An additional part or version of this document is available.

CM/Del/Dec(2013)1176corrE  / 12 August 2013 

Ministers’ Deputies

Decisions

CM/Del/Dec(2013)1176     12 July 2013



1176th meeting, 10 July 2013

Decisions adopted



CONTENTS

Page

List of those present 8

Introduction 11

1. General questions

1.1 Adoption of the agenda 11

1.2 Preparation of forthcoming meetings 11

1.3 Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General – Staff matters 12

1.4 Report of the Bureau 12

2. Democracy and political questions

2.1 The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia +

2.1bis Current political questions +

2.2 Situation in Cyprus+

2.3 Policy of the Council of Europe towards neighbouring regions – Interim implementation reports

on the co-operation priorities concerning Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan 13

2.4 European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) –

Abridged report of the 51st meeting (Strasbourg, 11-12 April 2013) 13

3. Parliamentary Assembly

3.1 3rd part of the 2013 Session (Strasbourg, 24-28 June 2013) – Texts adopted 13

3.2 Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

a. Written Question No. 640 by Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier: “Respect for social rights in

Greece” 15

b. Written Question No. 641 by Mr Martin Henriksen: “Interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” 16

      c. Written Question No. 634 by Mr Joe Benton: “Turkey’s draft Law on Foreigners and

International Protection” 16

      d. Written Question No. 635 by Mr Jeffrey Donaldson: “Permanent resettlement of UNHCR

refugees from Turkey” 16

4. Human rights

H46-1 Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –

Adoption of final resolutions 17

H46-2 Cases against the Russian Federation – 38411/02 Garabayev group of cases 18

4.1 “Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour” –

Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2011 (2013) 19

Page

4.2 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

a. Election of an expert to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee – Candidates in respect of Poland 19

b. Draft Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)… on the implementation of the Framework Convention

by Spain 20

4.3 European Social Charter –

Follow-up to the decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in the context of

the collective complaints procedure –

European Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child and the Family (EUROCEF) v. France, Complaint No. 82/2012 20

4.4 Brighton Declaration – Follow-up –

Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Explanatory Report 20

5. Media

5.1 Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI)

a. Abridged report of the 3rd meeting (Strasbourg, 23-26 April 2013) 21

b. Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on gender equality and media 21

c. Draft terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA) 21

5.2 Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) –

Implementation of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on measures to promote the

respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights –

Report by the Secretary General 21

6. Social cohesion

6.1 Enlarged Partial Agreement on the Co-operation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit

Trafficking in Drugs (Pompidou Group) – Request by Israel to accede to the Pompidou Group 21

7. Education and culture

7.1 10th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Culture Moscow, 15-16 April 2013) –

Report by the Secretary General 22

7.2 24th Council of Europe Standing Conference of Ministers of Education (Helsinki,

26-27 April 2013) – Report by the Secretary General 23

8. Youth and sport

8.1 European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ), Joint Council

on Youth (CMJ) –

Abridged reports of the 50th meeting of the European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ),

29th meeting of the Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ) and 28th meeting of the Joint Council on

Youth (CMJ) (Budapest, 3-5 April 2013) 23

8.2 Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS)

a. Request for observer status by one sports organisation 24

b. Participation of EPAS non-member States in negotiations for a possible Council of Europe Convention to Combat the Manipulation of Sports Results and notably Match-fixing 24

Page

9. Sustainable development

9.1 Standing Committee of the Bern Convention –
Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas (T-PVS/DE) –
Draft resolutions 24

10. Legal questions

10.1 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

a. Election of a member of the Committee of Experts in respect of Denmark 25

b. Fifth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Switzerland 25

c. Fifth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Hungary 25

d. First report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina 26

10.2 European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) – Draft Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs and its Explanatory Report 26

10.3 Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) –

Abridged report of the 24th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013) 26

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 1176th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies

(Item 1.1) (Strasbourg, 10 (10 a.m.) July 2013)

Agenda 27

APPENDIX 2 1177th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies

(Item 1.2) (Strasbourg, 11 (10 a.m.) September 2013)

Draft Agenda 32

APPENDIX 3 1178th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies

(Item 1.2) (Strasbourg, 17 (3 p.m.) – 18 ( 10 a.m.) September 2013)

Draft Agenda 34

APPENDIX 4 Reply to Written Question No. 634 by Mr Joe Benton:

(Item 3.2c) “Turkey’s draft Law on Foreigners and International Protection” 37

APPENDIX 5 Reply to Written Question No. 635 by Mr Jeffrey Donaldson:

(Item 3.2d) “Permanent resettlement of UNHCR refugees from Turkey” 38

APPENDIX 6 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)137

(Item H46-1) Gavril Georgiev against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 39

APPENDIX 7 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)138

(Item H46-1) Marin Kostov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 41

APPENDIX 8 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)139

(Item H46-1) Mileva and others against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 44

APPENDIX 9 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)140

(Item H46-1) Five cases against Czech Republic

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 46

Page

APPENDIX 10 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)141

(Item H46-1) Diallo against Czech Republic

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 49

APPENDIX 11 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)142

(Item H46-1) Dadiani and Machabeli against Georgia

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 52

APPENDIX 12 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)143

(Item H46-1) Lena Natchkebia against Georgia

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights 55

APPENDIX 13 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)144

(Item H46-1) Stephens against Malta (No. 1)

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 58

APPENDIX 14 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)145

(Item H46-1) Mercieca and others against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 60

APPENDIX 15 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)146

(Item H46-1) San Leonard Band Club against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 63

APPENDIX 16 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)147

(Item H46-1) Eight cases against Poland

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 66

APPENDIX 17 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)148

(Item H46-1) Bǎlǎşoiu against Romania (No. 2)

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights 70

APPENDIX 18 Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)149

(Item H46-1) Four cases against Turkey

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 73

APPENDIX 19 Reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2011 (2013) on

(Item 4.1) “Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour” 76

APPENDIX 20 Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)3

(Item 4.2a) Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities –

          Election of an expert to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory

Committee in respect of Poland 78

APPENDIX 21 Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)4

(Item 4.2b) on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of

National Minorities by Spain 79

APPENDIX 22 Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)14

(Item 4.3) Collective Complaint No. 82/2012

by the European Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child

and the Family (EUROCEF) v. France 83

APPENDIX 23 Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

(Item 4.4) Fundamental Freedoms and its Explanatory Report 84

APPENDIX 24 Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)1

(Item 5.1) of the Committee of Ministers to member States

on gender equality and media 87

Page

APPENDIX 25 Terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA) 92

(Item 5.1)

APPENDIX 26 Resolution CM/ResDip(2013)2
(Item 9.1) on the award of the European Diploma of Protected Areas

to the Khosrov Forest Reserve (Armenia) 95

APPENDIX 27 Resolution CM/ResDip(2013)3

(Item 9.1) on the award of the European Diploma of Protected Areas

to the Burren Region (Ireland) 96

APPENDIX 28 Resolution CM/ResDip(2013)4

(Item 9.1) on the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas

awarded to the Retezat National Park (Romania) 98

APPENDIX 29 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)4

(Item 10.1b) of the Committee of Ministers

on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

by Switzerland 99

APPENDIX 30 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)5

(Item 10.1c) of the Committee of Ministers

on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

by Hungary 100

APPENDIX 31 Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)6

(Item 10.1d) of the Committee of Ministers

on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

by Bosnia and Herzegovina 101

The 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies opened on 10 July 2013 at 10.00 a.m. under the chairmanship of Mr A. Papikyan, Deputy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Armenia.

PRESENT

ALBANIA

Ms M. Gega

Ms A. Kasa

Mr R. Hoxha

ANDORRA

Ms F. Aleix Lartigue

ARMENIA

Mr A. Papikyan, Chairman

Mr S. Kartashyan

Ms E. Harutyunyan

Ms V. Melikyan

Ms I. Beglaryan

Mr A. Khachatryan

AUSTRIA

Mr S. Rutkowski

Mr M. Reichard

AZERBAIJAN

Mr E. Eyyubov

Mr J. Mirzayev

Mr A. Gunashov

Mr H. Akhundov

BELGIUM

Ms M. Janssens

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Mr A. Săhović

Ms L. Ljubic-Lepine

Mr B. Babić

BULGARIA

Mr A. Tehov

Mr A. Ananiev

Ms D. Stambolova-Ivanova

CROATIA

Ms L. Glavaš Kovačić

Mr I. Mintas

CYPRUS

Ms T. Constantinidou

Mr S. Hatziyiannis

Mr T. Pittakis

CZECH REPUBLIC

Mr T. Boček

Mr M. Bouček

DENMARK

Mr C. von Barnekow

Ms M. Tzeggai

ESTONIA

Ms G. Rennel

Mr P. Pedak

Mr T. Tang

FINLAND

Mr P. Hyvönen

Ms L. Liira

Ms T. Leikas-Botta

FRANCE

Mr L. Dominati

Mr P. Ray

Ms M. Bilocq

Mr F. Liétout

GEORGIA

Mr K. Korkelia

Mr I. Giviashvili

GERMANY

Mr J.-H. Ernst

Ms V. Wolf

Mr M. Klinger

GREECE

Mr I. Asteriadis

Ms I. Petropoulou

HUNGARY

Mr F. Robák

Mr V. Garai

Ms A. Tóth-Ferenci

ICELAND

Ms B. Ásgeirsdóttir

IRELAND

Mr P. Gunning

Mr R. Scannell

Mr J. Moloney

Ms R. Hynes

ITALY

Mr M. Jacoangeli

Mr S. Marguccio

LATVIA

Mr M. Klīve

Ms E. Borchers

LIECHTENSTEIN

Mr D. Ospelt

LITHUANIA

Mr G. Šerkšnys

Ms U. Matulevičiené

LUXEMBOURG

Ms A. Kayser-Attuil

Mr B. Bollendorff

MALTA

Mr J. Licari

Mr A. Ghigo

REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Ms T. Pârvu

Mr S. Mihov

Mr V. Lapusneanu

MONACO

Mrs C. Gastaud

Mr G. Revel

MONTENEGRO

Ms A. Vukadinović

NETHERLANDS

Ms E. Berends

Ms K. Adhin

Mr J. Rademaker

NORWAY

Mr P. Wille

Ms K. Hefre

Mr J. Høvik

POLAND

Ms U. Gacek

Mr J. Grabowski

PORTUGAL

Mr L.F. Castro Mendes

Mr P. Neves Pocinho

Mr L. Sequeira

Mr M. H. Simão Pires

ROMANIA

Mr S. Stoian

Ms M. Marin

Mr G. Buliga

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Mr A. Alekseev

Mr V. Egorov

Ms M. Molodtsova

Mr V. Nevzorov

Mr E. Ryzhkin

Mr D. Rykovskov

Mr K. Kosorukov

Mr A. Muratov

SAN MARINO

Ms M. Bovi

SERBIA

Mr V. Lazovic

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Mr D. Štefánek

Ms L. Erdelská

Mr M. Babicz

SLOVENIA

Mr D. Bergant

Ms B. Sušnik

SPAIN

Mr F. Alvargonzález

Mr P. Jiménez Nacher

Mr L. Tarin Martin

SWEDEN

Mr C.-H. Ehrenkrona

Ms S. Finnigan

SWITZERLAND

Mr B. Gubler

Mr U. Beer

“THE FORMER YUGOSLAV

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA”

Mr Z. Barbutov

TURKEY

Mr R.E. Soysal

Mr U. Acar

Mr Y. Yeşilada

Mr I.O. Şanlı

Mr S. Şahin

Ms A. Sanli

Ms M.M. Şahin

Ms F.B. Okur

UKRAINE

Mr M. Tochytskyi

Mr D. Podolskyi

Mr M. Kononenko

Mr O. Kulikovskyi

Ms O. Pasheniuk

Ms O. Popescu

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr M. Johnson

Mr S. Kelly

*

* *

EUROPEAN UNION

Ms L. Pavan-Woolfe

Ms D. Candura

Mr G.C. Bruno

*

* *

CANADA

HOLY SEE

Mgr A. Giordano

Mgr S. Ćosić

JAPAN

Mr S. Hasegawa

Mr H. Gunji

MEXICO

Mr A. Martinez Peralta

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr E. Reade

Introduction

At the start of the meeting, the Chairman bade farewell to Ambassador Margarita Gega, Permanent Representative of Albania, Ambassador Anica Djamic, Permanent Representative of Croatia, Ambassador Laurent Dominati, Permanent Representative of France, Ambassador Joseph Licari, Permanent Representative of Malta, and Ambassador Petter Wille, Permanent Representative of Norway. He also bade farewell to Ms Florència Aleix Lartigue, Deputy Permanent Representative of Andorra, Ms Lada Glavaš Kovačič, Deputy Permanent Representative of Croatia, Mr Martin Bouček, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic, Mr Peter Pedak, Deputy Permanent Representative of Estonia, Mr Philippe Ray, Deputy Permanent Representative of France, Mr Richard Scannell, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ireland, Mr Jacek Grabowski, Deputy Permanent Representative of Poland, Mr Pedro Jimenez Nacher, Deputy Permanent Representative of Spain, Ms Mélanie Bilocq, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of France, Mr Markus Klinger, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Germany, Mr James Moloney, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Ireland, Ms Eliza Suchozebrska, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Poland, Mr Luís Sequeira, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Portugal, Mr Yasa Yeşilada, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Turkey, Mr Ilker Okan Şanli, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Turkey, Ms Asli Şanli, Deputy to the Permanent Representative of Turkey, and Monsignor Sladan Ćosić, Deputy Permanent Observer to the Holy See. He thanked them for their contribution to the work of the Committee.

He then welcomed Ambassador Konstantin Korkelia, Permanent Representative of Georgia. He wished him a pleasant stay in Strasbourg and a successful mission within the Committee.

Item 1.1

Adoption of the agenda

Decisions

The Deputies

1. agreed to add the following items to the agenda of their present meeting:

 

H46-2

Cases against the Russian Federation –

38411/02 Garabayev group of cases

 

4.4

Brighton Declaration – Follow-up –

Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Explanatory Report

2. taking into account the decision above, adopted the agenda of their 1176th meeting, as it appears at Appendix 1 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 1.2

Preparation of forthcoming meetings

Decisions

The Deputies

1. approved the draft agenda for their 1177th meeting (11 (10 a.m.) September 2013), as it appears at Appendix 2 to the present volume of Decisions;

2. approved the draft agenda for their 1178th meeting (17 (3 p.m.) – 18 (10 a.m.) September 2013), as it appears at Appendix 3 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 1.3

Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General –
Staff matters

(SG/Com(2013)1176 and SG/Inf(2013)25)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the Secretary General’s intention to appoint Mr Jörg Polakiewicz on the post of Director of Legal Advice and Public International Law (Grade A6), in accordance with Article 25.5b of the Regulations on Appointments (Appendix II to the Staff Regulations), with effect from 1 October 2013;

2. took note of the communication of the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General (SG/Com(2013)1176) and the exchange of views under this item.

Item 1.4

Report of the Bureau
(CM/Bur/Del(2013)16)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. approved the Bureau’s recommendations with regard to the agenda of their 1176th (10 July 2013) meeting, as they appear in the Appendix to the Bureau report;

2. approved the Bureau’s recommendation to move the 1182nd meeting from 23 to 24 October 2013;

3. approved the Bureau’s recommendation to move the handover meeting between Armenia and Austria (1184th meeting) from 13 to 14 November 2013;

4. noted that those interested in the following two positions should inform their Chairman, in writing, by 1.00 p.m. on 13 September 2013:

- Chair of the Rapporteur Group on External Relations (GR-EXT);

- Thematic Co-ordinator on Children (TC-ENF);

5. approved the Bureau’s recommendations as regards use of the Committee of Ministers’ Foyer, as set out in item 3 of the Bureau report;

6. took note of the report of the meeting of the Bureau of 8 July 2013 (document CM/Bur/Del(2013)16) as a whole.

Item 2.3

Policy of the Council of Europe towards neighbouring regions –

Interim implementation reports on the co-operation priorities concerning Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan

(ODGPROG/Inf(2013)9, ODGPROG/Inf(2013)10 and ODGPROG/Inf(2013)11)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the interim implementation reports on co-operation priorities concerning Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan, as they appear in documents ODGPROG/Inf(2013)9, ODGPROG/Inf(2013)10 and ODGPROG/Inf(2013)11 respectively;

2. instructed the Secretariat to continue implementing these co-operation priorities and to report to their Rapporteur Group on External Relations (GR-EXT);

3. called on the member States to consider the possibility of supplementing the financing of these priorities through voluntary contributions.

Item 2.4

European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) –

Abridged report of the 51st meeting (Strasbourg, 11-12 April 2013)

(CM(2013)66 and CM(2013)66 add)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. approved the Appendix to Protocol No. 3 to the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier
Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities concerning Euroregional Co-operation Groupings (ECGs), as it appears in document CM(2013)66 add;

2. took note of the abridged report of the 51st meeting of the CDLR, as set out in document CM(2013)66.

Item 3.1

Parliamentary Assembly –

3rd part of the 2013 Session (Strasbourg, 24-28 June 2013) –

Texts adopted

(2013 Session (Provisional Compendium of texts adopted))

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of Opinion No. 285 (2013) on “Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” and agreed to communicate it to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) for information;

***

2. concerning Recommendation 2019 (2013) “Corruption as a threat to the rule of law”

      a. agreed to communicate it to the Enlarged Agreement on the “Group of States against Corruption” (GRECO), for information and possible comments by 31 October 2013;

      b. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation
      (GR-J) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

***

3. concerning Recommendation 2020 (2013) “Equal access to health care”

      a. agreed to communicate it to the European Committee on Social Rights (ECSR), the Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and of the European Code of Social Security, the Consumer Health Protection Committee (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-SC) and the European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS), for information and possible comments by 31 October 2013;

      b. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Social and Health Questions (GR-SOC) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

***

4. concerning Recommendation 2021 (2013) “Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity”

      a. agreed to communicate it to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), for information and possible comments by 31 October 2013;

      b. in the light of possible comments, invited their Rapporteur Group on Human Rights (GR-H)
      to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

***

5. concerning Recommendation 2022 (2013) “Post-monitoring dialogue with “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia””

      a. invited their Rapporteur Group on Democracy (GR-DEM) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings;

*

* *

6. took note of the following resolutions:

Resolution 1940 (2013) – “The situation in the Middle East”

Resolution 1941 (2013) – “Request for the opening of a monitoring procedure in respect of Hungary”

Resolution 1942 (2013) – “Evaluation of the partnership for democracy in respect of the Parliament of Morocco”

Resolution 1943 (2013) – “Corruption as a threat to the rule of law”

Resolution 1944 (2013) – “Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Iceland”

Resolution 1945 (2013) – “Putting an end to coerced sterilisations and castrations”

Resolution 1946 (2013) – “Equal access to health care”

Resolution 1947 (2013) – “Popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly, media and speech”

Resolution 1948 (2013) – “Tackling discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity”

Resolution 1949 (2013) – “Post-monitoring dialogue with “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia””

Resolution 1950 (2013) – “Keeping political and criminal responsibility separate”

*

* *

7. adopted the following reply to the texts adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly at the 3rd part of the 2013 Session (Strasbourg, 24-28 June 2013):

“The Committee of Ministers has taken note of Opinion No. 285 (2013), of Recommendations 2019 (2013) to 2022 (2013) and of Resolutions 1940 (2013) to 1950 (2013) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly at the 3rd part of the 2013 Session (Strasbourg, 24-28 June 2013).

The Committee of Ministers has entrusted Recommendations 2019 (2013) to 2022 (2013) to the competent bodies and/or committees of experts for information or comments and to its relevant Rapporteur Groups with a view to preparing draft replies for adoption at an early date, as appropriate.”

Item 3.2a

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

a. Written Question No. 640 by Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier: “Respect for social rights in Greece”

Decisions

The Deputies

1. instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft reply to Written Question No. 640 in light of the views expressed at the present meeting;

2. agreed to resume consideration of this question at one of their forthcoming meetings.

Item 3.2b

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

b. Written Question No. 641 by Mr Martin Henriksen: “Interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”

Decisions

The Deputies

1. instructed the Secretariat to prepare a draft reply to Written Question No. 641 in light of the views expressed at the present meeting;

2. agreed to resume consideration of this question at one of their forthcoming meetings.

Item 3.2c

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

c. Written Question No. 634 by Mr Joe Benton: “Turkey’s draft Law on Foreigners and International Protection”
(CM/Del/Dec(2013)1170/3.2d and CM/AS(2013)Quest634 prov)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the reply to Written Question No. 634 by Mr Joe Benton on “Turkey’s draft Law on Foreigners and International Protection”, as it appears at Appendix 4 to the present volume of Decisions.2

Item 3.2d

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

d. Written Question No. 635 by Mr Jeffrey Donaldson: “Permanent resettlement of UNHCR refugees from Turkey”
(CM/Del/Dec(2013)1170/3.2d and CM/AS(2013)Quest635 prov)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the reply to Written Question No. 635 by Mr Jeffrey Donaldson on the “Permanent resettlement of UNHCR refugees from Turkey”, as it appears at Appendix 5 to the present volume of Decisions.3

Item H46-1

Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –

Adoption of final resolutions

Decision

The Deputies adopted the final Resolutions CM/ResDH(2013)137 to 149, as they appear listed below and at Appendices 6 to 18 to the present volume of Decisions.

Resolution

Application

Case

Judgment or decision of

Final on

BULGARIA

CM/ResDH(2013)137

31211/03

GEORGIEV GAVRIL

02/04/2009

02/07/2009

CM/ResDH(2013)138

13801/07

MARIN KOSTOV

24/07/2012

24/10/2012

CM/ResDH(2013)139

43449/02+

MILEVA AND OTHERS

25/11/2010

25/02/2011

CZECH REPUBLIC

CM/ResDH(2013)140

32921/03+

KOHLHOFER AND MINARIK

15/10/2009

01/03/2010

46677/06

MINARIK

10/02/2011

10/05/2011

8992/07

SOLARIS, S.R.O. AND OTHERS

13/10/2011

 

10583/09

MINARIK AND OTHERS

13/10/2011

 

22915/07

KOHLHOFER

13/10/2011

 

CM/ResDH(2013)141

20493/07

DIALLO

23/06/2011

26/04/2012

28/11/2011

GEORGIA

CM/ResDH(2013)142

8252/08

DADIANI AND MACHABELI

12/06/2012

12/09/2012

CM/ResDH(2013)143

55486/10

LENA NATCHKEBIA

02/10/2012

 

MALTA

CM/ResDH(2013)144

11956/07

STEPHENS No. 1

21/04/2009

14/09/2009

CM/ResDH(2013)145

21974/07

MERCIECA AND OTHERS

14/06/2011

14/09/2011

CM/ResDH(2013)146

77562/01

SAN LEONARD BAND CLUB

29/07/2004

29/10/2004

POLAND

CM/ResDH(2013)147

8932/05

SIAŁKOWSKA

22/03/2007

09/07/2007

56334/08

JEDRZEJCZAK

03/11/2011

04/06/2012

20520/08

KOCUREK

26/10/2010

 

34851/07

KRAMARZ

05/10/2010

 

34736/06

ZEBROWSKI

03/11/2011

04/06/2012

34043/05+

SUBICKA No. 2

21/06/2011

21/09/2011

2619/05

ZAPADKA

15/12/2009

15/03/2010

59519/00

STAROSZCZYK

22/03/2007

09/07/2007

ROMANIA

CM/ResDH(2013)148

17232/04

BALASOIU No. 2

20/12/2011

20/03/2011

TURKEY

CM/ResDH(2013)149

15259/02

ERTÜRK HASAN

12/04/2005

12/07/2005

287/03

ÇENGELLI AND ERYILMAZ

10/06/2008

10/09/2008

9984/03

KANBUR No. 2

14/10/2008

14/01/2009

36150/02

KAYA MEHMET

06/12/2005

06/03/2006

Item H46-2

Cases against the Russian Federation –
38411/02 Garabayev group of cases (list of cases)

(DH-DD(2013)75, DH-DD(2013)93, DH-DD(2013)218, DH-DD(2013)228, DH-DD(2013)259, DH-DD(2013)339, DH-DD(2013)394, DH-DD(2013)552, DH-DD(2013)720, DH-DD(2013)763, DH-DD(2013)768, DD(2013)774 and DD(2013)783)

Decisions

The Deputies,

Recalling the decisions adopted at their 1164th meeting (5-7 March 2013) (DH) and 1172nd meeting
(4-6 June 2013) (DH) in the Garabayev group of cases against the Russian Federation (see the list below),

1. noted, with grave concern, that a further incident involving allegations of kidnapping and illegal transfer of an applicant protected by an interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 has been reported, this time in the context of the Mamazhonov case;

2. strongly insisted that light be shed on this incident and on the fate of the applicant as quickly as possible;

3. consequently insisted again on the pressing need to adopt as of now measures to ensure an immediate and effective protection of the applicants in a similar situation against kidnappings and irregular removals from the national territory;

4. recalled, in this context, the letter sent by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation;

5. agreed that a draft interim resolution will be considered in the light of progress that would have been made, including the updated action plan submitted by the Russian authorities; this text will be circulated in the draft revised order of business of their 1179th meeting (24-26 September 2013) (DH).

Application

Case

Judgment of

Final on

38411/02

GARABAYEV

07/06/2007

30/01/2008

14743/11

ABDULKHAKOV

02/10/2012

11/02/2013

52805/10

ABIDOV (DH-DD(2013)673E)

12/06/2012

12/09/2012

35692/11

ALIKHONOV

31/07/2012

31/10/2012

38124/07

DZHURAYEV

17/12/2009

28/06/2010

66317/09

ELMURATOV (DH-DD(2012)691E)

03/03/2011

15/09/2011

42443/02

EMINBEYLI

26/02/2009

26/05/2009

12106/09

ERGASHEV (DH-DD(2013)210E)

20/12/2011

04/06/2012.

25404/09

GAFOROV (DH-DD(2011)798E, DH-DD(2012)145E)

21/10/2010

11/04/2011

19316/09

GALEYEV

03/06/2010

03/09/2010

14049/08

ISAKOV ABDULAZHON (DH-DD(2012)146E)

08/07/2010

22/11/2010

17185/05

ISKANDAROV (DH-DD(2012)24E, DH-DD(2012)103E, DH-DD(2012)94E, DH-DD(2012)390E)

23/09/2010

21/02/2011

2947/06

ISMOILOV AND OTHERS

24/04/2008

01/12/2008

54219/08

KARIMOV (DH-DD(2012)144E, DH-DD(2012)306E)

29/07/2010

21/02/2011

21055/09

KHAYDAROV (DH-DD(2011)609)

20/05/2010

04/10/2010

52466/08

KHODZHAYEV (DH-DD(2011)623)

12/05/2010

04/10/2010

13476/04

KHUDYAKOVA

08/01/2009

08/04/2009

24268/08

KLEIN (DH-DD(2011)584E, DH-DD(2011)601)

01/04/2010

04/10/2010

26876/08

KOLESNIK (DH-DD(2012)147E)

17/06/2010

22/11/2010

19732/04

KONONTSEV (DH-DD(2012)142E)

29/07/2010

29/10/2010

60045/10

KOZHAYEV

05/06/2012

22/10/2012

49747/11

MAKHMUDZHAN ERGASHEV

16/10/2012

11/02/2013

42502/06

MUMINOV (DH-DD(2012)391E)

11/12/2008

04/11/2010

04/05/2009

04/02/2011

656/06

NASRULLOYEV

11/10/2007

11/01/2008

27843/11

NIYAZOV

16/10/2012

16/01/2013

50031/11

RAKHMONOV

16/10/2012

11/02/2013

11209/10

RUSTAMOV (DH-DD(2013)671E)

03/07/2012

03/10/2012

8320/04

RYABIKIN

19/06/2008

19/09/2008

55822/10

SHAKUROV (DH-DD(2013)672E)

05/06/2012

22/10/2012

16074/07

SHCHEBET

12/06/2008

12/09/2008

15303/09

SULTANOV (DH-DD(2011)624, DH-DD(2011)739E)

04/11/2010

11/04/2011

17455/11

UMIROV

19/09/2012

11/02/2013

7265/10

YAKUBOV (DH-DD(2013)209E)

08/11/2011

04/06/2012

1248/09

YULDASHEV (DH-DD(2011)638E, DH-DD(2012)143E, DH-DD(2013)259, DH-DD(2013)276E,

DH-DD(2013)339E)

08/07/2010

22/11/2010

Item 4.1

“Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour” –

Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2011 (2013)
(Parliamentary Assembly REC_2011 (2013) and CM/AS(2013)Rec2011 prov)

Decision

The Deputies adopted the reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2011 (2013) on “Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour”, as it appears at Appendix 19 to the present volume of Decisions.4

Item 4.2a

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

a. Election of an expert to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee –
Candidates in respect of Poland

(CM(2013)73)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. having proceeded to election in conformity with Rules 8 and 9 of Resolution Res(97)10, declared elected to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee:

Mr Sławomir Łodziński, in respect of Poland;

2. consequently adopted Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)3, as it appears at Appendix 20 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 4.2b

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

b. Draft Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)… on the implementation of the Framework Convention by Spain

(CM(2013)90)

Decision

The Deputies adopted Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)4 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Spain, as it appears at Appendix 21 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 4.3

European Social Charter – Follow-up to the decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in the context of the collective complaints procedure –
European Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child and the Family (EUROCEF)
v. France, Complaint No. 82/2012

(Report CEDS(2012)82 from the European Committee of Social Rights and CM(2013)84)

Decision

In conformity with Article 9 of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter providing for a system of collective complaints, the Deputies, in their composition restricted to the Representatives of the Contracting Parties5 to the European Social Charter or to the Revised European Social Charter in the Committee of Ministers, adopted Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)14, as it appears at Appendix 22 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 4.4

Brighton Declaration – Follow-up –

Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Explanatory Report
(CM(2013)31, CM(2013)31 add, PACE Opinion 285 (2013) and DD(2013)534 rev)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the Parliamentary Assembly’s opinion on draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Opinion 285 (2013)), as well as of the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights (document DD(2013)534 rev);

2. adopted Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it appears at Appendix 23 to the present volume of Decisions, and agreed to open it for signature in Strasbourg on 2 October 2013;

3. took note of its Explanatory Report, as it appears in document CM(2013)31 add.

Item 5.1

Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI)

a. Abridged report of the 3rd meeting (Strasbourg, 23-26 April 2013)

b. Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on gender equality and media

c. Draft terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA)

(CM(2013)72, GR-H(2013)5 and DD(2013)736)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on gender equality and media, as it appears at Appendix 24 to the present volume of Decisions;

2. took note of work carried out by the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) (T-PD) regarding the modernisation of the Convention and, with a view to pursuing this work, approved the terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA), as they appear at Appendix 25 to the present volume of Decisions;

3. welcomed the increasing number of Parties to the Convention and the growing interest in this treaty by non-member States, while encouraging the T-PD and the Secretariat to pursue the promotion of the Convention to facilitate responses to global challenges to data protection;

4. in the light of decisions 1 to 3 above, took note of the abridged report of the 3rd meeting of the CDMSI, as it appears in document CM(2013)72, as a whole.

Item 5.2

Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) ‒
Implementation of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on measures to promote the respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights –
Report by the Secretary General

(CM(2013)29 final and DD(2013)738)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. welcomed the wide range of measures taken by the Secretary General for improved collection and sharing of information and enhanced co-ordination between the secretariats of the different Council of Europe bodies and institutions to promote respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR);

2. agreed that this work is to be given continued priority, in particular in relation to the rights of Internet users and Internet freedom and governance, protection of journalism and safety of journalists and combating hate speech;

3. in this context, agreed on the usefulness of addressing an open invitation to interested media freedom organisations to report serious violations of media freedom to the relevant Council of Europe bodies via the Secretariat; also agreed to reflect on the modalities for the creation of an Internet based platform aimed at facilitating the compilation, processing and dissemination of the information collected to the above-mentioned bodies and to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media;

4. agreed to hold their next thematic debate on issues relating to media freedom in Europe in December 2013, in the context of their consideration of the text(s) which will be adopted at the forthcoming 1st Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and Information Society (7-8 November 2013, Belgrade), including in the light of information collected within the framework of the above-mentioned open invitation;

5. agreed to transmit the Secretary General’s report to the Parliamentary Assembly, to the Commissioner for Human Rights and to the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) for information and possible comments;

6. invited the Secretary General to report on further action taken to implement the Committee of Ministers’ Declaration of 13 January 2010 on measures to promote the respect of Article 10 of the ECHR within three years.

Item 6.1

Enlarged Partial Agreement on the Co-operation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs (Pompidou Group) –

Request by Israel to accede to the Pompidou Group
(CM/Inf(2013)19)

Decision

The Deputies, in their composition restricted to members of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on the Co-operation Group to combat drug abuse and illicit trafficking in drugs (Pompidou Group),6 agreed to invite Israel to accede to this Enlarged Partial Agreement.

Item 7.1

10th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Culture (Moscow, 15-16 April 2013) –

Report by the Secretary General

(CM(2013)77)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the Final Declaration of the 10th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Culture;

2. instructed the Secretariat to transmit it to the forthcoming Council of Europe World Forum for Democracy (Strasbourg, 27-29 November 2013) and to the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and Information Society (Belgrade, 7-8 November 2013) so that they might take account of it in their work;

3. instructed the Secretariat to transmit it to the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Conference of INGOs and the relevant intergovernmental committees, for information;

4. agreed to bear it in mind when examining the draft programme and budget of the Council of Europe for 2014-2015;

5. in the light of the above decisions, took note of the Secretary General’s report, as it appears in document CM(2013)77, as a whole.

Item 7.2

24th Council of Europe Standing Conference of Ministers of Education (Helsinki, 26-27 April 2013) –

Report by the Secretary General

(CM(2013)78)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the Final Declaration of the 24th Council of Europe Standing Conference of Ministers of Education;

2. instructed the Secretariat to transmit it to the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Conference of INGOs and the relevant intergovernmental committees, for information;

3. agreed to bear it in mind when examining the draft programme and budget of the Council of Europe for 2014-2015;

4. in the light of the above decisions, took note of the Secretary General’s report, as it appears in document CM(2013)78, as a whole.

Item 8.1

European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ), Joint Council on Youth (CMJ) –

Abridged reports of the 50th meeting of the European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), 29th meeting of the Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ) and 28th meeting of the Joint Council on Youth (CMJ) (Budapest, 3-5 April 2013)
(CM(2013)70)

Decision

The Deputies took note of the abridged reports of the 50th meeting of the European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), of the 29th meeting of the Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ) and of the 28th meeting of the Joint Council on Youth (CMJ), as they appear in document CM(2013)70.

Item 8.2a

Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS)

a. Request for observer status by one sports organisation
(CM/Inf(2013)26 bil)

Decision

The Deputies, in their composition restricted to the representatives of the States members of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS),7 authorised the Governing Board of EPAS to grant observer status to the following organisation and to associate it with its Consultative Committee:

- International Centre for Sport Security (ICSS).

Item 8.2b

Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS)

b. Participation of States non-members of EPAS in the negotiation of a possible Council of Europe Convention against Manipulation of Sports Results and notably Match-fixing
(DD(2013)666)

Decision

The Deputies, in their composition restricted to the representatives of the States members of the Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS),8 authorised Australia to participate in the negotiation of a possible Council of Europe Convention against Manipulation of Sports Results and notably Match-fixing, conducted by EPAS.

Item 9.1

Standing Committee of the Bern Convention –

Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas (T-PVS/DE) –

Draft resolutions
(CM(2013)69)

Decision

The Deputies adopted Resolutions CM/ResDip(2013)2 to CM/ResDip(2013)4, as they appear at Appendices 26 to 28 to the present volume of Decisions.

Item 10.1a

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

a. Election of a member of the Committee of Experts in respect of Denmark
(CM(2013)76)

Decision

The Deputies, in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 1, of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, declared the person whose name appears below elected as a member of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in respect of Denmark, for a period of six years starting on 10 July 2013:

- Mr John Lundum.

Item 10.1b

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

b. Fifth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Switzerland
(CM(2013)80)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the fifth report of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Switzerland, as it appears in document CM(2013)80;

2. adopted Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)4 on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Switzerland, as it appears at Appendix 29 to the present volume of Decisions, and agreed to forward it to the Swiss authorities.

Item 10.1c

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

c. Fifth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Hungary
(CM(2013)81)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the fifth report of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Hungary, as it appears in document CM(2013)81;

2. adopted Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)5 on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Hungary, as it appears at Appendix 30 to the present volume of Decisions, and agreed to forward it to the Hungarian authorities.

Item 10.1d

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

d. First report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(CM(2013)83)

Decisions

The Deputies

1. took note of the first report of the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it appears in document CM(2013)83;

2. adopted Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)6 on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it appears at Appendix 31 to the present volume of Decisions, and agreed to forward it to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Item 10.2

European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) –

Draft Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs and its Explanatory Report

(CM(2013)79, CM(2013)79 add and GR-J(2013)14)

Decision

The Deputies agreed to transmit the draft Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs and its Explanatory Report, as they appear in documents CM(2013)79 and CM(2013)79 add, to the Parliamentary Assembly and invited the Assembly to give its opinion on the draft Convention.

Item 10.3

Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) –

Abridged report of the 24th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013)

(CM(2013)82)

Decision

The Deputies took note of the abridged report of the 24th meeting of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER), as it appears in document CM(2013)82.

Appendix 1
(Item 1.1)

1176 meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
(Strasbourg, 10 (10 a.m.) July 2013)

Agenda

1.

General questions

     

1.1

Adoption of the agenda

   
   

(CM/Del/OJ(2013)1176)

     

1.2

Preparation of forthcoming meetings

     
   

(CM/Notes/1176/1.2 of 8.7.2013)

     

1.3

Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General

     
   

(SG/Com(2013)1176, SG/Inf(2013)25)

     

1.4

Report of the Bureau

     
   

(CM/Bur/Del(2013)16)

     

2.

Democracy and political questions

     

2.1

The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia

     
   

(CM(2008)150 rev, CM(2008)162, SG/Inf(2008)19, DD(2008)631, SG/Inf(2009)5, SG/Inf(2009)7, CM(2009)PV prov, CM(2009)PV add1, CM(2009)PV add2, SG/Inf(2009)10, SG/Inf(2009)5 add, SG/Inf(2009)9, CM/AS(2009)Quest572, DD(2009)447, SG/Inf(2009)15 final, SG/Inf(2009)5 add2, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1846 (2008) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1846 final, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1857 (2009) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1857 final, CM(2009)164, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1869 (2009) and CM/AS(2010)Rec1869 final, DD(2010)71, DD(2010)95, SG/Inf(2010)7, SG/Inf(2010)8, DD(2010)238, CM/Del/Dec(2010)1090/2.1, SG/Inf(2010)19, DD(2010)559, SG/Inf(2011)8, SG/Inf(2011)24, SG/Inf(2012)5, SG/Inf(2012)28 rev and SG/Inf(2013)13)

     

2.1bis

Current political questions

     

2.2

Situation in Cyprus

   

2.3

Policy of the Council of Europe towards neighbouring regions –
Interim implementation reports on the co-operation priorities concerning Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan
(Item prepared by the GR-EXT on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(ODGPROG/Inf(2013)9, ODGPROG/Inf(2013)10 and ODGPROG/Inf(2013)11)
(CM/Notes/1176/2.3 of 5.7.2013)

     

2.4

European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) –
Abridged report of the 51st meeting (Strasbourg, 11-12 April 2013)
(Item prepared by the GR-DEM on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)66 and CM(2013)66 add)
(CM/Notes/1176/2.4 of 5.7.2013)

     

3.

Parliamentary Assembly

 
     

3.1

3rd part of the 2013 Session (Strasbourg, 24-28 June 2013) – Texts adopted

     
   

(2013 Session (Provisional Compendium of texts adopted))
(CM/Notes/1176/3.1 of 1.7.2013)

   

3.2

Written Questions by members of the Parliamentary Assembly to the Committee of Ministers

     
 

a. Written Question No. 640 by Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier: “Respect for social rights in Greece”

     
   

(CM/Notes/1176/3.2a of 26.6.2013)

     
 

b. Written Question No. 641 by Mr Martin Henriksen: “Interpretation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”

     
   

(CM/Notes/1176/3.2b of 28.6.2013)

     
 

c. Written Question No. 634 by Mr Joe Benton: “Turkey’s draft Law on Foreigners and International Protection”

     
   

(CM/Del/Dec(2013)1170/3.2d and CM/AS(2013)Quest634 prov)
(CM/Notes/1176/3.2c of 5.7.2013)

     
 

d. Written Question No. 635 by Mr Jeffrey Donaldson: “Permanent resettlement of UNHCR refugees from Turkey”

     
   

(CM/Del/Dec(2013)1170/3.2e and CM/AS(2013)Quest635 prov)
(CM/Notes/1176/3.2d of 5.7.2013)

     

4.

Human rights

     

H46-1

Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –
Adoption of final resolutions

     
   

(CM/Notes/1176/H46-1 of 28.6.2013)

     

H46-2

Cases against the Russian Federation –
38411/02 Garabayev group of cases

     
   

(DH-DD(2013)75, DH-DD(2013)93, DH-DD(2013)218, DH-DD(2013)228, DH-DD(2013)259,
DH-DD(2013)339, DH-DD(2013)394, DH-DD(2013)552, DH-DD(2013)720, DH-DD(2013)763, DH-DD(2013)768, DD(2013)774 and DH-DD(2013)783)
(CM/Notes/1176/H46-2 of 8.7.2013)

     

4.1

“Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour” –
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2011 (2013)
(Item prepared by the TC-ET and prepared by the GR-H on 2.7.2013)

 
       
   

(Parliamentary Assembly REC_2011 (2013) and CM/AS(2013)Rec2011 prov)
(CM/Notes/1176/4.1 of 4.7.2013)

 
       

4.2

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

 
     
 

a. Election of an expert to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee –
Candidates in respect of Poland
(Item prepared by the GR-H on 2.7.2013)

 
       
   

(CM(2013)73)
(CM/Notes/1176/4.2a of 2.7.2013)

 
     

 

b. Draft Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)… on the implementation of the Framework Convention by Spain
(Item prepared by the GR-H on 2.7.2013)

   
   

(CM(2013)90)
(CM/Notes/1176/4.2b of 3.7.2013)

   

4.3

European Social Charter –
Follow-up to the decisions of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) in the context of the collective complaints procedure –
European Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child and the Family (EUROCEF) v. France, Complaint No. 82/2012
(Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(Report from the European Committee of Social Rights CEDS(2012)82 and CM(2013)84)
(CM/Notes/1176/4.3 of 9.7.2013)

   

4.4

Brighton Declaration – Follow-up –
Draft Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Explanatory Report
(Item prepared by the GT-REF.ECHR on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)31, CM(2013)31 add, Parliamentary Assembly Opinion No. 285 (2013) and DD(2013)534 rev)
(CM/Notes/1176/4.4 of 9.7.2013)

   

5.

Media

   

5.1

Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI)
(Item prepared by the GR-H on 2.7.2013)

   
 

a. Abridged report of the 3rd meeting (Strasbourg, 23-26 April 2013)

   
 

b. Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on gender equality and media

   
 

c. Draft terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA)

   
   

(CM(2013)72, GR-H(2013)5 and DD(2013)736)
(CM/Notes/1176/5.1 of 5.7.2013)

   

5.2

Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) –
Implementation of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on measures to promote the respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights –
Report by the Secretary General
(Item prepared by the GR-H on 21.6.2013 and on 2.7.2013)

   
   

(CM(2013)29 rev and DD(2013)738)
(CM/Notes/1176/5.2 of 5.7.2013)

   

6.

Social cohesion

     

6.1

Enlarged Partial Agreement on the Co-operation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs (Pompidou Group) – Request by Israel to accede to the Pompidou Group
(Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(CM/Inf(2013)19)
(CM/Notes/1176/6.1 of 9.7.2013)

   

7.

Education and culture

     

7.1

10th Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Culture (Moscow, 15-16 April 2013) –
Report by the Secretary General
(Item prepared by the GR-C on 2.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)77)
(CM/Notes/1176/7.1 of 4.7.2013)

     

7.2

24th Council of Europe Standing Conference of Ministers of Education (Helsinki,
26-27 April 2013) – Report by the Secretary General
(Item prepared by the GR-C on 2.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)78)
(CM/Notes/1176/7.2 of 4.7.2013)

   

8.

Youth and sport

     

8.1

European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ), Joint Council on Youth (CMJ) –
Abridged reports of the 50th meeting of the European Steering Committee for Youth (CDEJ), 29th meeting of the Advisory Council on Youth (CCJ) and 28th meeting of the Joint Council on Youth (CMJ) (Budapest, 3-5 April 2013)
(Item prepared by the GR-C on 2.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)70)
(CM/Notes/1176/8.1 of 4.7.2013)

   

8.2

Enlarged Partial Agreement on Sport (EPAS)
(Item prepared by the GR-C on 2.7.2013)

   
 

a. Request for observer status by one sports organisation

     
   

(CM/Inf(2013)26 (Bilingual))

   
 

b. Participation of EPAS non-member States in negotiations for a possible Council of Europe Convention to Combat the Manipulation of Sports Results and notably Match-fixing

     
   

(CM/Inf(2013)26 (Bilingual) and DD(2013)666)

     
   

(CM/Notes/1176/8.2 of 4.7.2013)

   

9.

Sustainable development

     

9.1

Standing Committee of the Bern Convention –
Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas (T-PVS/DE) –
Draft resolutions
(Item prepared by the GR-C on 2.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)69)
(CM/Notes/1176/9.1 of 4.7.2013)

   

10.

Legal questions

     

10.1

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

   
 

a. Election of a member of the Committee of Experts in respect of Denmark
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)76)
(CM/Notes/1176/10.1a of 4.7.2013)

   
 

b. Fifth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Switzerland
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)80)
(CM/Notes/1176/10.1b of 5.7.2013)

   
 

c. Fifth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Hungary
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)81)
(CM/Notes/1176/10.1c of 5.7.2013)

   
 

d. First report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)83)
(CM/Notes/1176/10.1d of 5.7.2013)

   

10.2

European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) –
Draft Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs and its Explanatory Report
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)79, CM(2013)79 add and GR-J(2013)14)
(CM/Notes/1176/10.2 of 5.7.2013)

   

10.3

Committee of Experts on Terrorism (CODEXTER) –
Abridged report of the 24th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013)
(Item prepared by the GR-J on 4.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)82)
(CM/Notes/1176/10.3 of 5.7.2013)

     

13.

Any other business

Appendix 2
(Item 1.2)

1177 Meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
(Strasbourg, 11 (10 a.m.) September 2013)

Draft Agenda

In application of the rules for the dispatch of reference documents and Notes on the Agenda, the deadlines are:
CM: 14 August 2013
Notes: 30 August 2013

1.

General questions

     

1.1

Adoption of the agenda

   
   

(CM/Del/OJ(2013)1177)

     

1.2

Preparation of forthcoming meetings

     

1.3

Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General

     
   

(SG/Com(2013)1177, SG/Inf(2013)…)

     

1.4

Report of the Bureau

     
   

(CM/Bur/Del(2013)…)

     

1.5

Conferences of specialised ministers – State of preparation

     
   

(CM/Notes/1177/1.5 of …)

     

2.

Democracy and political questions

     

2.1

The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia

     
   

(CM(2008)150 rev, CM(2008)162, SG/Inf(2008)19, DD(2008)631, SG/Inf(2009)5, SG/Inf(2009)7, CM(2009)PV prov, CM(2009)PV add1, CM(2009)PV add2, SG/Inf(2009)10, SG/Inf(2009)5 add, SG/Inf(2009)9, CM/AS(2009)Quest572, DD(2009)447, SG/Inf(2009)15 final, SG/Inf(2009)5 add2, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1846 (2008) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1846 final, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1857 (2009) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1857 final, CM(2009)164, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1869 (2009) and CM/AS(2010)Rec1869 final, DD(2010)71, DD(2010)95, SG/Inf(2010)7, SG/Inf(2010)8, DD(2010)238, CM/Del/Dec(2010)1090/2.1, SG/Inf(2010)19, DD(2010)559, SG/Inf(2011)8, SG/Inf(2011)24, SG/Inf(2012)5, SG/Inf(2012)28 rev and SG/Inf(2013)13)

     

2.1bis

Current political questions

     

2.2

Situation in Cyprus

     

4.

Human rights

     

H46-1

Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –
Adoption of final resolutions

     
   

(CM/Notes/1177/H46-1 of …)

     

4.1

Exchange of views with Mr Dean Spielmann, President of the European Court of Human Rights

4.2

Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) –
Interim report to the Committee of Ministers, for information, on the negotiations on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights

     
   

(CM(2013)93 add1)
(CM/Notes/1177/4.2 of …)

     

4.3

European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) –
Abridged report of the 61st meeting (Strasbourg, 18-21 June 2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)…)
(CM/Notes/1177/4.3 of …)

     

6.

Social cohesion

     

6.1

Exchange of views with Professor Luis Jimena Quesada,
President of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR)

     

6.2

Ad hoc Committee of Experts on Roma Issues (CAHROM) –
Abridged report of the 5th meeting (Strasbourg, 14-16 May 2013)
(Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)74, CM(2013)74 add1 and CM(2013)74 add2)
(CM/Notes/1177/6.2 of …)

     

6.3

European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare (EDQM) –
European Committee on Organ Transplantation (Partial Agreement) (CD-P-TO) ‒
Abridged report of the 11th meeting (Strasbourg, 16-17 May 2013)
(Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)85)
(CM/Notes/1177/6.3 of …)

     

6.4

European Code of Social Security –
Governmental Committee of the European Social Charter and the European Code of Social Security ‒
Draft Resolutions CM/ResCSS(2013)…on the application of the European Code of Social Security and its Additional Protocol (period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012)
(Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)86)
(CM/Notes/1177/6.4 of …)

     

6.5

European Committee for Social Cohesion (CDCS) ‒
Committee of experts on the rights of people with disabilities (CS-RPD) ‒
Draft Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)… of the Committee of Ministers to member States on ensuring full inclusion of children and young people with disabilities into society
(Item prepared by the GR-SOC on 9.7.2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)87)
(CM/Notes/1177/6.5 of …)

     

13.

Any other business

Appendix 3
(Item 1.2)

1178 Meeting of the Ministers' Deputies
(Strasbourg, (17 (3 p.m.) – 18 (10 a.m.) September 2013)

Draft Agenda

In application of the rules for the dispatch of reference documents and Notes on the Agenda, the deadlines are:
CM: 21 August 2013
Notes: 6 September 2013

1.

General questions

     

1.1

Adoption of the agenda

   
   

(CM/Del/OJ(2013)1178)

     

1.2

Preparation of forthcoming meetings

     
   

(CM/Notes/1178/1.2 of …)

     

1.3

Dialogue with the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General

     
   

(SG/Com(2013)1178, SG/Inf(2013)…)

     

1.4

Report of the Bureau

     
   

(CM/Bur/Del(2013)…)

     

1.5

Thematic debate: “The role of the Council of Europe in addressing the rise of extremisms in evolving societies”

     
   

(SG/Inf(2013)…)

     

2.

Democracy and political questions

     

2.1

The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia

     
   

(CM(2008)150 rev, CM(2008)162, SG/Inf(2008)19, DD(2008)631, SG/Inf(2009)5, SG/Inf(2009)7, CM(2009)PV prov, CM(2009)PV add1, CM(2009)PV add2, SG/Inf(2009)10, SG/Inf(2009)5 add, SG/Inf(2009)9, CM/AS(2009)Quest572, DD(2009)447, SG/Inf(2009)15 final, SG/Inf(2009)5 add2, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1846 (2008) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1846 final, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1857 (2009) and CM/AS(2009)Rec1857 final, CM(2009)164, Parliamentary Assembly REC_1869 (2009) and CM/AS(2010)Rec1869 final, DD(2010)71, DD(2010)95, SG/Inf(2010)7, SG/Inf(2010)8, DD(2010)238, CM/Del/Dec(2010)1090/2.1, SG/Inf(2010)19, DD(2010)559, SG/Inf(2011)8, SG/Inf(2011)24, SG/Inf(2012)5, SG/Inf(2012)28 rev and SG/Inf(2013)13)

     

2.1bis

Current political questions

     

2.2

Situation in Cyprus

     

4.

Human rights

     

H46-1

Supervision of execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights –
Adoption of final resolutions

     
   

(CM/Notes/1178/H46-1 of …)

   

4.1

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights –
Presentation of the 2nd quarterly activity report 2013

   
   

(CommDH(2013)…)

   

4.2

Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH)

   
 

a. Abridged report of the 78th meeting (Strasbourg, 25-28 June 2013)

     
   

(CM(2013)93)

     
 

b. Study on the feasibility and added value of standard setting activities or other work in the field of human rights in culturally diverse societies

     
   

(CM(2013)93 add2)

     
 

c. Study on future possible priority areas for the development and promotion of human rights within the Council of Europe

     
   

(CM(2013)93 add3 of …)

     
 

(Sub-items a, b and c to be prepared by the GR-H on 17.9.2013)

     
   

(CM/Notes/1178/4.2abc of …)

     
 

d. Draft toolkit to inform public officials about the States’ obligations under the Convention

     
   

(CM(2013)93 add4 of …)

     
 

e. Draft guide to good practice in respect of domestic remedies

     
   

(CM(2013)93 add5 of …)

     
 

f. Report containing conclusions and possible proposals for action on ways to resolve the large numbers of applications arising from systemic issues identified by the Court

     
   

(CM(2013)93 add6 of …)

     
 

(Sub-items d, e and f to be prepared by the GT-REF.ECHR on 10.9.2013)

     
   

(CM/Notes/1178/4.2def of …)

     

4.3

“Reinforcing the selection processes for experts of key Council of Europe human rights monitoring mechanisms” ‒ Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2012 (2013)
(Item to be prepared by the GR-H on 17.9.2013)

     
   

(Parliamentary Assembly REC_2012 (2013) and CM/AS(2013)Rec2012 prov)
(CM/Notes/1178/4.3 of …)

     

10.

Legal questions

     

10.1

European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)
(Item to be prepared by the GR-J on 12.9.2013)

   
 

a. Abridged report of the 21st meeting (Strasbourg, 20-21 June 2013)

   
 

b. Partnership between the CEPEJ and the European Commission concerning the Justice Scoreboard of the European Union

   

 

c. Modalities of participation of Israel in the 2014 evaluation cycle of the CEPEJ

     
   

(CM(2013)…)
(CM/Notes/1178/10.1 of …)

     

12.

Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

     

12.1

Exchange of views with Mr Herwig van Staa, President of the Congress

     

13.

Any other business

Appendix 4
(Item 3.2c)

Reply to Written Question No. 634 by Mr Joe Benton:
“Turkey’s draft Law on Foreigners and International Protection”

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

1. The Committee of Ministers informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that during the discussion on this question, the Turkish delegation informed the Committee that the “Law on Foreigners and International Protection” entered into force on 11 April 2013. It provides a legal and concrete basis for the management of asylum seekers and migrants with a view to ensuring compliance and conservation of the rights of foreigners, migrants and refugees.

2. The Turkish delegation pointed out that the law incorporates key elements of international humanitarian and human rights law and also provides, among others, for the establishment, under the Ministry of the Interior, of a specialised institution to manage international protection on the basis of respect for the fundamental rights and needs of the applicants. The law introduces a clear and efficient system for the visa procedure, work and residence permits which should lead to fewer bureaucratic hurdles and positively contribute to the fight against irregular migration in Turkey. The International Organisation for Migration and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees were involved and the Council of Europe standards were taken into account in the preparation of the law. Regulations for the implementation of the law will be prepared over the next year, in full respect of Council of Europe standards and guidelines.

3. Finally, the Turkish delegation recalled that due to its location on the transit route of illegal migration, and becoming a target country especially in recent years, it is familiar with the concept of protection of irregular migrants and has accumulated considerable expertise and experience. It also referred to the initiation of fruitful co-operation between the Turkish Ministry of the Interior and the Council of Europe migration division, following the visit of a high-level Turkish delegation responsible for migration issues in September 2012.

4. The Committee of Ministers welcomes the commitment of the Turkish authorities to implementing the new law and the information provided thereon. It recalls the tools available within the Council of Europe which may be of assistance to Turkey, if considered appropriate, in pursuing these efforts, including in the field of training as mentioned by the Honourable Parliamentarian.

Appendix 5
(Item 3.2d)

Reply to Written Question No. 635 by Mr Jeffrey Donaldson:
“Permanent resettlement of UNHCR refugees from Turkey”

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

1. During the discussion on this written question, the Turkish delegation signalled that it refers largely to the previous law and not the newly introduced “Law on Foreigners and International Protection” which entered into force on 11 April 2013.

2. The delegation, while confirming that the new law maintains a geographical limitation on the 1951 Geneva Convention, highlighted that geographical limitation is not implemented in a way to restrain the fundamental rights and freedoms of non-European individuals seeking international protection nor does it deprive individuals of their already acquired international protection status. In particular, following the adoption of the new law, individuals seeking international protection and international protection status holders were granted the right to access to education, medical care and labour market regardless of their country of origin. They are treated as general health insurance holders, and thus their right to access to health services is guaranteed.

3. Finally, the Turkish delegation underlined that 192,970 Syrians are currently accommodated in shelters under the temporary protection of its authorities and that the number of applications for international protection has increased over the past two years. This is a clear demonstration of the magnitude of the burden Turkey is carrying of which, like the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Committee of Ministers is acutely aware. The issue of burden-sharing mechanisms and increasing the number of resettlements from Turkey to other European countries is a question that is frequently raised in relevant international fora and needs to be pursued.

Appendix 6

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)137

Gavril Georgiev against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 31211/03, judgment of 02/04/2009, final on 02/07/2009)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)716);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

BILAN D’ACTION (French only)

Affaire Gavril Georgiev contre Bulgarie, n° 31211/03

Arrêt du 2 avril 2009, définitif le 2 juillet 2009

1. Description de l’affaire

Cette affaire concerne la détention illégale du requérant, soupçonnée d’avoir commis une infraction pénale, pendant quatre jours en mars 2003 sur ordonnance du commandant du régiment qui n'était pas compétent pour ordonner une telle détention en droit interne (violation de l'art. 5§1). Elle concerne aussi l’absence de recours à la disposition du requérant pour contester la légalité de l'ordonnance de placement en détention (violation de l'art. 5§4).

2. Mesures individuelles

Les autorités ont versé au requérant les sommes indiquées par la Cour pour dommage moral et pour frais et dépens. Le requérant n’est plus détenu au titre d’une sanction disciplinaire prononcée par le commandant du régiment. Aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble nécessaire.

3. Mesures générales

a) Article 5 § 1

- Source de la violation

La Cour a constaté que selon le droit interne applicable à l’époque des faits, les organes compétents pour ordonner la détention d’un soldat soupçonné d’avoir commis une infraction pénale étaient la police militaire, l’enquêteur, le procureur et le tribunal de première instance. La détention du requérant en 2003 n’a pas été ordonnée par les organes susmentionnés. Elle a été décidée par le commandant de son régiment qui a prononcé une sanction disciplinaire de mise aux arrêts en vue de le traduire devant l’autorité judiciaire compétente. En conséquence, la détention du requérant était illégale au regard du droit interne.

- Mesures prises par les autorités

Les autorités estiment qu’il s’agit d’une violation isolée due à une méconnaissance du droit interne par le commandant du régiment.

Par ailleurs, les autorités tiennent à préciser que la sanction disciplinaire de mise aux arrêts a été abolie le 1er janvier 2008 suite à la suppression du service militaire obligatoire.

En conséquence, il ne semble pas qu’une telle violation puisse se reproduire à l’avenir.

b) Article 5 § 4

La Cour a noté que la décision de mettre le requérant aux arrêts n’a pas été prise à l’issue d’une procédure présentant les garanties exigées par l’article 5 § 4 de la Convention et que l’intéressé ne disposait pas de recours conformes aux exigences de cette disposition.

Comme indiqué plus haut, la possibilité d’imposer une sanction disciplinaire de mise aux arrêts a été abrogée en 2008. Par ailleurs, les procédures de placement en garde à vue et en détention provisoire de militaires impliquent, comme à l’époque des faits, un contrôle judiciaire.

Conclusion

Les autorités estiment qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle ou générale n’est nécessaire et que le Comité des Ministres pourrait envisager la clôture de l’examen de cette affaire.

Appendix 7

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)138

Marin Kostov against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 13801/07, judgment of 24/07/2012, final on 24/10/2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)715);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

Case Marin Kostov against Bulgaria, Application No. 13801/07

Judgment of 24/07/2012, final on 24/10/2012

1. Convention violation found

This case concerns the disproportionate interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression due to his disciplinary punishment (14 days solitary confinement) for having made defamatory statements in his complaints to the prosecutor about the actions of prison officials (violation of Article 10).

2. Individual measures

The compensation awarded to the applicant has been transferred to the applicant’s account.

No further individual measures are necessary for execution of the judgment.

3. General measures

a) Legislative measures

According to Rule 46 of the regulations implementing the Execution of Punishments Act from 1969, in force at the relevant time, when a prisoner's writings and appeals contain defaming and offensive language he may be subject to disciplinary and criminal punishment.

On 1 June 2009, this Act and the regulations implementing it were superseded by the new Execution of Punishments and Detention in Custody Act (the “EPDCA”). The new provision of section 90 (6) of EPDCA expressly provides that prisoners may not be subject to disciplinary punishment because of having made a request or lodged a complaint. Thus, the legal ground on which the applicant’s disciplinary punishment was based does not exist anymore.

At present, confinement in isolation cell of up to 14 days may be imposed by the prison governor; while the governors of penitentiary hostels may impose confinement of up to 5 days. The General Director of the General Directorate “Execution of Punishments” may impose all punishments described in section 101 of EPDCA (section 104 EPDCA). The orders for disciplinary punishments issued by the prison governor may be appealed before the General Director, while the orders of the General Director may be appealed before the Minister of Justice. The appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect, but the General Director or the Minister of Justice may decide to suspend the execution of the disciplinary punishment (section 110 EPDCA). The orders imposing solitary confinement to a disciplinary cell are subject to appeal before the district court (section 111 EPDCA). The district court has to examine the appeal within 3 days, in the presence of the detainee. The appeal does not have an automatic suspensive effect, but the court may decide to suspend the execution of the disciplinary punishment.

b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

The translation of the judgment will be available soon on the Ministry of Justice website at http://www.justice.government.bg/ and will be sent promptly to the competent authorities after it is ready.

A summary of the judgment is available on the website of the National Institute of Justice and on the website of the Bulgarian Lawyers for Human Rights Foundation.

The judgment in English and a summary in Bulgarian have been sent to the General Directorate for Execution of Punishments and the District Court – Levski through a letter drawing their attention on the main conclusions of the ECHR’s judgment.

By letter from the General Directorate for Execution of Punishments, the Bulgarian Government has been informed that all the district and territorial services will be informed of the ECHR judgment within the planned activities of the year. Instructions have been given to the heads of all prisons for the case to be reviewed and discussed and to take appropriate measures to prevent similar violations, and strictly comply with the requirements of the Convention.

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the government considers that the measures taken will prevent new similar violations and that Bulgaria has complied with its obligation under 46 §1 of the Convention. The government therefore looks forward to the Committee’s decision to close the examination of this case.

Appendix 8

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)139

Mileva and others against Bulgaria

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 43449/02, judgment of 25/11/2010, final on 25/02/2011)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)717);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Action Report

Case of Mileva and others v. Bulgaria

Application No. 43449/02, judgment of 25 November 2010

1. Convention violation found

This case concerns the failure of the authorities (between 2000 and 2004) to discharge their positive obligation to ensure the applicants' right to respect for their homes and their private and family lives by taking appropriate measures to protect them from the disturbances coming from a computer club which operated round the clock and whose clients were generating a high level of noise in and around a building which had an essentially residential character (violation of Article 8).

2. Individual measures

The compensation awarded has been transferred to the applicants’ accounts on 29 March 2011.

The computer club was closed in 2004 and currently there is no information of nuisances.

No other individual measures seem to be appropriate to redress the violation found by the Court in this case.

3. General measures

a) Source of the violation

The Court did not criticise the relevant domestic legislation and judicial practice, summarised in §50 – §71 of the judgment. It described several avenues of redress which could, if successful, have protected the applicants’ rights under Article 8. Thus, the domestic legislation and judicial practice seem to be in compliance with the requirements of the Convention.

Therefore, the authorities consider that the violation found in this case is the result of an isolated failure of the competent bodies to comply with their obligations under domestic law, to approach the matter with due diligence and to give proper consideration to all competing interests (see §101 of the judgment).

b) Publication and dissemination of the judgment

In view of the isolated nature of the violation found in this case, the publication and dissemination of the judgment seem useful to prevent similar violations in the future.

The translation of the judgment is available on the Ministry of justice website at http://www.mjs.bg/47. The translated judgment was sent to the competent authorities.

The government believes that no additional measures are necessary for the execution of the judgment in this case.

Appendix 9

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)140

Five cases against Czech Republic

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

(Kohlhofer and Minarik, Application No. 32921/03, judgment of 15 October 2009, final on 1 March 2010

Minarik, Application No. 46677/06, judgment of 10 February 2011, final on 10 May 2011

Solaris s.r.o and others, application No. 8992/07, judgment of 13 October 2011, final on 13 October 2011

Minarik and others, Application No. 10583/09, judgment of 13 October 2011, final on 13 October 2011

Kohlhofer, Application No. 22915/07, judgment of 13 October 2011, final 13 October 2011)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)49);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

in cases Nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05 – Kohlhofer and Minarik and

No. 46677/06 – Minarik v. the Czech Republic (first group), and

in cases Nos. 8992/07 – Solaris, s.r.o., and others, 10583/09 – Minarik and others

and 22915/07 – Kohlhofer v. the Czech Republic (second group)

Action Report submitted by the Czech Government on 3 December 2012

In its judgments delivered on 15 October 2009 and 10 February 2011, respectively, with regard to the first group of cases, the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention stemming in particular from the limitation of the applicants’ access to a court that would assess the validity of general meetings and resolutions taken at those meetings with the aim of squeezing out minority shareholders, including the applicants, from several companies.

In its judgment of 13 October 2011, the Court has established in respect of the second group of cases a similar violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as in its previous judgments referred to above.

The present report is intended to inform the Committee of Ministers of individual and general measures of execution with regard to the judgments.9

I. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

In all these cases, the transfer of property has been valid and final under Czech law for several years and this fact has been relied on in subsequent complex legal transactions. Therefore, any measures aimed at invalidation of the transfer of assets would imply a disproportionate interference with third persons’ rights acquired in good faith.

Taking this into account, the government believes that apart from due payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, introduction of other individual measures is unnecessary and would even be unreasonable in the present cases.

II. GENERAL MEASURES

It should be noted that in the above-mentioned judgments, the Court did not explicitly state what the content of legislation or the approach of the domestic courts should have been in order to comply with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The government has been compelled by the Court to seek a solution that would strike a balance between the competing interests of the minority shareholders, other entities involved, and the broader public interest (in particular, the stability of commercial markets and trade and economic development), the legitimacy of which was acknowledged in the Court’s judgments.

Measures, described infra, which have been introduced, concern both the relevant legislation and to the case law of national courts.

A. AMENDMENT OF RELEVANT LEGISLATION

The violation of the Convention established by the Court originated, inter alia, from the domestic legislation.10

It should be clarified at the outset that the regulation of transfer of assets to the majority shareholder (which has been subject to the Court’s scrutiny in the judgments at hand) was erased from the Commercial Code in 2008 and moved to a newly introduced Act No. 125/2008 (the “Companies Transformations Act”). Admittedly, these new provisions were based on very similar principles as the former ones and did not entail changes that would significantly alter the position of minority shareholders, considered unsatisfactory in certain aspects by the Court found.

In 2011, the Ministry of Justice prepared an amendment of the relevant legislation, which became Act No. 355/2011 and entered into force on 1 January 2012 (the “Act”). The Act inter alia explicitly reflects the Kohlhofer and Minarik judgment and introduces measures intended to remedy the previous legislative shortcomings identified by the Court.

In particular, Section 131 (3) (c) of the Commercial Code, i.e. one of the provisions that were at the centre of the Court’s criticism,11 has been abolished.

Furthermore, Sections 57(2) and (3) of the Companies Transformations Act12 have been modified in order to provide for a possibility to continue the proceedings to set aside a decision on transformation of the company (such as transfer of assets to the majority shareholder) after the entry of the transformation into the Commercial Register. This applies on condition that a minority shareholder changes the object of his motion to seek a determination whether the transformation project (e.g. transfer of assets) or the decision approving it are contrary to the legislation or internal statutes of the company.13

Upon a court’s decision declaring an inconsistency of such transformation project or of the corresponding decision with legislation or the company’s internal statutes, the minority shareholders are entitled to claim damages or a just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.

Therefore, even after the entry of the transformation into the Commercial Register, minority shareholders will have access to court to contest the general meeting’s resolution that has deprived them of their shares. Despite not being able to achieve quashing of the resolution, the merits of their claims, in particular the question whether the resolution had been adopted in breach of law or the company’s internal statutes, will be heard and finally decided in adversarial proceedings before the court.

Such solution allows for striking a fair balance between the competing interests of the minority shareholders on the one hand and those of the majority shareholder, the company and the broader public interest on the other hand.

B. REFLECTION OF THE JUDGMENTS IN DOMESTIC CASE LAW

The principles expressed by the Court in the above judgments had found their reflection in the case law of Czech courts, in particular the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, already in 2011.14 This fact illustrates that the Czech courts had not passively awaited legislative changes but instead have by their practice contributed to the introduction of the principles contained in the Court’s judgments into the Czech law.

III. CONCLUSION

The Government of the Czech Republic concludes in respect of implementation of the judgments in Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic, Minarik v. the Czech Republic, Solaris, s.r.o. and others v. the Czech Republic, Minarik and others v. the Czech Republic and Kohlhofer v. the Czech Republic that all necessary measures of execution have been taken.

Appendix 10

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)141

Diallo against Czech Republic

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 20493/07, judgment of 23 June 2011, final on 28 November 2011
and judgment of 26 April 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)328);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
en l’affaire n° 20493/07 – Diallo c. République tchèque

Bilan d’action présenté par le gouvernement dans une version consolidée le 14 mars 2013

(French only)

Dans son arrêt du 23 juin 2011, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l’article 13 combiné avec l’article 3 de la Convention du fait que les autorités internes n’avaient pas examiné le fond du grief défendable des requérants lié au risque de mauvais traitement en cas de leur retour dans la Guinée et du fait que les requérants n’avaient pas disposé à l’égard de leur grief d’aucun recours doté d’effet suspensif automatique.

L’arrêt est devenu définitif le 28 novembre 2011 en vertu de l’article 44 § 2 lettre c) de la Convention. Le présent rapport a pour objet d’informer le Comité des Ministres des mesures individuelles et générales d’exécution de l’arrêt15.

I. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

Etant donné qu’au moment où la Cour a rendu son arrêt les requérants ne se trouvaient plus sur le territoire de la République tchèque et qu’en plus, les requérants se sont vu payer une compensation du préjudice moral subi16, aucune mesure à caractère individuel ne semble s’imposer. Par ailleurs, en contactant les requérants aux fins de paiement de la satisfaction équitable par l’intermédiaire de leur représentant, le Gouvernement a appris qu’ils ne se trouvaient plus en Guinée, où ils avaient été transférés par les autorités tchèques.

II. MESURES GENERALES

Premièrement, le gouvernement note que le 9 décembre 2008, la Cour constitutionnelle a rendu l’arrêt réf. Pl. ÚS 26/07 par lequel elle a abrogé l’article 171 § 1 lettre c) de la loi n° 326/1999 sur le séjour des étrangers sur le territoire de la République tchèque, à savoir la disposition qui avait empêché les requérants à introduire une action contre la décision sur l’expulsion administrative. Sur la base de l’article 172 § 3 de la loi sur le séjour des étrangers sur le territoire de la République tchèque, l’action contre la décision sur l’expulsion administrative est dotée d’un effet suspensif. Les étrangers qui se trouvent à l’heure actuelle dans une situation analogue à celle des requérants dans la présente affaire disposent donc d’un recours devant un tribunal administratif contre la décision d’expulsion administrative avec effet suspensif et automatique.

Deuxièmement, le procédé que le ministère de l’Intérieur a adopté en l’espèce au cours de la procédure d’asile, à savoir l’application du concept d’un « pays tiers sûr » à un Etat de l’Union européenne, n’est plus suivi par ce dernier. Dans les cas similaires, le ministère procède désormais selon le règlement « Dublin » (règlement (CE) n° 343/2003 du Conseil du 18 février 2003 établissant les critères et mécanismes de détermination de l’Etat membre responsable de l’examen d’une demande d’asile présentée dans l’un des Etats membres par un ressortissant d’un pays tiers) et, par conséquent, soit examine la demande d’asile au fond lui-même, soit se satisfait que l’autre Etat membre de l’Union européenne qui est compétent sur la base du règlement « Dublin » (à l’exception de la Grèce) examinera la demande d’asile au fond et si tel est le cas, il y transférera le demandeur. Partant, il est désormais exclu qu’un demandeur d’asile qui est arrivé en République tchèque depuis un Etat membre de l’Union européenne soit déporté vers son pays d’origine sans que sa demande d’asile soit examinée au fond par les autorités tchèques ou les autorités de l’autre Etat membre de l’Union européenne compétent.

Troisièmement, il convient de rappeler que la formalité de « l’avis obligatoire » rendu par le ministère de l’Intérieur lors de la procédure d’expulsion n’a été introduite en droit tchèque que le 1er septembre 2006, à savoir trois mois avant que les avis obligatoires de l’espèce n’aient été rendus. A l’époque des faits de la présente affaire, la pratique n’a pas donc été encore établie. Suite, entre autres, à la communication de la présente requête au gouvernement, le ministère de l’Intérieur a ajusté sa pratique. A l’heure actuelle, le risque de mauvais traitement que l’étranger pourrait courir est analysé par rapport à tous les pays qui peuvent théoriquement être les pays de destination en cas de son expulsion.

Quatrièmement, la traduction de l’arrêt a été publiée sur le web du ministère de la Justice et a été envoyée, accompagnée de son résumé, au ministère de l’Intérieur et aux tribunaux qui avaient rendu décisions en l’espèce.

En conclusion, vu ce qui précède, le gouvernement estime que d’autres mesures à caractère général ne sont pas nécessaires.

III. CONCLUSION

Eu égard aux informations susmentionnées, le gouvernement est d’avis que la République tchèque s’est acquittée de toutes les obligations en vue d’exécuter l’arrêt de la Cour en l’affaire Diallo contre République tchèque.

Appendix 11

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)142

Dadiani and Machabeli against Georgia

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 8252/08, judgment 12/06/2012, final on 12/09/2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, (see document DH-DD(2013)575);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Bilan d’action du Gouvernement géorgien (French only)

Dadiani et Machabeli contre Géorgie (n° 8252/08),

Arrêt du 12 juin 2012, définitif le 12 septembre 2012

I. Résumé introductif de l’affaire

L’affaire concerne la non-exécution de la décision du tribunal du district de Gurjaani du 31 janvier 2005, rendue en faveur des requérants ayant établi leur copropriété sur un terrain litigieux. Le tribunal a émis un ordre de l’exécution en vue de la restitution du terrain aux requérants. Pourtant, en raison de formalisme excessif du bureau public d’enregistrement foncier de Gurjaani, la décision est restée inexécutée durant plus de sept ans (violation de l’article 6 § 1).

La Cour a accordé à chacun des deux requérants la satisfaction équitable de 2 000 euros pour dommage moral et aux deux requérants conjointement – 1 500 euros pour frais et dépens.

En outre, la Cour a constaté que la forme la plus appropriée de réparation serait l'exécution rapide de la décision interne litigieuse.

II. Paiements de la satisfaction équitable et autres mesures individuelles

a) Détails de la satisfaction équitable

Nom et n° de requête

Dommage matériel

Dommage moral

    Frais & dépens

Total

Dadiani et machabeli

n° 8252/08

 

4 000 EUR

1 500 EUR

5 500 EUR

Payé le 22.11.2012

b) Mesures individuelles

Violations de l’article 6 § 1

Le 15 janvier 2013, l’Agence nationale du registre publique a effectué l’enregistrement du droit de la propriété des requérants sur le terrain litigieux. L’information détaillée à cet égard est publique et est disponible à l’aide du système de recherche électronique des biens immobiliers sur la page web de l’Agence (voir les annexes – extrait du registre public attestant la propriété des requérants sur le terrain et le plan cadastral du terrain).

A la lumière de ce qui précède, le gouvernement considère qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble être nécessaire.

III. Mesures générales

L’arrêt a été traduit en géorgien et publié au Journal officiel et sur le site web du ministère de la Justice de Géorgie. L’arrêt figure également dans la revue juridique publiée par la Cour suprême de Géorgie. Cette revue rassemble les arrêts rendus par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme contre la Géorgie et est destinée aux juridictions internes.

La traduction géorgienne de l’arrêt a été envoyée au service juridique de l’Agence nationale du registre public en vue de sa diffusion aux agences locales subordonnées, y compris celle de Gurjaani. Une lettre expliquant les raisons de la violation établie par la Cour dans son arrêt a également été adressée à la Directrice de l’Agence nationale du registre public.

Il faut noter que la violation constatée par la Cour dans cet arrêt est un cas isolé. A ce jour, aucune requête communiquée par la Cour au gouvernement ne concerne une question similaire ; des cas semblables à celle de « Dadiani et Machaebli » n’existent pas non plus au sein du système du Registre public national.

Par ailleurs, il convient de souligner que le 14 septembre 2011, lors de la 1120e réunion DH, le Comité des Ministres a adopté la Résolution finale CM/ResDH(2011)108 concernant la non-exécution des décisions judiciaires internes. Ceci confirme que le problème systémique de la non-exécution des décisions de la justice internes n’existe plus en Géorgie.

IV. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

Les autorités estiment qu’aucune mesure individuelle ou générale spécifique n’est requise au-delà de celles exposées ci-dessus et que la Géorgie a par conséquent rempli ses obligations découlant de l’article 46 § 1 de la Convention.

Appendix 12

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)143

Lena Natchkebia against Georgia

Execution of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 55486/10, decision of 2 October 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of friendly settlements as they appear in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Considering that in this case the Court, having taken formal note of the friendly settlement reached by the government of the respondent State and the applicant, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided to strike this case from its list;

Having satisfied itself that the terms of the friendly settlement were executed by the government of the respondent State (see document DH-DD(2013)145),

      DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 39, paragraph 4, of the Convention and

      DECIDES to close its examination.

Bilan d’action du Gouvernement géorgien

Lena Natchkebia (n° 55486/10), Décision du 2 octobre 2012, définitive le 12 octobre 2012

Règlement amiable avec les engagements spécifiques

(French only)

Résumé introductif de l’affaire

La requérante, purgeant depuis 2007 sa peine de prison pour braquage, est atteinte de troubles schizo-affectifs, diagnostiqués suite à l’examen psychiatrique, réalisée par le Bureau national de l’expertise entre le 7 et le 23 novembre 2009. Conformément au rapport de l’expertise en question, l’état de santé mentale de la requérante nécessitait le traitement médical obligatoire au sein d’un hôpital psychiatrique ; l’exécution de la peine de prison de la requérante pourrait être reprise seulement après le rétablissement de celle-ci.

Le 21 octobre 2010, en vertu de l’article 39 de son Règlement, la Cour a indiqué au gouvernement de placer la requérante dans un établissement médical capable de lui dispenser des soins adéquats pour ses troubles psychiques. Le 17 novembre 2010, la cour de la ville de Tbilissi a ordonné le remplacement de la peine de prison de la requérante par le traitement médical obligatoire au sein d’un hôpital civil psychiatrique. Par conséquent, la requérante a été placée dans le Centre national de la santé mentale B. Naneishvili.

En vertu des articles 3 et 13 de la Convention, l’avocat de la requérante se plaignait du fait que jusqu’au 17 novembre 2010, celle-ci était dépourvue de soins psychiatriques appropriés en prison.

La partie requérante a accepté le règlement amiable dans les conditions suivantes :

    · un nouvel examen psychiatrique de la requérante devait avoir lieu avec la participation, entre autres, d’experts désignés par la partie requérante ;

    · l’établissement du statut de l’handicapée serait établi ;

    · le gouvernement se chargeait des frais d’examens médicaux ;

    · le gouvernement s’est engagé à payer 3 500 euros à la requérante au titre de la satisfaction équitable pour tout dommage moral et matériel et frais et dépens ;

    · les mesures susmentionnées devaient être adoptées dans un délai de trois mois à compter de la notification de la présente décision au gouvernement soit jusqu’au 12 janvier 2013 ;

    · enfin, le gouvernement s’est engagé à poursuivre les réformes en vue d’améliorer l’accessibilité et la qualité des soins psychiatriques au sein du système pénitentiaire géorgien.

I. Mesures individuelles

a) Paiement de la satisfaction équitable

Nom et n° de la requête

Dommage

moral/dommage matériel / frais et dépens

Total

Lena Natchkebia c. Géorgie

(n° 55486/10)

3 500 EUR

3 500 EUR Payé le 24.12.2012

b) En ce qui concerne le nouvel examen psychiatrique

Conformément aux termes du règlement amiable, le 30 novembre 2012 un nouvel examen complexe psychiatrique et psychologique de la requérante a eu lieu au Centre national de la santé mentale. Les experts médicaux désignés par la partie requérante, M. Jishkariani et G. Berulava, ont également participé à l’examen.

Le 21 décembre 2012, conformément aux résultats dudit examen, la schizophrénie paranoïaque avec la progrédience continue a été diagnostiquée à la requérante (voir annexe I).

c) En ce qui concerne l’établissement du statut de l’handicapée mentale

Le 22 novembre 2012, le Centre national de la santé mentale a délivré l’attestation médicale de l’examen sociale de la requérante qui a été reconnue personne handicapée aux capacités fortement réduites (voir annexe II).

A la lumière de ce qui précède et vu les conditions du présent règlement amiable, aucune autre mesure individuelle ne semble être nécessaire.

II. Mesures générales

Information relative aux soins psychiatriques au sein du système pénitentiaire géorgien

a) en ce qui concerne le traitement des problèmes psychiques des détenus

Chaque établissement pénitentiaire géorgien dispose d’un médecin psychiatre dont l’objectif principal est la prévention, le dépistage et la gestion des problèmes de santé mentale des détenus (en moyenne 1 500 consultations psychiatriques mensuelles ont lieu dans l’ensemble des établissements pénitentiaires géorgiens).

Le psychiatre de la prison évalue le statut psychique des détenus atteints de problèmes mentaux et en cas de besoin, les détenus sont soumis au traitement médical adéquat. En cas d’aggravation de l’état de santé mentale, lorsque la gestion d’un patient est impossible sur place, celui-ci est transféré dans l’unité psychiatrique de l’établissement médical pénitentiaire n° 18 ; il est placé sous la surveillance permanente du personnel médical et est soumis au traitement prescrit par le psychiatre et à la consultation d’un psychologiste, en vue d’éviter des auto-traumatismes.

En cas d’impossibilité stabiliser le statut psychique d’un patient, celui-ci est examiné par la Commission psychiatrique du ministère du système pénitentiaire et par la suite, selon la recommandation de cette Commission, une expertise médico-légale a lieu afin d’évaluer la gravité du statut psychique du patient et la nécessité d’un traitement médical obligatoire.

Afin d’améliorer la gestion des patients psychiatriques, un groupe spécial de surveillance sur la santé mentale des détenus, composé de onze médecins psychiatres a été créé en avril 2012, dans le cadre du département médical du ministère du système pénitentiaire. Les membres du groupe médical précité ont été formés dans la gestion de patients placés en détention.

b) en ce qui concerne la formation du personnel médical pénitentiaire

Le médecin psychiatre de la prison agit en coopération étroite avec des médecins chargés de premiers soins et contribue à la formation psychiatrique du personnel médical (médecins et infirmiers).

Avec l’aide de donateurs internationaux (Croix-Rouge, UE, Gouvernement des Pays-Bas etc.) des formations ont été organisées pour des médecins et infirmiers en vue de la prévention et du dépistage des problèmes de santé mentale (automutilation, suicide, para-suicide etc.). Par ailleurs, en vue de mieux gérer les détenus ayant de problèmes psychiques, un module de formation analogue à celui des Pays-Bas a été préparé.

Le Gouvernement géorgien informera le Comité des Ministres et la Cour EDH, à intervalles raisonnables, des développements dans le domaine des soins psychiatriques au sein du système pénitentiaire géorgien.

III. Conclusions de l’Etat défendeur

Le gouvernement estime que suite aux mesures adoptées il a respecté les engagements pris dans le cadre du présent règlement amiable et que par conséquent, il a rempli ses obligations découlant de l’article 39§4 de la Convention.

Appendix 13

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)144

Stephens against Malta (No. 1)

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No 11956/07, judgment of 21 April 2009, final on 14 September 2009)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violations established;

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)650);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report

Stephens against Malta (No. 1) (Application No. 11956/07; judgment final on 14 September 2009)

Case summary

1. Case description:

The case concerns the unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention for ten days (between 12 November 2004 and 22 November 2004) after his arrest order made during the course of extradition proceedings had been declared illegal (violation of Article 5 § 1).

Whilst noting that the Constitutional Court had confirmed that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 because the arrest warrant was null and void and had granted the applicant compensation, the European Court observed that the judgment of the Constitutional Court made no reference to the ten-day period of detention in November 2004 and had not increased the compensation granted in the light of this continued unlawful detention. The European Court therefore held that the violation resulting from this period of detention was imputable to Malta and had not been redressed.

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

No other individual measures appear necessary.

General measures

4. General measures:

Given that the judgment concerned an isolated incident, which had in the main been redressed by the Constitutional Court (with the exception of the ten day period in 2004), the Maltese authorities do not consider that any general measures, other than the dissemination of the judgment are necessary.

5. Publication and dissemination:

The judgment has been disseminated to raise awareness amongst high ranking officials at the Police Department.

The judgment has also been published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court against Malta are automatically sent out to competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.

Judgment features in the publication in the names ‘Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012’, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

State of execution of judgment

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 14

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)145

Mercieca and others against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 21974/07, judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)653);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report Mercieca and others against Malta

(Application No. 21974/07; judgment of 14 June 2011, final on 14 September 2011)

Case summary

1. Case description

The applicants were certified public accountants who were being sued for damages arising out of claimed negligence. On 1 December 2003, in a preliminary judgment, the Civil Court dismissed their plea that the action should be dismissed. On 12 December 2003, the Civil Court granted leave to appeal. On 29 December 2003, the applicants lodged their appeal. On 8 June 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time due to its interpretation of the relevant rules in place. In March 2007, the Constitutional Court acknowledged that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the law had been erroneous and had deprived the applicants of their right to appeal. Nevertheless, it found that given that a defect in first-instance proceedings could be remedied on appeal, the right to a fair hearing had not been violated.

The European Court held that the applicants had been denied access to a court because the applicable rules on time limits had been erroneously construed by the Court of Appeal in such a way as to prevent the applicants’ appeal being examined on the merits (violation of Article 6 § 1).

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction awarded has been paid and evidence of payment previously supplied.

3. Individual measures:

The applicants’ domestic proceedings, referred to in the judgment, have now reached the final stages prior to the first instance decision. Following the delivery of the judgment by the court of first instance, the applicants will have the opportunity to file an appeal against both the partial judgment as well as an appeal against the final judgment should they wish to do so. The time limits for such an appeal are clearly provided for by the amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (set out below).

The authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.

General measures

4. General measures:

The Maltese legislation regulating time limits for appeal has been amended to avoid any future misinterpretation. Act XIII of 2005 amended Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta). This amendment, set out below, now clarifies the time limits for appeal, including after partial judgments:

    “231 (1) Where several issues in an action have been determined by separate judgments, appeal from any such judgments may only be entered after the final judgment and within the prescribed time, to be reckoned from the date of such final judgment; and in such an appeal express mention of the judgment or judgments appealed from shall be made:

    Provided that an appeal from such separate judgments may be entered before the final judgment only by leave of court to be read out in open court; such request for leave to appeal shall be made either orally immediately after the delivery of such judgment or by application within six days from such judgment and when such leave to appeal from such separate judgments is granted the time for the filing of the appeal in respect thereof shall commence to run from the day on which the said leave is read out in open court.”

5. Publication and dissemination:

The judgment was published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta features as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.

The judgment received media coverage by local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of the 16th June 2011 entitled ‘Maltese accountants win European Court case’).

Judgment features in the publication in the names ‘Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012’, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

State of execution of judgment

The government considers that all necessary individual and general measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 15

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)146

San Leonard Band Club against Malta

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 77562/01, judgment of 29 July 2004, final on 29 October 2004)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling that the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in the present case (see document DH-DD(2013)651);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action Report San Leonard Band Club against Malta

(Application No. 77562/01; judgment final on 29 October 2004)

Case summary

1. Case description:

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. In 1996, in the context of a petition for retrial of civil proceedings, the same judges of the Court of Appeal were called upon to ascertain whether their previous judgment was based on a misinterpretation of the law (violation of Article 6 § 1). Thus, the same judges were called upon to decide whether or not they themselves had committed an error of legal interpretation or application in their previous decision (§§63-64 of the judgment).

The European Court found that these circumstances were sufficient to hold that the applicant's fears as to the lack of impartiality of the Court of Appeal were objectively justified (§65).

Individual measures

2. Just satisfaction:

The applicant company’s lawyers did not submit any claim for just satisfaction or for reimbursement of costs and expenses, although invited to do so. Accordingly, the Court decided not to award any sum in these respects.

3. Individual measures:

The European Court indicated that in cases of violation of the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, the most appropriate measure in principle is reopening the case before an independent and impartial tribunal (§70).

In a decision of 18 May 2005, the Constitutional Court ordered that the applicant’s petition for retrial of
21 May 1994 should be heard afresh, and that the Court of Appeal should not be composed of the same judges who had presided over the previous proceedings. The domestic proceedings were subsequently reopened and a new panel of judges, different from those having sat in the original first-instance or appeal proceedings, presided over the new proceedings. On 27 February 2009 the proceedings were completed.

The authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.

General measures

4. Other general measures:

The European Court’s judgment has resulted in a change of judicial practice: in the event of a request for retrial the judges involved have, to date, always abstained from presiding over the retrial proceedings.

5. Publication and dissemination:

The judgment has been published and disseminated to the Court of Appeal. All judgments of the European Court against Malta are automatically sent out to competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court's website.

Judgment features in the publication in the names ‘Malta at the European Court of Human Rights 1987 – 2012’, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.

State of execution of judgment:

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.

Appendix 16

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)147

Eight cases against Poland

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Case

Application No.

Judgment of

Final on

SIAŁKOWSKA

8932/05

22/03/2007

09/07/2007

JEDRZEJCZAK

56334/08

03/11/2011

04/06/2012

KOCUREK

20520/08

26/10/2010

26/10/2010

KRAMARZ

34851/07

05/10/2010

05/10/2010

ZEBROWSKI

34736/06

03/11/2011

04/06/2012

SUBICKA No. 2

34043/05+

21/06/2011

21/09/2011

ZAPADKA

2619/05

15/12/2009

15/03/2010

STAROSZCZYK

59519/00

22/03/2007

09/07/2007

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)570);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT17

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments

in the Siałkowska against Poland group of cases

Case description

Siałkowska, Application No. 8932/05, judgment of 22/03/2007, final on 22/06/2007

Jędrzejczak, Application No. 56334/08, judgment of 11/01/2011, final on 11/04/2011

Kocurek, Application No. 20520/08, judgment of 26/10/2010, final on 26/01/2011

Kramarz, Application No. 34851/07, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011

Żebrowski, Application No. 34736/06, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012

Subicka (No. 2), Application No. 34043/05, judgment of 21/06/2011, final on 21/09/2011

Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

Staroszczyk, Application No. 59519/00, judgment of 22/03/2007, final on 22/06/2007

The above cases concern violations of the applicants’ right of access to the Supreme Court on account of the lack of timely information in a proper form on the refusal of their legal-aid lawyers to assist them in lodging cassation appeals in civil proceedings, effectively depriving them of access to the Supreme Court (violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).

The case Subicka (No. 2) concerns a failure of a legal-aid lawyer to inform the applicant on her refusal to prepare cassation appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The European Court, while examining the circumstances of the cases, had regard to the specific features of the Polish legal aid system and observed that the refusal of legal aid by a lawyer should meet certain criteria. In this respect, the applicable regulations laid down no time-limit for lawyers to inform clients of their intention not to submit a cassation appeal, nor did they oblige lawyers to prepare legal opinions on the prospect of such appeals. In the above-mentioned cases, the applicants’ right to access to the Supreme Court was violated on account of a short time left for the applicants to prepare a cassation appeal after they were informed by a legal-aid lawyer on no reasonable prospects of such appeal or due to the lack of such reasoned information in writing.

I. Individual measures

The European Court awarded the applicants with just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

1. Details of just satisfaction

Siałkowska, Application No. 8932/05, judgment of 22/03/2007, final on 22/06/2007

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

4,000 EUR

-

4,000 EUR

Paid on 17/08/2007

Jędrzejczak, Application No. 56334/08, judgment of 11/01/2011, final on 11/04/2011

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1,000 EUR

-

1,000 EUR

Paid on 21/03/2011

Kocurek, Application No. 20520/08, judgment of 26/10/2010, final on 26/01/2011

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1,000 EUR

-

1,000 EUR

Paid on 14/01/2012

Kramarz, Application No. 34851/07, judgment of 05/10/2010, final on 05/01/2011

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1,000 EUR

3,093 EUR

4,093 EUR

Paid on 15/12/2010

Żebrowski, Application No. 34736/06, judgment of 03/11/2011, final on 03/02/2012

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1,500 EUR

-

1,500 EUR

Paid on 23/07/2012

Subicka (No. 2), Application No. 34043/05, judgment of 21/06/2011, final on 21/09/2011

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

1,000 EUR

-

1,000 EUR

Paid on 13/12/2011

Zapadka, Application No. 2619/05, judgment of 15/12/2009, final on 15/03/2010

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

2,000 EUR

-

2,000 EUR

Paid on 09/06/2010

Staroszczyk, Application No. 59519/00, judgment of 22/03/2007, final on 22/06/2007

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

-

4,000 EUR

1,331.24 EUR

5,331.24 EUR

Paid on 02/08/2007

Pursuant to Article 169 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party to the proceedings may ask for retrospective leave to perform a procedural measure outside the prescribed time-limit (for example to lodge a cassation appeal), this measure shall be performed simultaneously with lodging a request. The request should be lodged within 7 days from the date the circumstances preventing a party from performing a procedural measure ceased to exist. Retrospective leave, after a year from the expiry of the prescribed time-limit, may be granted only in exceptional cases.

In these circumstances, no other individual measure appears necessary.

II. General measures

With the view to avoiding new similar violations, the Polish authorities adopted, on 17 December 2009, the Law amending the Code of Civil Procedure (entered into force on 18 April 2010).

According to Article 118 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if an advocate or a legal counsel, appointed in connection with the cassation appeal proceedings, finds no grounds to file an appeal, he/she shall notify thereof in writing the party and the court immediately and not later that within two weeks since the notification of his/her appointment. An advocate or a legal counsel shall append to the notice his/her opinion about the lack of the grounds to file an appeal. This opinion shall not be attached to the case-file and shall not be served upon the other party. Article 118 § 6 introduces a legal supervision of the opinions by a court, which shall notify the competent organ of the self-governing professional associations if the opinion has not been prepared with due diligence. In such a case, the competent regional bar council or regional chamber of legal counsels shall appoint another advocate or legal counsel.

The Law of 17 December 2009 also introduced new rules as to the expiry of a time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal. Thus, according to a newly introduced Article 124 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the event of the appointment of an advocate or a legal counsel upon a motion submitted before the expiration of the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal by the party which correctly requested the service of the judgment with reasons, the trial court shall serve upon the appointed advocate or legal counsel the judgment with the reasons ex officio and the time-limit for lodging of the cassation appeal shall run from the date of the service of the judgment with reasons upon the representative.

Article 124 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure further provides that in case of rejection of the motion for the appointment of an advocate or a legal counsel in cassation proceedings, the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal shall start to run from the day of the service of this decision on the party and if the decision was adopted in public – from the date of its announcement. However, if the party lodged an interlocutory appeal within the proscribed time-limit, the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal starts from the service on the party of the decision dismissing the interlocutory appeal, and if the decision of the court of the second instance was adopted in public – from the date of its announcement.

It should be underlined that already in the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure of 22 December 2004 that came into force on 5 February 2005, a time for lodging the cassation appeal was changed from 30 days to two months.

Moreover, the Supreme Bar Council, in its resolution no. 61/2007 of 15 September 2007, held that the analysis of the case files in order to verify whether there exist grounds for lodging a cassation appeal should be conducted by an advocate without undue delay. Refusal to prepare a cassation appeal shall be prepared in form of a written opinion served to the client and a Dean of a local Bar Council also without undue delay. An advocate is obliged to notify the court on issuing of this kind of opinion and its sending to the client and a Dean of a local Bar Council.

Based on a general rule of the lawyers’ liability for incorrect or negligent conduct, a party may seek compensation before a civil court against legal aid lawyer, who refused to lodge a cassation appeal. This rule was confirmed by the Supreme Court’s judgment of 18/04/2002 (case No. II CKN 1216/00) and Gdańsk Court of Appeal judgment of 25 November 2005 (case No. I ACa 1092/05).

The Court`s judgments in cases Siałkowska, Staroszczyk and Żebrowski were translated and published, inter alia, on the website of the Ministry of Justice. The judgments of the Court were also included in the curricula of trainings for judges and prosecutors.

In these circumstances, no other general measure appears necessary.

III. Conclusions of the responding State

The government considers that further individual measures are not necessary in the present case and that the general measures adopted, in particular legislative changes, publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights will be sufficient to conclude that Poland has complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention in respect to the breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Appendix 17

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)148

Bǎlǎşoiu against Romania (No. 2)

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 17232/04, judgment of 20 December 2011, final on 20 March 2012)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it is party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment, including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)676);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Bilan d’action

Affaire Bălăşoiu contre Roumanie (n° 2),

Requête n° 17232/04, arrêt du 20 décembre 2011, définitif le 20 mars 2012

(French only)

I. RESUME DE L’AFFAIRE

La présente affaire porte sur une atteinte à la réputation de la requérante en raison d'un rapport de 2000 rédigé par une autorité administrative locale qui la décrivait dans des termes peu favorables, versé par deux policiers au dossier des poursuites pénales engagés par la requérante à leur encontre (violation de l'article 8).

En 1993, la requérante déposa une plainte pénale pour violences contre deux policiers à la suite d’un incident qui avait eu lieu au poste de police. Pendant le procès, les policiers inculpés versèrent au dossier un rapport intitulé « Description des traits de caractère » (caracterizare) dressé par l’autorité de tutelle et d’assistance sociale de la mairie, rapport dans lequel la requérante était décrite dans des termes très peu favorables. A l’issue de la procédure, en novembre 2002, les juridictions internes constatèrent que la prescription de la responsabilité pénale était intervenue, mais octroyèrent à la requérante des dommages et intérêts pour les désagréments provoqués par la durée de la procédure judiciaire.

Le 24 juin 2002, la requérante porta plainte contre les auteurs du rapport des chefs de calomnie et faux, les accusant d’avoir rédigé le rapport afin de la dénigrer et de la décrédibiliser dans le procès concernant les mauvais traitements auxquels elle avait été soumise au poste de police.

En novembre 2003, la plainte de la requérante fut rejetée en dernier ressort, retenant que les propos en question ne démontraient pas l’intention de l’autorité administrative de porter atteinte à la réputation de la requérante et qu’ils ne présentaient pas un caractère public.

La Cour a jugé que le rapport a été utilisé par les policiers comme élément de preuve mettant en cause la crédibilité de la requérante et qu’il a pu influer sur l’issue de la procédure interne initiée par la requérante contre ceux-ci. Compte tenu de la gravité des allégations des membres de la commission et des conséquences que l’enquête et le rapport ont eu pour la requérante, la Cour a considéré que celle-ci a subi une ingérence dans son droit au respect de sa vie privée, ingérence à la fois arbitraire et disproportionnée. Dès lors, la Cour européenne a jugé qu’il y a eu atteinte à la réputation de la requérante et violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.

II. MESURES INDIVIDUELLES

Les documents de paiement transmis au Service de l’exécution des arrêts et des décisions de la Cour le 15 mai 2012 attestent le paiement le 8 mai 2012 du montant de 2 000 euros de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour européenne au titre du préjudice moral.

En ce qui concerne le rapport du 30 janvier 2000 se trouvant à la base de la violation constatée par la Cour, celui-ci est attaché au dossier pénal de l’affaire, qui sera détruit suite à l’expiration du délai de garde par l’archive de l’instance en novembre 2013.

Pour ce qui est de l’accès du public au dossier, il est à noter que, conformément à la législation interne, pour se voir accorder le droit de consulter un dossier, la personne intéressée doit justifier un intérêt en cause. De surcroît, il ressort des informations fournies par l’instance que personne n’a demandé d’accéder au dossier de la requérante depuis la date du prononcé de l’arrêt par la Cour.

Etant donné ce qui précède, le gouvernement considère qu’aucune autre mesure individuelle n’est requise dans cette affaire.

III. MESURES GENERALES

a) Origine de la violation

La Cour a retenu que les tribunaux internes avaient jugé que la commission avait agi légalement dans les limites de ses prérogatives. Toutefois, certains expressions incluses dans le rapport, par leur caractère outrancier et dégradant, n’étaient pas nécessaires pour l’appréciation par les tribunaux du comportement de la requérante et ne sauraient en aucun cas figurer dans un rapport officiel des autorités administratives. Par conséquent, l’ingérence dans le droit de la requérante au respect de sa vie privée n’était pas nécessaire dans une société démocratique (voir §§ 37, 39 et 41 de l’arrêt).

b) Mesures prises

Ayant en vue les aspects mentionnés ci-dessus et aussi le caractère très spécifique de la violation constatée en l’espèce, notamment à cause des modalités selon lesquelles l’autorité administrative a dressé le rapport, le gouvernement a déjà informé l’autorité impliquée dans l’affaire des constats de la Cour en ce qui concerne l’atteinte apportée à la réputation de la requérante et de la nécessité de respecter les garanties prévues par l’article 8 de la Convention.

Afin d’empêcher des violations similaires, le gouvernement a estimé que la traduction, la publication et la large diffusion de l’arrêt de la CEDH auprès de toutes les autres juridictions internes est en mesure de prévenir des violations similaires. Ainsi, l’arrêt a été publié sur le site internet du Conseil de la Magistrature et envoyé aux cours d’appel nationales, de même qu’au Parquet près de la Haute Cour de Cassation et de Justice, à l’Inspection générale de la Police roumaine et à l’Agence nationale des fonctionnaires publics pour transmission à toutes les juridictions présentes dans leur circonscription et unités subordonnées.

c) Conclusion

A la lumière de ce qui précède, le gouvernement conclut que la Roumanie a rempli ses obligations en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1 de la Convention et invite le Comité des Ministres à clore la surveillance de l’affaire.

Appendix 18

(Item H46-1)

Resolution CM/ResDH(2013)149

Four cases against Turkey

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Case

Application No.

Judgment of

Final on

ERTÜRK HASAN

15259/02

12/04/2005

12/07/2005

KANBUR No. 2

9984/03

14/10/2008

14/01/2009

ÇENGELLI AND ERYILMAZ

287/03

10/06/2008

10/09/2008

KAYA MEHMET

36150/02

06/12/2005

06/03/2006

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above cases and to the violations established;

Recalling the respondent State’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

    - of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

    - of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)696);

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted,

    DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

    DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Execution of the European Court of Human Rights judgments

in Erturk group of cases (15259/02, and others)

Revised Action Report

A. FACTS

1. Ertürk group of cases (Ertürk v. Turkey); Çengelli and Eryılmaz v. Turkey (287/03); Kaya v. Turkey (36150/02); and Kanbur (No. 2) v. Turkey (9984/03) concern excessive length of criminal proceedings before Martial Law Courts and ordinary courts. The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. In the case of Ertürk v. Turkey (15259/02), proceedings began in November 1983 and at the time the Court issued its judgment, they had been pending more than 21 years of which 18 fell under the Court's jurisdiction.

3. In the case of Kaya v. Turkey (36150/02), proceedings began in September 1980 and were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court at the time the Court gave its judgment, for some 25 years of which 18 fell under the Court's jurisdiction.

4. In the case of Çengelli and Eryılmaz v. Turkey (287/03), the proceedings began on 3 March 1981 and 15 March 1981. They were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court at the time the Court issued its judgment, some 27 years of which 21 fell under the Court's jurisdiction. The applicants were released pending trial respectively in 1988 and 1991.

5. The case of Kanbur No. 2 v. Turkey (9984/03) is the applicant's second application before the Court. His first application was concluded by a judgment of 30 October 2001 in which the Court had found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (Application No. 28291/95, lodged on 21 July 1995). By then, the proceedings had lasted for over 19 years. In the present application, the Court again found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the proceedings which have continued for more than six years and ten months, for two levels of jurisdiction, since the Court's earlier judgment. The proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation at the time the Court issued its judgment.

B. JUDGMENTS

6. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in all of the above mentioned cases on account of excessive length of proceedings. It awarded Hasan Ertürk, Ferit Çengelli and Süleyman Eryılmaz EUR 14,000, EUR 10,800 and EUR 19,200 respectively for non-pecuniary damage. The Court also awarded Mehmet Kaya and Yaşar Kanbur EUR 14,000 and EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses, respectively.

C. INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

Just Satisfaction

7. The amounts awarded by the Court have been paid to the applicants in all of the above-mentioned cases and relevant documents indicating payment have been submitted to the Department for the Execution of the Court Judgments.

Criminal Proceedings against the Applicants

8. The criminal proceedings against Hasan Ertürk ended by a judgment of the Court of Cassation delivered on 17 May 2011, which upheld the final judgment rendered by the 6th Chamber of the Ankara Assize Court on 29 June 2010.

9. The criminal proceedings against Ferit Çengelli ended on 8 June 2001 by a judgment of the 4th Ankara Assize Court, due to the lapse of the statutory time limit.

10. The criminal proceedings against Süleyman Eryilmaz ended by a judgment of the 4th Ankara Assize Court delivered on 29 June 2011, due to the lapse of the statutory time limit. The judgment became final on 27 July 2011.

11. The criminal proceedings against Mehmet Kaya ended on 17 March 2010 by the Court of Cassation's judgment that upheld the final judgment rendered by the Ankara Assize Court on 26 March 2009.

12. The criminal proceedings in Yaşar Kanbur case ended 16 May 2012 by the judgment of the Ankara Assize Court due to the lapse of the statutory time limit. The judgment became final 16 April 2013.

D. GENERAL MEASURES

13. These cases present similarities to other cases of excessive length of criminal proceedings before Martial Law Courts, such as that of Şahiner and others against Turkey, which was closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)86 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities, in particular the abolition of these courts.

Translation and publication of the judgments

14. The judgments have been translated into Turkish and published on the official web site of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice.

15. The judgments are available at:

http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/erturk.pdf.

http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/cengelliveeryilmaz.pdf

http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/mehmetkaya2005.pdf

http://www.inhak.adalet.gov.tr/ara/karar/kanbur(no2).pdf

16. In addition, the translated version of the judgments has been circulated to the relevant courts and authorities such as the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Finance, the Prime Ministry.

17. Consequently, the general measures as regards the Ertürk group of cases have duly been adopted by the government and the examination of this group must also be closed by the Committee of Ministers.

Individual application right before the Constitutional Court

18. Individual application right has been introduced into the Turkish legal system by the 2010 constitutional amendments. The Constitutional Court has been receiving individual applications since 23 September 2012. Article 148 of the Constitution stipulates that anyone who considers that their constitutional rights set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights have been infringed by a public authority has a right to apply to the Constitutional Court after exhausting domestic remedies.

19. The Constitutional Court shall decide whether the fundamental rights of the applicant have been violated, and if so, may decide how to remedy the violation and its consequences.

20. In case the violation has been caused by a court decision, the Constitutional Court shall either remit the file to the competent court for retrial in order to restore the fundamental rights of the applicant or award compensation to the applicant or ask the applicant to file a complaint before the competent first-instance court to seek compensation for the damages suffered.

E. EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENTS

21. In light of the submissions made above, the government maintains that Turkey has taken all necessary general measures and no further individual measures are needed for the execution of the judgments in Ertürk Group of cases. The government therefore respectfully invites the Committee of Ministers to close its examination.

Appendix 19
(Item 4.1)

Reply to Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 2011 (2013) on
“Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour”

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

1. The Committee of Ministers has carefully considered Recommendation 2011 (2013) of the Parliamentary Assembly on “Trafficking of migrant workers for forced labour” which it has transmitted to a number of intergovernmental committees or bodies.18

2. Trafficking in human beings is a serious human rights violation which strikes at the fundamental values which the Council of Europe promotes. Therefore, the fight against trafficking is a priority for the Organisation and for member States. In this context, irregular migrants and migrant workers are a particularly vulnerable group and therefore deserve specific attention from States within the framework of their action against trafficking.

3. The Committee of Ministers recognises the importance of having comprehensive and coherent data on the problem, including as regards trafficking for forced labour purposes, firstly, in order to identify the victims so that they can be helped and, secondly, in order to detect and prosecute the traffickers and end-users. It informs the Assembly that the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) is mindful of the problem of obtaining statistical data. It calls on the States Parties to introduce systems for obtaining such data in order to gauge properly the level of trafficking and fine-tune policies and measures to combat it in all its forms.

4. With regard to the Assembly’s proposal to carry out training programmes for those active in dealing with trafficking issues and to involve GRETA in this process, the Committee of Ministers wishes to point out that GRETA does not have an operational mandate to conduct training programmes. It is, however, an authoritative source of information on different aspects of the fight against human trafficking, including for identifying gaps, needs and good practices in the States monitored. In this context, GRETA examines whether appropriate training is provided to all officials who are likely to be in contact with victims or who deal with anti-trafficking intelligence.

5. The Committee of Ministers notes the comprehensive scope of the European Union Strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012-2016, and the importance that it attaches to avoiding unnecessary duplication of monitoring operations. It shares this approach and notes that GRETA is currently the only independent mechanism whose mandate is to monitor the implementation of international legally binding obligations against trafficking in human beings. It informs the Assembly that GRETA is committed to pursuing co-operation with the European Union within the framework of its mandate.

.

6. The Committee of Ministers is aware that corruption plays a role in facilitating and sustaining human trafficking. Like the Assembly, it is anxious to ensure that allegations of corrupt dealings by public officials are investigated promptly, thoroughly and impartially in order to combat trafficking more effectively. These issues are covered by the work of the Enlarged Agreement on the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and GRETA, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.19 The Committee of Ministers notes that the two bodies are considering the possibility of working together more closely.

7. The Committee of Ministers pays great attention to promoting and monitoring compliance with the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. It has acknowledged the relevance of GRETA’s work in this regard and has provided it with the necessary funding and staff. Without prejudice to future budgetary decisions, the Committee of Ministers reiterates its support for the activities to combat trafficking in human beings, considering the challenges that lie ahead, having regard to the growing number of Parties to the Convention.

Appendix 20

(Item 4.2a)

Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)3

Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities –

Election of an expert to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee

in respect of Poland

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

By virtue of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and of Rule 9 of Resolution Res(97)10 (Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on the monitoring arrangements under Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities),

Considering that the Government of Poland ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 20 December 2000, and that the Convention entered into force in respect of Poland on 1 April 2001;

Having regard to the nominations of candidates, in accordance with Rule 8 of Resolution Res(97)10, by Poland by letter on 16 April 2013;

Having proceeded to election by secret ballot,

Declare elected to the list of experts eligible to serve on the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities on 10 July 2013:

Mr Sławomir Łodziński, in respect of Poland.

Appendix 21
(Item 4.2b)

Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)4

on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
by Spain

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013

at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter referred to as “the Framework Convention”),

Having regard to Resolution Res(97)10 of 17 September 1997 setting out rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on the monitoring arrangements under Articles 24 to 26 of the Framework Convention;

Having regard to the voting rule adopted in the context of adopting Resolution Res(97)10;20

Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by Spain on 1 September 1995;

Recalling that the Government of Spain transmitted its State report in respect of the third monitoring cycle under the Framework Convention on 23 August 2010;

Having examined the Advisory Committee’s third opinion adopted on 22 March 2012, as well as the written comments of the Government of Spain received on 13 November 2012;

Having also taken note of comments by other governments,

1. Adopts the following conclusions in respect of Spain:

a) Positive developments

Spain has taken important steps to develop its legal and institutional framework against discrimination. A comprehensive Bill on Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination has been elaborated, in consultation with civil society organisations which, if adopted, would widen protection against discrimination and remedy current shortcomings of the legislation in force.

The Council for the Promotion of Equal Treatment of all Persons without Discrimination on grounds of Racial or Ethnic Origin was established in 2009 as an independent body in charge of monitoring the situation in the field of discrimination and raising awareness of these issues in society as a whole. The Council established a Network of assistance to victims of discrimination, operating at the local level with the support of various NGOs.

A Comprehensive Strategy against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and other Related Forms of Intolerance was adopted at the end of 2011. Special Prosecutors against discrimination and hate crime have been appointed at regional and State levels. The Spanish Observatory of Racism and Xenophobia continues to carry out research and actions to raise public awareness of these problems. The authorities have undertaken substantial work to improve the management of the various challenges arising out of cultural and religious diversity, notably through the “Observatory of Religious Pluralism”. Policies to support the integration of immigrants in society and promote tolerance and intercultural dialogue continue to be implemented.

The Institute of Roma Culture was established in 2007 as a public foundation in charge of supporting the preservation and development of the Roma culture. A number of Autonomous Communities have introduced in their statutory laws official recognition of the Roma people and the duty to promote their full and effective integration.

The authorities have taken some steps to improve the situation of foreign Roma. No distinction is made in the application of some programmes between Spanish and foreign Roma, notably in the field of education and access to health care.

The authorities have continued to implement Roma Development Plans. They adopted a specific Action Plan for 2010-2012. Further steps have been taken to improve access of Roma to employment, as well as to eradicate slums and other forms of substandard and segregated housing that still exist in some parts of the country. Programmes continue to be implemented, at local and national level, to provide various forms of support to disadvantaged Roma pupils in the education system and to promote continuity to secondary education. Substantial progress has been achieved with regard to school enrolment and attendance of Roma pupils at the level of primary education.

The State Council for the Roma People was created in 2005 and has been effectively working since 2007 as a consultative body for the Roma community. It is composed of representatives of Roma associations at different levels and of the relevant ministries.

b) Issues of concern

Despite the numerous programmes and projects implemented over the last years and substantial progress achieved in a number of areas, Roma continue to face widespread discrimination in access to employment, housing and in the education system. Part of the Roma population continues to live in substandard housing conditions, sometimes in slums and in separated settlements, which has a detrimental effect on their state of health. They are reportedly disproportionately affected by unemployment resulting from the economic crisis and new legislation on street selling might put those Roma practising itinerant trade at risk of losing their source of income. Moreover, denial of access to public places and other manifestations of discrimination are regularly reported.

Comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation should be adopted without delay, possibly based on the comprehensive Bill on Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination that has recently been prepared in co-operation with civil society organisations. Additional support should be provided to the work of the Council for the Promotion of Equal Treatment of all Persons without Discrimination on grounds of Racial or Ethnic Origin. There is a general lack of awareness of discrimination-related issues in the judiciary and law enforcement authorities. A lack of monitoring and data collection on cases of discrimination has also been observed; however, since 2012, all discrimination-related incidents based on grounds of racial or ethnic origin known to the police have been registered.

Although comprehensive policies and programmes of promotion of the Roma community were designed at national and regional levels, in consultation with Roma representatives, they have not always been effectively implemented. The financial allocations for the implementation of these policies appear to be insufficient to meet existing needs. Additionally, there is still a lack of up-to-date information and data on the situation of the Roma in the various regions and areas of life, despite progress achieved in this respect in recent years.

Support for programmes and projects aimed at promoting and developing the Roma culture is reportedly too limited. There continues to be a lack of knowledge and awareness of the Roma culture, identity and history among the majority population. School textbooks in particular still lack adequate information in this respect.

Increasing racism and intolerance are reported in society. Immigrants and Roma (including foreign Roma) are particularly targeted by manifestations of hostility. These include opposition of neighbours to the resettlement of Roma in their district, and hate speech expressed by extremist groups.

Islamophobia is also growing and “anti-mosque” demonstrations have taken place in a number of municipalities. Some politicians have used racist rhetoric, notably as part of electoral campaigns, and the media continue to disseminate stereotypes and prejudices. There is a general lack of reporting of alleged racially-motivated offences and discrimination cases. The legal provisions on discrimination and hate crime are rarely invoked.

Whereas cases of police misconduct and abuse continue to be reported, no independent body in charge of investigating such cases has been established. Although an instruction of the Directorate General of Police prohibiting quotas of detention of immigrants and indiscriminate raids entered into force on 21 May 2012, “ethnic profiling” by the police continues to be reported as a widespread practice: persons belonging to some minority groups are disproportionately stopped and searched, especially on public transport and in the street.

The participation and representation of the Roma in the media remains very limited, including in public media. The existing initiatives concerning Roma and the media are far from being sufficient to promote effective access of the Roma to the media and counter the generally negative image of the Roma community which is disseminated through the media.

In the field of education, Roma pupils, especially those coming from disadvantaged families, continue to face difficulties in various respects: high rates of drop-out and under-achievement, despite some improvements, as well as disproportionately low participation in secondary and higher education. The continued existence of schools with a high concentration of Roma pupils, located in disadvantaged urban areas and with a generally low academic level is of deep concern.

Participation of the Roma in public affairs remains very limited. While the setting-up of the State Council for the Roma People is an important step forward to remedy this lack of participation, it remains to be seen whether this body will be able to have an effective impact on policy making. Few consultative bodies of the Roma exist at the regional level.

2. Adopts the following recommendations in respect of Spain:

In addition to the measures to be taken to implement the detailed recommendations contained in sections I and II of the opinion of the Advisory Committee, the authorities are invited to take the following measures to improve further the implementation of the Framework Convention:

Issues for immediate action:21

- take more resolute measures to implement effectively the policies aimed at improving the situation and the integration of the Roma, in close co-operation with Roma representatives; ensure that these policies are adequately resourced and are not disproportionately affected by budgetary restrictions;

- eliminate the practice of “ethnic profiling” by the police which targets persons belonging to some minority groups; increase training of the police to combat racism and discrimination, on the basis of existing good practices;

- investigate the reasons for the persisting concentration of Roma pupils in schools located in disadvantaged areas and with lower academic achievement, in order to eliminate these practices; ensure that the implementation of admission rules to schools does not result in discriminatory practices against Roma pupils;

Other recommendations:3

- consult with representatives of the Berber community regarding ways and means of improving the situation of the Berber community in keeping with the spirit of the Framework Convention;

- complete without further delay the process of adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation; develop a comprehensive system of data collection on discrimination and racially-motivated offences in the justice system, in order to promote a more effective implementation of the anti-discrimination legislation in force; provide adequate support to the work of the Council for the Promotion of Equal Treatment of all Persons without Discrimination on grounds of Racial or Ethnic Origin;

- continue and improve the systematic collection of data and information on the situation of the Roma in various areas of life; carefully assess the impact of the economic crisis on their situation, so as to avoid further discrimination against them;

- continue to provide adequate support to the Institute of Roma Culture; take more resolute measures, at the central and regional levels, to support the preservation and promotion of Roma culture;

- pursue and strengthen efforts to combat all forms of racism and intolerance and to promote respect for cultural and religious diversity; ensure that budgetary restrictions do not affect disproportionately the effective implementation of policies that have been launched in this respect and the work of related institutions; condemn firmly and unequivocally, investigate, prosecute and sanction effectively all expressions of racism or intolerance, including in politics and in the media;

- consider ways of promoting a wider application of the existing legislation against racism and racially-motivated discrimination; redouble efforts to improve the training and awareness of the judiciary on these issues; consider amending the Criminal Code in order to make the current provisions on hate crime more effective;

- take far more resolute measures to promote access of the Roma to the media, including by supporting the training of Roma journalists; combat the dissemination of prejudice and stereotypes against Roma in the media;

- ensure progression of Roma pupils beyond primary education, as well as their successful completion of secondary education; increase the use of school mediators in a more systematic manner; undertake a review of school textbooks in order to ensure that sufficient and adequate information on the Roma culture, history and language is provided to all pupils, at all levels of education;

- promote actively the participation of the Roma in elected bodies at all levels; continue supporting the work of the State Council for the Roma People with a view to ensuring its regular and effective consultation on all matters of concern to the Roma; ensure that the composition of the Council fully represents the diversity of the Roma movement in Spain; promote the establishment of consultative bodies for the Roma at the regional and locals levels;

- take measures to avoid Roma street sellers losing their source of income as a result of the implementation of the new legislation on street markets and itinerant trade; pursue the ongoing projects to eradicate slums and segregated and substandard housing, drawing on existing good practices, in order to promote the integration of the Roma families concerned in mainstream housing.

3. Invites the Government of Spain, in accordance with Resolution Res(97)10:

      a. to continue the dialogue in progress with the Advisory Committee;

      b. to keep the Advisory Committee regularly informed of the measures it has taken in response to the conclusions and recommendations set out in sections 1 and 2 above.

Appendix 22

(Item 4.3)

Resolution CM/ResChS(2013)14
Collective Complaint No. 82/2012
by the European Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child and the Family (EUROCEF) against France

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013

at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,22

Having regard to Article 9 of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter providing for a system of collective complaints;

Taking into consideration the complaint lodged on 4 April 2012 by the European Committee for Home-Based Priority Action for the Child and the Family (EUROCEF) against France;

Having regard to the report transmitted by the European Committee of Social Rights, in which the Committee concluded:

- by 9 votes to 2, that there is no violation of Article 16 of the Revised Charter because of the abrogation of the law;

- unanimously, that it is not necessary to examine the allegations of a breach of Article E of the Revised Charter read in conjunction with Article 16;

- unanimously, that there is no violation of Article 30 of the Revised Charter;

- unanimously, that no separate issue arises under Article E of the Revised Charter read in conjunction with Article 30 of the Revised Charter,

Takes note of the report.

Appendix 23
(Item 4.4)

Protocol No. 16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Explanatory Report

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Preamble

The member States of the Council of Europe and other High Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), signatories hereto,

Having regard to the provisions of the Convention and, in particular, Article 19 establishing the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Court”);

Considering that the extension of the Court’s competence to give advisory opinions will further enhance the interaction between the Court and national authorities and thereby reinforce implementation of the Convention, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

Having regard to Opinion No. 285 (2013) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 28 June 2013,

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1

1. Highest courts and tribunals of a High Contracting Party, as specified in accordance with Article 10, may request the Court to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto.

2. The requesting court or tribunal may seek an advisory opinion only in the context of a case pending before it.

3. The requesting court or tribunal shall give reasons for its request and shall provide the relevant legal and factual background of the pending case.

Article 2

1. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall decide whether to accept the request for an advisory opinion, having regard to Article 1. The panel shall give reasons for any refusal to accept the request.

2. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall deliver the advisory opinion.

3. The panel and the Grand Chamber, as referred to in the preceding paragraphs, shall include ex officio the judge elected in respect of the High Contracting Party to which the requesting court or tribunal pertains. If there is none or if that judge is unable to sit, a person chosen by the President of the Court from a list submitted in advance by that Party shall sit in the capacity of judge.

Article 3

The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Contracting Party to which the requesting court or tribunal pertains shall have the right to submit written comments and take part in any hearing. The President of the Court may, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, invite any other High Contracting Party or person also to submit written comments or take part in any hearing.

Article 4

1 Reasons shall be given for advisory opinions.

2. If the advisory opinion does not represent, in whole or in part, the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.

3. Advisory opinions shall be communicated to the requesting court or tribunal and to the High Contracting Party to which that court or tribunal pertains.

4. Advisory opinions shall be published.

Article 5

Advisory opinions shall not be binding.

Article 6

As between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of this Protocol shall be regarded as additional articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.

Article 7

1. This Protocol shall be open for signature by the High Contracting Parties to the Convention, which may express their consent to be bound by:

a. signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval; or

b. signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, followed by ratification, acceptance or approval.

2. The instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Article 8

1. This Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which ten High Contracting Parties to the Convention have expressed their consent to be bound by the Protocol in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.

2. In respect of any High Contracting Party to the Convention which subsequently expresses its consent to be bound by it, the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date of the expression of its consent to be bound by the Protocol in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.

Article 9

No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.

Article 10

Each High Contracting Party to the Convention shall, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval, by means of a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, indicate the courts or tribunals that it designates for the purposes of Article 1, paragraph 1, of this Protocol. This declaration may be modified at any later date and in the same manner.

Article 11

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of the Council of Europe and the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention of:

a. any signature;

b. the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;

c. any date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with Article 8;

d. any declaration made in accordance with Article 10; and

e. any other act, notification or communication relating to this Protocol.

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.

Done at xxx, this xxx, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe and to the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention.

Appendix 24
(Item 5.1)

Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)1
of the Committee of Ministers to member States
on gender equality and media
23

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

Gender equality is an indispensable condition for the full enjoyment of human rights. The enjoyment of the rights as granted by the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) and in its protocols shall be safeguarded without any discrimination, including on grounds of sex. This requirement is strengthened by Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (ETS No. 177), which guarantees the enjoyment of any right recognised by law without discrimination.

Genuine democracy requires the equal participation of women and men in society. Democracy and gender equality are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The inclusion of women and men, with respect for equal rights and opportunities, is an essential condition for democratic governance and sound decision making. Gender equality means equal visibility, empowerment, responsibility and participation of both women and men in all spheres of public life, including the media. The achievement of gender equality is a prerequisite for the achievement of social justice. This is not of interest to women only, but it concerns society as a whole. The Council of Europe has accorded much importance to these matters over the last few decades, demonstrated, inter alia, by the 1988 Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on equality of women and men and by the 2009 Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on making gender equality a reality.

Media freedom (including editorial freedom) and gender equality are intrinsically inter-related. Gender equality is an integral part of human rights. Freedom of expression, as a fundamental right, goes hand-in-hand with gender equality. Furthermore, the exercise of freedom of expression can advance gender equality.

There is a gender dimension to media pluralism and diversity of media content. The Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 on media pluralism and diversity of media content reaffirms that pluralism and diversity are essential for the functioning of a democratic society, for fostering public debate, political pluralism and awareness of diverse opinions by different groups in society. The media are centrally placed to shape society’s perceptions, ideas, attitudes and behaviour. They should reflect the reality of women and men, in all their diversity.

The media can either hinder or hasten structural change towards gender equality. Inequalities in society are reproduced in the media. This is true in respect of women’s under-representation in media ownership, in information production and journalism, in newsrooms and management posts. It is even more blatant as regards women’s low visibility, both in terms of quality and quantity, in media content, the rare use of women as experts and the relative absence of women’s viewpoints and opinions in the media. Media coverage of political events and election campaigns is particularly telling in this respect, as are the persistence of sexist stereotypes and the scarcity of counter-stereotypes. Furthermore, women, as media professionals, often encounter pay inequalities, the “glass ceiling” and precarious conditions of employment.

Media in modern societies hold an immense potential for social change. The potential of media to promote and protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of women and to contribute to their advancement was acknowledged at the UN’s Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing, 1995). Ten years later, the UN Commission on the Status of Women recognised that the objectives agreed there had not been fully achieved. To facilitate the implementation of these objectives, in December 2012 UNESCO published the useful “Gender-Sensitive Indicators for Media” (GSIM).

Public service media are to be the vanguard of the modern media system and have to serve all communities in society. This calls for particular attention to gender equality both in terms of participation and access to public service media as well as content and the manner in which it is treated and presented. Public service media is, or should be, a reference for social cohesion and integration of all individuals, and has an important role in furthering gender equality within the media and through the media. There is also a considerable potential for community media to promote open and direct dialogue between all social groups, including via digital platforms (see the Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)3 on the remit of public service media in the information society, the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the role of community media in promoting social cohesion and intercultural dialogue adopted on 11 February 2009, and Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 on public service media governance, adopted on 15 February 2012).

Measures for the effective implementation of the standards adopted can contribute to gender equality and combat inequality. In its Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)17 on gender equality standards and mechanisms, the Committee of Ministers underlined that States should encourage effective measures to ensure that gender equality, as a principle of human rights, is respected in the media, in accordance with the social responsibility that is linked to the power they hold in modern societies. In its 2009 Declaration on making gender equality a reality, the Committee of Ministers called for measures to encourage media professionals, and the communication sector generally, to convey a non-stereotyped image of women and men. The gender perspective is emphasised in many instruments of the Council of Europe and is particularly accentuated in relation to the new media ecosystem in Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 on a new notion of media.

In view of the above, and recognising the need to provide a gender equality perspective while implementing its established standards in the field of media, the Committee of Ministers – under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe – recommends that the governments of member States:

1. adopt adequate policies in line with the appended guidelines which can create the appropriate conditions under which the media can promote gender equality as a fundamental principle of their activities and institutional organisation in the new multidimensional media environment;

2. widely disseminate this recommendation and its guidelines and raise awareness among the relevant stakeholders and the media, in particular about the central role of gender equality for democracy and the full enjoyment of human rights;

3. bring the recommendation to the attention of the media sector, journalists and other actors and their respective organisations, as well as the regulatory authorities for the media and new communications and information services for the preparation or revision of their regulatory and self-regulatory strategies and codes of conduct, in conformity with the guidelines below.

Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2013)1

Guidelines

A. Member States

1. Unless already in place, member States should adopt an appropriate legal framework intended to ensure that there is respect for the principle of human dignity and the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of sex, as well as of incitement to hatred and to any form of gender-based violence within the media.

2. Member States should particularly ensure, through appropriate means, that media regulators respect gender equality principles in their decision making and practice.

3. Member States should support awareness-raising initiatives and campaigns on combating gender stereotypes in the media.

B. Media organisations

4. Media organisations should be encouraged to adopt self-regulatory measures, internal codes of conduct/ethics and internal supervision, and develop standards in media coverage that promotes gender equality, in order to promote a consistent internal policy and working conditions aimed at:

- equal access to, and representation in, media work for women and men, including in the areas where women are underrepresented;

- a balanced participation of women and men in management posts, in bodies with an advisory, regulatory or internal supervisory role, and generally in the decision-making process;

- a non-stereotyped image, role and visibility of women and men, avoidance of sexist advertising, language and content which could lead to discrimination on grounds of sex, incitement to hatred and gender-based violence.

C. Measures for implementation

5. The following mechanisms for the implementation of strategies and policies to achieve gender equality goals in the media should be considered:

Review and evaluation of gender equality policy and legislation

i. Review and update the legal framework on media from a gender equality perspective on a regular basis.

ii. Mandate media regulators and require the public service media to include an assessment of the implementation of gender equality policy in the media in their annual reports.

Adoption and implementation of national indicators for gender equality in the media

iii. Discuss with relevant stakeholders the opportunity for and adoption of, if appropriate, national indicators based on international standards and good practices; holding public hearings and discussions in connection with this.

iv. Carry out regular monitoring and evaluation of the situation of gender equality in the media at national level, based on the adopted indicators.

v. Update gender equality indicators regularly.

Provision of information and promotion of good practices

vi. Encourage the media to provide information to the public in a clear way (e.g. online) on the complaints procedure in relation to media content which they consider contrary to the principles of gender equality.

vii. Support and promote good practices through the development of networks and partnerships between various media outlets to further gender equality in the various activity areas of the new media ecosystem.

Accountability channels

viii. Encourage non-governmental organisations, media associations, individuals and other relevant stakeholders to consistently defend gender equality by bringing their concerns to self-regulatory bodies or other specialised bodies (e.g. press councils, ethical commissions, advertising councils, anti-discrimination commissions).

ix. Encourage the updating of existing media accountability mechanisms and their effective use in cases of violation of gender equality in the media.

x. Encourage the establishment of new mechanisms for media accountability and civic responsibility, for example, fora for public debate and platforms opened online and offline, making direct exchanges possible between citizens.

Research and publication

xi. Promote active research into the issues of gender equality and media, particularly relating to media access, representation, participation (quantitative and qualitative profile) and working conditions in the media; research focused not only on women, but also on the relationship between genders; regularly publicising the outcomes of such projects.

xii. Promote active research from a gender equality perspective on media coverage of certain areas of particular concern in a pluralist democracy, such as reporting on politics and media coverage of election campaigns and publishing the results; organising discussions with a view to improving policy and legislation.

xiii. Promote research on the impact of the media in the shaping of values, attitudes, needs and interests of women and men.

Media literacy and active citizenship

xiv. Promote gender sensitive media literacy for the young generation, prepare young people to approach different forms of media content responsibly and enable them to acquire a critical view of media representations of gender and to decode sexist stereotypes; enhance the gender equality perspective in the media literacy programmes for young people of different ages as a factor for broad human rights education and active involvement in the democratic processes.

xv. Develop specific awareness-raising tools through and about the media for adults, including parents and teachers, as important factors for developing gender education and active citizenship in the information society.

xvi. Raise the awareness and strengthening the capacities of media professionals and media students by offering regular educational and vocational training programmes geared to the acquisition of in-depth knowledge of gender equality and its crucial role in a democratic society.

Reference instruments

Committee of Ministers of Council of Europe

Recommendation Rec(84)17 on equality between women and men in the media

Recommendation Rec(90)4 on the elimination of sexism from language

Recommendation Rec(98)14 on gender mainstreaming

Recommendation CM/Rec(2003)3 on balanced participation of women and men in political and public decision making

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 on media pluralism and diversity of media content

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)3 on the remit of public service media in the information society

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)11 on promoting freedom of expression and information in the new information and communications environment

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)13 on gender mainstreaming in education

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet

Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)17 on gender equality standards and mechanisms

Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the role of community media in promoting social cohesion and intercultural dialogue, adopted on 11 February 2009

Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 on a new notion of media

Declaration and Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 on public service media governance, adopted on 15 February 2012

Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe

Resolution 1557 (2007) and Recommendation 1799 (2007) on the “Image of women in advertising”

Recommendation 1555 (2002) on the “Image of women in the media”

Resolution 1751 (2010) and Recommendation 1931 (2010) on “Combating sexist stereotypes in the media”

Recommendation 1899 (2010) on “Increasing women’s representation in politics through the electoral system”

Resolution 1860 (2012) on “Advancing women's rights worldwide”

Appendix 25
(Item 5.1)

Terms of reference of the Ad hoc Committee on Data Protection (CAHDATA)

Set up by the Committee of Ministers under Article 17 of the Statute of the Council of Europe and in accordance with Resolution CM/Res(2011)24 on intergovernmental committees and subordinate bodies, their terms of reference and working methods.

Type of committee: Ad hoc committee

Terms of reference valid from: 1 August 2013 until 31 December 2013

Main tasks

Under the authority of the Committee of Ministers, the CAHDATA will finalise and submit to the Committee of Ministers proposals for the modernisation of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108), having regard to the proposals prepared by the Consultative Committee of Convention No. 108 (adopted at its 29th plenary meeting, 27-30 November 2012) following the mandate it received from the Committee of Ministers (1079th meeting of the Deputies, 10 March 2010).

Pillar/Sector/Programme

Pillar: Rule of law
Sector: Development of common standards and policies
Programme: Information Society and Internet Governance

Expected results

(i) A draft amending protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) is prepared and finalised;
(ii) a consolidated version of the Convention is finalised;
(iii) the explanatory report to the Convention is updated.

Composition

Members:
The governments of Council of Europe member States, and of other States Parties to Convention No. 108, are entitled to appoint as members of the CAHDATA a representative of the highest possible rank from their national ministry or from the relevant public authority responsible for data protection policies.

The Council of Europe will bear the travel and subsistence expenses of one representative from each member State (two in the case of the State whose representative has been elected Chair).


Each member of the committee shall have one vote. Where a government designates more than one member, only one of them is entitled to take part in the voting.

Participants:
The governments of States that are not members of the Council of Europe which have been invited by the Committee of Ministers to accede to Convention No. 108 are entitled to appoint to the CAHDATA a representative of the highest possible rank from their national ministry or from the relevant public authority responsible for data protection policies, without the right to vote.

The following Council of Europe bodies may send one or more representatives to meetings of the CAHDATA, without the right to vote but with defrayal of expenses at the charge of their respective administrative budgets in the Ordinary Budget:

- the Consultative Committee of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) (T-PD),
- the Parliamentary Assembly,
- the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe,
- the European Court of Human Rights,
- the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe,
- the Conference of INGOs enjoying participatory status with the Council of Europe,
- the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) and its Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO),
- the European Committee on Legal Co-operation (CDCJ),
- the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC),
- the Steering Committee on the Media and Information Society (CDMSI),
- the Data Protection Commissioner of the Council of Europe.

The European Union may send one or more representatives to meetings of the Committee, without defrayal of expenses. The Committee of Ministers will decide on the issue of the right to vote of the European Union at a later stage, prior to the first meeting of the CAHDATA.

The governments of States that are not members of the Council of Europe which have observer status (Canada, Holy See, Japan, Mexico and USA) with the Council of Europe are entitled to appoint to the CAHDATA a representative of the highest possible rank from their national ministry or from the relevant public authority responsible for data protection policies, without the right to vote and without defrayal of expenses.

Observers:
The following States may send representatives, without the right to vote and without defrayal of expenses:

Argentina, Australia, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dubai, Gabon, Ecuador, Israel, India, Indonesia, Kyrgyz Republic, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia and Vietnam.

The following organisations may send representatives, without the right to vote and without defrayal of expenses:

- International Chamber of Commerce (ICC),
- European Privacy Association (EPA),
- European Association for the Defence of Human Rights (AEDH),
- International Conference of data protection and privacy Commissioners,
- Europol,
- Interpol,
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
- French-Speaking Association of Personal Data Protection Authorities (AFADPD),
- Ibero-American Network of Data Protection (RIPD),
- International Commission on civil status (ICCS),
- the Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC) of the Republic of Korea,
- Internet Society (ISOC),
- United Nations (UN),
- Organization of American States (OAS),
- African Union (AU),
- Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),
- Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN),
- Mercosur,
- Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC).

Observers from States and organisations other than those referred to above can be admitted to CAHDATA upon request to the Secretary General, on the basis of a unanimous decision by the CAHDATA. In the event where unanimity is not reached, the matter may be referred to the Committee of Ministers at the request of two-thirds of the members of the Committee. The Committee of Ministers shall decide on the matter by a two-thirds majority of all the representatives entitled to sit on it.

Working methods

The assistance of a scientific expert may be requested.

Meetings:
50 members, 1 meeting in 2013, 3 days.


Budgetary information

Meetings per year

Number of days

Members

Plenary

Bureau

Subordinate structures/
Working groups

Secretariat
(A, B)

1

3

50

57000*

-

-

0,5 A ; 0,5 B

*The costs presented above take into consideration the per diem, travel, interpretation, translation and document printing. Other costs which could be linked to committees such as official journeys for staff members or ministerial conferences are not included. Costs calculated on the basis of the per diem and recharged services costs presented in the Programme and Budget 2012-2013.

Appendix 26
(Item 9.1)

Resolution CM/ResDip(2013)2
on the award of the European Diploma of Protected Areas
to the Khosrov Forest Reserve (Armenia)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.a of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Having regard to Resolution Res(65)6 on the European Diploma for certain protected landscapes, reserves and natural features, as amended by Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)1 on the revised regulations for the European Diploma of Protected Areas;

Having regard to the proposals of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention;

Taking into consideration the expert’s report presented at the meeting of the Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas on 26 March 2013;

Having noted the agreement of the Government of Armenia,

Solemnly awards the European Diploma of Protected Areas to the Khosrov Forest Reserve (Armenia), recognising the European significance of the reserve which has remarkable landscapes, very diverse habitats and a rich biodiversity, large areas of very interesting and significant virgin or semi-virgin forests of different types, and benefitting from long-term protection and a good management plan and organisation;

Places the aforesaid area under the patronage of the Council of Europe until 10 July 2018;

Attaches the following two conditions to the award:

1. the Armenian authorities should take the necessary action to ensure that the existing water resources facilities will not be expanded within the area and that they will stay fully compatible with the preservation of the European interest of the area; and

2. public motor vehicle traffic, including for transportation of tourists, will be strictly forbidden on the existing gravel roads within the area except for management purposes and in case of emergencies;

Attaches the following six recommendations, for the Forest Reserve Authorities, to the award:

1. to develop appropriate efforts for preventing and minimising illegal activities, including poaching of large mammals within the reserve;

2. to develop and implement awareness and training activities for local people, visitors and members of the staff of the reserve, particularly in relation to the management of litter and other waste;

3. to implement the sustainable tourism strategy fully and to monitor related activities;

4. to pursue inventories and mapping of species and habitats, not only in the Emerald Network but preferably on the whole territory of the reserve;

5. with the Armenian authorities, to guarantee the budget of the reserve; and

6. to renew the management plan for 2015 onwards, including a grazing plan and updating the socio-economic activities within the reserve.

Appendix 27
(Item 9.1)

Resolution CM/ResDip(2013)3
on the award of the European Diploma of Protected Areas
to the Burren Region (Ireland)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.a of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Having regard to Resolution Res(65)6 instituting the European Diploma for certain protected landscapes, reserves and natural features, as amended by Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)1 on the revised regulations for the European Diploma of Protected Areas;

Having regard to the proposals of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention;

Taking into consideration the expert’s report presented at the meeting of the Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas on 26 March 2013;

Having noted the agreement of the Government of Ireland;

Having noted the impressive partnership that exists between the Irish national authorities, the local authorities of Counties Clare and Galway, the farmers of the Burren Region and the community of people living and working in the Burren Region,

Solemnly awards the European Diploma of Protected Areas to the Burren Region (Ireland), recognising the European significance of the park, which is the largest limestone landscape in Europe, with a very rich biodiversity and with unique archaeological, geological, historical and cultural value, and benefitting from sufficient legal regulations conserving the natural and cultural marvels of the Burren;

Places the aforesaid area under the patronage of the Council of Europe until 10 July 2018;

Attaches the following two conditions to the award:

1. the Irish authorities should ensure the budget for the maintenance and development of the Burren Farming for Conservation Programme;

2. the national and local authorities should prevent possible negative environmental damage from the surrounding areas of the Burren Region;

Attaches the following six recommendations, for the national and local authorities and the Burren Region community, to the award:

1. to encourage the participation of more farmers in the Burren Farming for Conservation Programme;

2. to plan subsequent steps in the second phase of European Union funding of the BurrenLIFE project through the Burren Farming for Conservation Programme;

3. to stimulate the further development of the Burren Community Charter;

4. to stimulate further development of sustainable ecotourism and practice in the Burren Region;

5. to discourage mass tourism in the Burren Region which does not accord with the principles of sustainable development; and

6. to encourage volunteers to participate in the sustainable management of the Burren Region.

Appendix 28
(Item 9.1)

Resolution CM/ResDip(2013)4
on the renewal of the European Diploma of Protected Areas
awarded to the Retezat National Park (Romania)

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.a of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Having regard to Resolution Res(65)6 on the European Diploma for certain protected landscapes, reserves and natural features, as amended by Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)1 on the revised regulations for the European Diploma of Protected Areas;

Having regard to Resolution CM/ResDip(2008)2 on the award of the European Diploma of Protected Areas to the Retezat National Park (Romania);

Having regard to the proposals of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention;

Taking into consideration the expert’s report presented at the meeting of the Group of Specialists on the European Diploma of Protected Areas on 26 March 2013,

Renews the European Diploma of Protected Areas to the Retezat National Park until 2 July 2023;

Attaches the following six recommendations to the renewal:

1. the Romanian authorities should secure a sufficient budget for the national park and allocate the funds early enough in the year to ensure favourable working conditions for the staff, the completion and maintenance of the park’s infrastructure, more information for visitors and the improvement of tourist facilities;

2. the competent Romanian authorities should work together to harmonise the different national and international designations in order to achieve efficient joint management and to implement joint scientific research and monitoring programmes;

3. the management plan should be approved as soon as possible, and at least an executive summary should be translated into either English or French;

4. the park, in close collaboration with the mountain rescue services Salvamont, should maintain or renew, when necessary, the tourist infrastructure (trail marking, information signs, etc.); a particular effort should be made to solve the problems of the toilets in the camping areas and near the huts;

5. the park should maintain pressure on local communities to prevent construction of inappropriate buildings either in the park or in its immediate vicinity; and

6. the park rangers should monitor the pastures in order to identify early possible changes due to over grazing and/or under grazing; before the next evaluation, the park should carry out a new study on the pastures; the changes in terms of species composition, erosion, etc., should be analysed in relation to the type and amount of grazing.

Appendix 29
(Item 10.1b)

Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)4
of the Committee of Ministers
on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Switzerland

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
 

The Committee of Ministers,

In accordance with Article 16 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by Switzerland on 23 December 1997;

Having taken note of the evaluation made by the Committee of Experts on the Charter with respect to the application of the Charter by Switzerland;

Having taken note of the comments made by the Swiss authorities on the contents of the Committee of Experts' report;

Bearing in mind that this evaluation is based on information submitted by Switzerland in its fifth periodical report, supplementary information provided by the Swiss authorities, information submitted by bodies and associations legally established in Switzerland and the information obtained by the Committee of Experts during its on-the-spot visit,

Recommends that the authorities of Switzerland take account of all the observations and recommendations of the Committee of Experts and, as a matter of priority:

1. ensure that the introduction and establishment of Rumantsch Grischun in schools takes into account the traditionally used idioms in order to protect and promote Romansh as a living language;

2. promote the use of Italian in the economic and social public sector under the control of the canton of Graubünden.

Appendix 30

(Item 10.1c)

Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)5
of the Committee of Ministers
on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Hungary

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

In accordance with Article 16 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted made by Hungary on 26 April 1995;

Having taken note of the evaluation made by the Committee of Experts on the Charter with respect to the application of the Charter by Hungary;

Bearing in mind that this evaluation is based on information submitted by Hungary in its fifth periodical report, supplementary information given by the Hungarian authorities, information submitted by bodies and associations legally established in Hungary and information obtained by the Committee of Experts during its on-the-spot visit;

Having taken note of the comments made by the Hungarian authorities on the contents of the Committee of Experts' report,

Recommends that the authorities of Hungary take account of all the observations and recommendations of the Committee of Experts and, as a matter of priority:

1. develop a structured long-term policy and plan for education in all regional or minority languages and set up a dedicated monitoring mechanism, as envisaged by Article 8, 1(i) of the Charter;

2. further increase bilingual education at all stages with a view to moving from the model of only teaching the language as a subject to bilingual education in Part III languages, and increase accordingly the number of teachers able to teach subjects in these languages;

3. take resolute measures in order to increase the number of teachers for Romani and Beás;

4. take steps to ensure that the relevant administrative authorities implement the obligations under Article 10 of the Charter, in particular by specifying those administrative districts where organisational measures should be taken, and informing speakers of regional or minority languages of their rights under Article 10;

5. further improve the offer of minority language programmes on television and develop and finance a comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages.

Appendix 31

(Item 10.1d)

Recommendation CM/RecChL(2013)6
of the Committee of Ministers
on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

by Bosnia and Herzegovina

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 2013
at the 1176th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
 

The Committee of Ministers,

In accordance with Article 16 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by Bosnia and Herzegovina on 21 September 2010;

Having taken note of the evaluation made by the Committee of Experts on the Charter with respect to the application of the Charter by Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Bearing in mind that this evaluation is based on information submitted by Bosnia and Herzegovina in its first periodical report, supplementary information given by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, information submitted by bodies and associations legally established in Bosnia and Herzegovina and information obtained by the Committee of Experts during its on-the-spot visit;

Having taken note of the comments made by the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the contents of the Committee of Experts’ report,

Recommends that the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina take account of all the observations and recommendations of the Committee of Experts and, as a matter of priority:

1. establish a structured policy and take flexible measures facilitating the application of the Charter;

2. provide appropriate forms and means for the teaching of the minority languages in co-operation with the speakers;

3. establish a scheme for financing cultural activities and facilities relating to the minority languages;

4. make adequate provision so that public broadcasters offer programmes in the minority languages;

5. use traditional forms of place-names in the minority languages.

+ There were no decisions under this item.

2 See also document CM/AS(2013)Quest634 final.

3 See also document CM/AS(2013)Quest635 final.

4 See also document CM/AS(2013)Rec2011 final.

5 Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

6 Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Turkey.

7 Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

8 Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland and “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.

9 The issue of payment of just satisfaction has been dealt with separately.

10 See, in particular, § 93 of the Kohlhofer and Minarik judgment: “The Court finds that the application of [Section] 131(3)(c) of the CC in the case constituted a limitation on the applicants’ access to court as it prevented them from having a court determination on merits of the legal issue at stake, namely whether the resolution had been adopted contrary to law.”

11 See Act No. 126/2008 which removed former Sections 220a to 220zb from the Commercial Code.

12 The original version of Section 57 corresponds to former Section 220h of the Commercial Code in the version relevant for the Kohlhofer and Minarik and Minarik judgments.

13 i.e. with a Memorandum or Deed of Association or Articles of Association (“společenská smlouva, zakla- datelská smlouva, zakladatelská listina, stanovy”).

14 The Constitutional Court’s findings of 3 March 2011, No. III. ÚS 2671/09, and of 21 March 2011, No. I. ÚS 1768/09, the Supreme Court’s resolution of 30 March 2011, No. 29 Cdo 1048/2008.

15 Le paiement de la satisfaction équitable fait l’objet d’un document séparé.

16 En ce qui est du deuxième requérant, la Cour a rayé sa requête du rôle par l’arrêt du 26 avril 2012 dans lequel elle a approuvé le règlement amiable conclu entre lui et le gouvernement.

17 Information submitted by the Polish authorities on 16 May 2013.

18 The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) and the Enlarged Agreement on the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO).

19 The Convention stipulates under Article 24 that domestic law must incorporate as an aggravating circumstance of the offence of human trafficking the involvement of public officials in the performance of their duties. In addition, Article 21 of the Convention states that aiding and abetting the commission of the offence of trafficking, including, for example, in relation to travel or identity documents, must be criminalised.

20 In the context of adopting Resolution Res(97)10 on 17 September 1997, the Committee of Ministers also adopted the following rule: “Decisions pursuant to Articles 24.1 and 25.2 of the Framework Convention shall be considered to be adopted if two-thirds of the representatives of the Contracting Parties casting a vote, including a majority of the representatives of the Contracting Parties entitled to sit on the Committee of Ministers, vote in favour”.

21 The recommendations below are listed in the order of the corresponding articles of the Framework Convention.

22 In conformity with Article 9 of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter providing for a system of collective complaints, the Contracting Parties to the European Social Charter or to the Revised Social Charter have participated in the vote: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

23 The term “media” in this recommendation refers to the terminology of Recommendation CM/Rec (2011)7 on a new notion of media, adopted on 21 September 2011.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents