Austria	X		By HR coordinators provincial offices
Azerbaijan	X		By Ombudsman and government bodies
Belgium - FL -	X		Some local authorities provide this for their staff
Belgium - GS –		X
Croatia	X		By county-coordinators
Czech Rep	X		By ministry of the interior
Denmark		X
Estonia		X
Finland		X	No specific training; human rights are part and parcel of normal municipal action
France	X		Optional training on non-discrimination and human rights related issues is provided by/through the CNFPT (National Training Centre)
Georgia	X		By and in cooperation with donor organisations
Ireland	X		Training for civil and public service, including LA’s, made available by IHRC
Latvia		X
Lithuania	X		Lithuanian Institute of public administration gives training to municipal civil servants, including on non-discrimination and equal opportunities
Luxemburg		X
Malta		X
Monaco
Netherlands		X
Norway		X
Slovak Rep	X		Some training is available, but limited resources
Slovenia			Is part of civil servants training; also sometimes part of management training
Spain	X		An annual Human Rights course is open to officials from all levels of government
Switzerland	-	-
Turkey	X		Provided by Ministry of the Interior and associations of local and regional authorities

APPENDIX 4

Ministers’ Deputies

CM Documents

CM/Cong(2011)Rec280 final        11 July 2011

 

“The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights” –
Recommendation 280 (2010) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
(Reply adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 6 July 2011at the 1118th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

 

1.         The Committee of Ministers has carefully examined Recommendation 280 (2010) on “The role of local and regional authorities in the implementation of human rights” of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, which it has brought to the attention of the member states’ governments.  It has forwarded the recommendation to the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR), the Steering Committee for Education (CDED) and the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), for information and possible comments.

2.         The Committee of Ministers agrees with the Congress that local and regional authorities, in their fields of competence, must comply with the human rights obligations which stem from the international commitments of the member states.  It therefore notes with interest the measures proposed by the Congress to raise awareness of human rights at the local and regional level and welcomes the initiative of the Congress to make “Human rights at local level” the main theme for the European Local Democracy Week 2011 which will take place in October.  It notes that the local dimension of human rights is a focal point of the Congress’ activities in 2011-2012.  The Committee of Ministers finally notes that the Congress does not intend to monitor, or on its monitoring visits to assess, the implementation of human rights by local and regional authorities and that it will not duplicate the activities of Council of Europe monitoring bodies.

3.         The Committee of Ministers welcomes the reform of the Congress in the framework of the overall reform process of the Council of Europe. In this context, it recalls its reply to Congress Recommendation 290 (2010) on the “Reform of the Congress structure and working methods”. The Committee of Ministers invites the Congress to re-examine its Resolutions 296 (2010), 307 (2010) and 310 (2010) in order to ascertain whether they need to be adjusted in the light of paragraph 2 above.^[4]

4.         The Committee of Ministers notes with interest the Congress’ idea that representatives of local and regional authorities could be invited to participate in the drafting of national human rights strategies, policies and indicators. It supports awareness-raising initiatives by local and regional authorities to promote respect for human rights; local and regional action plans; the setting-up of independent complaints mechanisms at local and regional level, such as local or regional ombudspersons; and the involvement by civil society at the local and regional level in the planning and implementation of human rights activities, taking into account structural differences in member states.

5.         The Committee of Ministers agrees with the Congress that education is important for the improvement of the situation of human rights in Europe at all levels and highlights the usefulness of the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted in the framework of the Committee’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7.  It further notes that several practical tools and instruments have been prepared in the framework of the Council of Europe activities on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, some of which may be particularly relevant for local and regional authorities, such as the “Policy Tool for Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights: Strategic Support for Decision Makers” and the “School-Community-University Partnerships for a Sustainable Democracy: Education for Democratic Citizenship in Europe and the United States”.