Тук може да намерите документи на Съвета на Европа свързани в изискването за прозрачност на собствеността на медиите.
Документите са на оригинален език.
При възможност , по-нататък може да се добави и превод на български.
Тези които имат търпение да стигнат до края на публикацията ще разберат как този въпрос беше иницииран.
В случая започваме с приетата препоръка от Комитета на Министрите през 2018г.
Recommendation
CM/Rec(2018)1[1]
of
the Committee of Ministers to member States
on media pluralism and
transparency of media ownership
(Adopted by the Committee of
Ministers on 7 March 2018
at the 1309th
meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
Preamble
1. Media freedom and pluralism are crucial corollaries of the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 5, “the Convention”). They are central to the functioning of a democratic society as they help to ensure the availability and accessibility of diverse information and views, on the basis of which individuals can form and express their opinions and exchange information and ideas. Furthermore, transparency of media ownership can help to make media pluralism effective by bringing ownership structures behind the media – which can influence editorial policies – to the awareness of the public and regulatory authorities.
2. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has, in numerous previous texts/decisions, underlined the importance of media pluralism and transparency of media ownership for safeguarding public debate in democratic societies. The existing framework should be further developed to deal with ongoing technological, financial, regulatory and other changes in the media sector in Europe.
3. The media play an essential role in a democratic society, by widely disseminating information, ideas, analysis and opinions, acting as public watchdogs and providing forums for public debate. Traditional media continue to play these roles in the evolving multimedia ecosystem, but other media and non-media actors, from multinational corporations to non-governmental organisations and individuals, increasingly carry out such roles as well. All such actors should be accountable to the public in a manner appropriate to the roles they play in relation to the free circulation of information and ideas. Effective self-regulatory systems can enhance both public accountability and trust.
4. Different types of media, along with different genres or forms of editorial content or programming, contribute to diversity of content. Although content focusing on news and current affairs is of most direct relevance for fostering an informed society, other genres are also very important. Examples include cultural and educational content and entertainment, and content aimed at specific sections of society, such as local content and content aimed at vulnerable groups, such as minorities or persons with disabilities.
5. In the present multimedia environment, online media and other internet platforms enable access to a growing range of information from diverse sources. This transformation in how media content is made available and used creates new opportunities for more and more people to interact and communicate with each other and to participate in public debate.
6. This ongoing evolution also raises concerns for media pluralism. Internet intermediaries have acquired increasing control over the flow, availability, findability and accessibility of information and other content online. This may affect the variety of media sources that individuals are exposed to and result in their selecting or being exposed to information that confirms their existing views and opinions, which is further reinforced by exchange with other like-minded individuals (this phenomenon is sometimes referred to as a “filter bubble” or “echo chamber”). Selective exposure to media content and the resulting limitations on its use can generate fragmentation and result in a more polarised society. Such personalised selection and presentation of media content are of particular concern if the individual users are not aware of these processes or do not understand them.
7. The activities of intermediaries differ from those of traditional media outlets in respect of the provision of news. However, the wide scope of information they distribute, their wide audience reach and their potential for highly targeted advertising have contributed to a shift of advertising and marketing revenues towards the internet. These trends challenge the traditional media business models and contribute to an increase in media consolidation and convergence. One or a small number of media owners or groups can acquire positions of considerable power where they can separately or jointly set the agenda of public debate and significantly influence or shape public opinion, reproducing the same content across all platforms on which they are present. These trends can also lead to cost-cutting, job losses in traditional journalism and established media sectors, and the risk of financial dependence for journalists and the media, which may ultimately cause a reduction in diversity, reliability and quality of news and content, and impoverish public debate.
8. Fresh appraisals of existing approaches to media pluralism are needed in order to address the challenges for freedom of expression resulting from how users, businesses and other stakeholders have adapted their behaviour to the abovementioned developments. In this connection, there is a need for more comparative data on individuals’ use of online media content in order to obtain a comprehensive picture of how internet intermediaries affect media pluralism. Furthermore, it is imperative that these changes are appropriately reflected in media regulation in order to maintain or restore the integrity of the democratic process and to prevent bias, misleading information or suppression of information. New policy responses and strategic solutions are needed to sustain independent, quality journalism and to enhance citizens’ access to diverse content across all media types and formats. It is also necessary to address the growing concerns arising from pressure exerted on the media by political and economic interests, acting alone or in concert, in order to influence public opinion or otherwise impinge on the independence of the media. The ultimate and overarching objective of State policies in support of media pluralism should be the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of expression.
9. Independent and sustainable public service and not-for-profit community media can serve as a counterbalance to increased media concentration. By virtue of their remit and organisation, public service media are particularly suited to address the informational needs and interests of all sections of society, as is true of community media in respect of their constituent users. It is of utmost importance that the mandates of public service media include the responsibility to reflect political pluralism and foster awareness of diverse opinions, notably by providing different groups in society – including cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious, sexual or other minorities – with an opportunity to receive and impart information, to express themselves and to exchange ideas.
10. In light of the increased range of media and content, it is very important for individuals to develop the cognitive, technical and social skills and capacities that enable them to effectively access and critically analyse media content; to make informed decisions about which media they use and how to use them; to understand the ethical implications of media and new technologies, and to communicate effectively, including by creating content. Furthermore, media literacy contributes to media pluralism and diversity by reducing the digital divide; by facilitating informed decision making, especially in respect of political and public affairs and commercial content; and by enabling the identification and countering of false or misleading information and harmful and illegal online content.
11. The adoption and effective implementation of media-ownership regulation can play an important role in respect of media pluralism. Such regulation can enhance transparency in media ownership; it can address issues such as cross-media ownership, direct and indirect media ownership and effective control and influence over the media. It can also contribute to ensuring effective and manifest separation between the exercise of political authority or influence and control of the media or decision making as regards media content. Transparency of media ownership, organisation and financing help to increase media accountability.
12. Against this background, the present Recommendation reaffirms the importance of existing Council of Europe standards dealing with different aspects of media pluralism and transparency of media ownership and the need to fully implement them in democratic societies. The Recommendation builds upon those standards, adjusting, supplementing and reinforcing them, as necessary, to ensure their continued relevance in the current multimedia ecosystem.
13. Under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe (ETS No. 1), the Committee of Ministers recommends that governments of member States:
i. fully implement the guidelines set out in the appendix of this Recommendation;
ii. remain vigilant to, assess and address threats to media freedom and pluralism, including the lack of transparency of media ownership, by regularly monitoring the state of media pluralism in their national media markets, and by adopting appropriate regulatory responses and measures, including by paying systematic attention to such matters in the ongoing reviews of their national laws and practices;
iii. in implementing the guidelines, take account of the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights and previous Committee of Ministers’ recommendations to member States and declarations dealing with different aspects of media pluralism and transparency of media ownership, notably Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 on media pluralism and diversity of media content, the Declaration on protecting the role of the media in democracy in the context of media concentration (31 January 2007), Recommendation Rec(99)1 on measures to promote media pluralism, and Recommendation Rec(94)13 on measures to promote media transparency, as well as other relevant recommendations and declarations, including Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)5 on Internet freedom, Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1 on protecting and promoting the right to freedom of expression and the right to private life with regard to network neutrality, Recommendation CM/Rec(2015)6 on the free, transboundary flow of information on the Internet, Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)3 on the protection of human rights with regard to search engines, Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 on public service media governance, Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 on a new notion of media, the Declaration on the role of community media in promoting social cohesion and intercultural dialogue (11 February 2009), Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)3 on the remit of public service media in the information society, and Recommendation Rec(2000)23 on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector;
iv. promote the goals of this Recommendation at national and international levels and engage in dialogue and co-operate with all interested parties to achieve those goals;
v. review regularly the measures taken to implement this Recommendation with a view to enhancing their effectiveness.
Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1
Guidelines on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership
In the context of this Recommendation, the media are understood as including print, broadcast and online media. In line with Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on a new notion of media, the term “online media” encompasses a wide range of actors involved in the production and dissemination of media content online and any other intermediaries and auxiliary services which, through their control of distribution of media content online or editorial-like judgments about content they link to or carry, have an impact on the media markets and media pluralism. This broad notion of media requires a graduated and differentiated approach to the application of media standards to individual actors, which should be subject to appropriate forms and levels of protection and responsibility, having regard to their specific functions in the media process, the characteristics and needs of the media markets within the jurisdiction of the States and the relevant standards of the Council of Europe.
1. A favourable environment for freedom of expression and media freedom
1.1. The principles of freedom of expression and media freedom, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5), apply and should be adhered to in the current multimedia ecosystem, in which a range of new media actors have come to the fore. These principles should continue to be developed in a way that takes full account of the fast-evolving nature of the sector.
1.2. States have a positive obligation to foster a favourable environment for freedom of expression, offline and online, in which everyone can exercise their right to freedom of expression and participate in public debate effectively, irrespective of whether their views are received favourably by the State or others. Such an environment encompasses the rights to privacy and data protection, and the right to access information on issues of public interest held by public bodies that is necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. States should guarantee that the media are free and pluralistic because of their valuable contribution to robust public debate in which diversity in society can be formulated, explored and sustained.
1.3. National legislative and policy frameworks should safeguard the editorial independence and operational autonomy of all media to ensure that they can carry out their key tasks in a democratic society. These frameworks should be designed and implemented in a manner which prevents States, or any powerful political, economic, religious or other groups from acquiring dominance over and exerting pressure on the media.
1.4. The media should have the freedom and resources at all times to fulfil their task of providing accurate and reliable reporting on matters of public interest, in particular concerning vital democratic processes and activities, such as elections, referendums and public consultations on matters of general interest. Adequate safeguards, including legislative safeguards, as appropriate, should also be put in place to prevent interference with editorial independence of the media, in particular in relation to coverage of conflicts, crises, corruption and other sensitive situations where objective and quality journalism and reporting are key tools in countering propaganda and disinformation.
1.5. In a favourable environment for freedom of expression, media regulatory authorities and other bodies entrusted with responsibility for regulating, monitoring other (media) service providers or media pluralism, or having any of the other functions set out in this Recommendation, should be able to carry out their remit in an effective, transparent and accountable manner. A prerequisite for them to be able to do so is that they themselves enjoy independence that is guaranteed by law and borne out in practice.
1.6. The independence of the authorities and bodies referred to in the previous paragraph should be guaranteed by ensuring that they have open and transparent appointment and dismissal procedures; have adequate human and financial resources and autonomous budget allocation; function according to transparent procedures and decision making; are open to communication with the public; have the power to take autonomous, proportionate decisions and enforce them effectively and that their decisions are subject to appeal.
1.7. States should ensure transparency of media ownership, organisation and financing and promote media literacy so as to provide individuals with the information and critical awareness that they need to access diverse information and participate fully in the multimedia ecosystem.
2. Media pluralism and diversity of media content
General requirements of pluralism
2.1. As the ultimate guarantors of pluralism, States have a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and policy framework to that end. This implies adopting appropriate measures to ensure sufficient variety in the overall range of media types, bearing in mind differences in terms of their purposes, functions and geographical reach. The complementary nature of different media types strengthens external pluralism and can contribute to creating and maintaining diversity of media content.
2.2. States are called upon to ensure that there is regular independent monitoring and evaluation of the state of media pluralism in their jurisdictions based on a set of objective and transparent criteria to identify risks to the variety in ownership of media sources and outlets; the diversity of media types; the diversity of viewpoints represented by political, ideological, cultural and social groups; and the diversity of interests and viewpoints relevant to local and regional communities. States should also ensure that bodies conducting independent monitoring and evaluation exercises have sufficient access to all relevant data and sufficient resources to carry out these tasks. States are further urged to develop and enforce appropriate regulatory and policy responses in order to effectively address any risks found.
Specific requirements of pluralism
Diversity of content
2.3. States are encouraged to adopt regulatory and policy measures to promote the availability, findability and accessibility of the broadest possible diversity of media content as well as the representation of the whole diversity of society in the media, including by supporting initiatives by media to those ends. In respect of the audiovisual media, these measures could include must-carry rules, rules on due prominence of general interest content on electronic programme guides and rules on accessibility for persons with disabilities.
2.4. As media content is not only distributed, but also increasingly managed, edited, curated and/or created by internet intermediaries, States should recognise the variety of their roles in content production and dissemination and the varying degrees of their impact on media pluralism. Any regulation governing those activities should be appropriate and proportionate, fully compliant with the requirements of Article 10 of the Convention and in line with the graduated and differentiated approach provided for by Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7. Any self-regulatory mechanisms developed in this area should operate independently and transparently, be open to meaningful participation from all relevant stakeholders, be accountable to the public and work in accordance with ethical standards that take full account of the multimedia ecosystem.
2.5. States should encourage the development of open, independent, transparent and participatory initiatives by social media, media actors, civil society, academia and other relevant stakeholders that seek to improve effective exposure of users to the broadest possible diversity of media content online. The visibility, findability, accessibility and promotion of media content online are increasingly influenced by automated processes, whether used alone or in combination with human decisions. States should encourage social media, media, search and recommendation engines and other intermediaries which use algorithms, along with media actors, regulatory authorities, civil society, academia and other relevant stakeholders to engage in open, independent, transparent and participatory initiatives that:
– improve the transparency of the processes of online distribution of media content, including automated processes;
– assess the impact of such processes on users’ effective exposure to a broad diversity of media content;
– seek to improve these distribution processes in order to enhance users’ effective exposure to the broadest possible diversity of media content;
– provide clear information to users on how to find, access and derive maximum benefit from the wide range of content that is available; and
– implement the principle of privacy by design in respect of any automated data processing techniques and ensure that such techniques are fully compliant with the relevant privacy and data protection laws and standards.
2.6. States should make particular efforts, taking advantage of technological developments, to ensure that the broadest possible diversity of media content, including general interest content, is accessible to all groups in society, particularly those which may have specific needs or face disadvantage or obstacles when accessing media content, such as minority groups, refugees, children, the elderly and persons with cognitive or physical disabilities. This implies that such media content should be made available in different languages and in suitable formats and that it should be easy to find and use.
2.7. Diversity of media content can only be properly gauged when there are high levels of transparency about editorial and commercial content: media and other actors should adhere to the highest standards of transparency regarding the source of their content and always indicate clearly when content is provided by political sources or involves advertising or other forms of commercial communications, such as sponsoring and product placement. This also applies to hybrid forms of content, including branded content, native advertising, advertorials and infotainment. In cases where these obligations are not fulfilled, provision should be made for proportionate measures to be applied by the competent regulatory authorities.
Institutional frameworks for media pluralism
Institutional frameworks for media pluralism
2.8. States should recognise the crucial role of independent public service media organisations in fostering public debate, political pluralism and awareness of diverse opinions. States should accordingly guarantee adequate conditions for public service media to continue to play this role in the multimedia landscape, including by providing them with appropriate support for innovation and the development of digital strategies and new services.
2.9. States should adopt specific measures to protect the editorial independence and operational autonomy of public service media by limiting the influence of the State. The supervisory and management boards of public service media should be able to operate in a fully independent manner and the rules governing their composition and appointment procedures should be transparent and contain adequate checks and balances to ensure their independence.
2.10. States should also ensure stable, sustainable, transparent and adequate funding for public service media on a multiyear basis in order to guarantee their independence from governmental, political and market pressures and enable them to provide a broad range of pluralistic information and diverse content. This can also help to counterbalance any risks caused by a situation of media concentration. States are moreover urged to address, in line with their positive obligation to guarantee media pluralism, any situations of systemic underfunding of public service media which jeopardise such pluralism.
2.11. States should encourage and support the establishment and functioning of minority, regional, local and not-for-profit community media, including by providing financial mechanisms to foster their development. Such independent media give a voice to communities and individuals on topics relevant to their needs and interests, and are thus instrumental in creating public exposure for issues that may not be represented in the mainstream media and in facilitating inclusive and participatory processes of dialogue within and across communities and at regional and local levels.
2.12. Media which serve communities outside the country where they are established can supplement national media and can help certain groups in society, including immigrants, refugees and diaspora communities, to maintain ties with their countries of origin, native cultures and languages. States should not impede access to such cross-border media provided the publication, transmission, retransmission or any other form of dissemination of such media within their jurisdictions is in compliance with international law.
Support measures for the media and media pluralism
2.13. For the purpose of enhancing media pluralism, States should develop, in consultation with representatives of the media and civil society organisations, strategies and mechanisms to support professional news media and quality independent and investigative journalism, including news production capable of addressing diverse needs and interests of groups that may not be sufficiently represented in the media. They should explore a wide range of measures, which should be available to different media types and platforms, including those of online media. In addition to non-financial support, States are encouraged to provide various forms of financial support such as advertising and subsidies. States are also encouraged to support projects relating to journalism education, media research, investigative journalism and innovative approaches to strengthen media pluralism and freedom of expression.
2.14. Support measures should have clearly defined purposes and should be based on predetermined, clear, precise, equitable, objective and transparent criteria. They should be implemented in full respect of the editorial and operational autonomy of the media. These support measures could include positive measures to enhance the quantity and quality of media coverage of issues that are of interest and relevance to groups which are underrepresented in the media.
2.15. Support measures should be administered in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner by a body enjoying functional and operational autonomy, such as an independent media regulatory authority. Independent bodies responsible for the allocation of direct subsidies should publish annual reports on the use of public funds to support media actors.
3. Regulation of media ownership: ownership, control and concentration
3.1. As part of their obligation to guarantee pluralism in their jurisdictions, States are encouraged to develop and implement a comprehensive regulatory framework that takes particular account of media ownership and control and is adapted to the current state of the media industry. The relevant regulation of the media should take full account of the impact of online media on public debate, including by ensuring that the producers of media content distributed through online distribution channels and users are protected from possible anti-competitive behaviour of online gatekeepers which adversely affects media pluralism.
3.2. Monitoring and enforcement of the relevant regulation should be conducted by an independent body provided with sufficient and stable financial and human resources to enable it to effectively carry out its tasks.
Ownership and control
3.3. The enforcement of competition law, including merger controls applicable to media, should aim to ensure effective competition and prevent individual actors from acquiring significant market power in the overall national media sector or in a specific media market/sector at the national level or sub-national levels, to the extent that such significant market power adversely impacts media pluralism.
3.4. Media-ownership regulation can include restrictions on horizontal, vertical and cross-media ownership, including by determining thresholds of ownership in line with Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on media pluralism and diversity of media content. These thresholds may be based on a number of criteria, such as capital shares, voting rights, circulation, revenues, audience share or audience reach.
3.5. States can set criteria for determining control of media outlets by explicitly addressing direct and beneficial control. Relevant criteria can include proprietary, financial or voting strength within a media outlet or outlets and the determination of the different levels of strength that lead to exercising control or direct or indirect influence over the strategic decision making of the media outlet or outlets, including their editorial policy.
3.6. Given that the key democratic tasks of the media include holding authorities to account and promoting transparency, ownership of media outlets by political parties or individuals actively involved in politics, and especially by anyone in elected office, should be subject to reinforced checks and balances, such as a self-regulatory system, aimed at ensuring editorial independence and transparency of ownership. The exercise of editorial decision making should be incompatible with the exercise of political authority. The incompatibility of these functions should be recognised as a matter of principle. The criteria of incompatibility and a range of appropriate measures for addressing conflicts of interest should be set out clearly.
3.7. Any restrictions on the extent of foreign ownership of media should be implemented in a non-arbitrary manner and should take full account of States’ obligations under international law and, in particular, the positive obligation to guarantee media pluralism.
Concentration
3.8. States are encouraged to develop and apply suitable methodologies for the assessment of media concentration, in respect of both the influence of individual media and the aggregated influence of a media outlet/group across sectoral boundaries. In addition to measuring the availability of media sources, this assessment should reflect the real influence of individual media by adopting an audience-based approach and using appropriate sets of criteria to measure the use of individual media and their impact on the forming of opinions. This audience-based approach should take into consideration the offline and online footprint of the media. The measurement exercise should be carried out by an independent authority or other designated body.
3.9. States are furthermore encouraged to ensure procedures to prevent media mergers or acquisitions that could adversely affect the pluralism of media ownership or diversity of media content. Such procedures should involve a requirement for media owners to notify the relevant independent regulatory authority of any proposed media merger or acquisition whenever the ownership and control thresholds, as set out in legislation, are crossed.
3.10. The relevant independent regulatory authority or other designated body should be vested with powers to assess the expected impact of any significant proposed concentration on media pluralism and to make recommendations or decisions, as appropriate, about whether the proposed merger or acquisition should be cleared, subject or not to any restrictions or conditions, including divestiture. Decisions of the independent authority should be subject to judicial review.
4. Transparency of media ownership, organisation and financing
4.1. States should promote a regime of transparency of media ownership that ensures the public availability and accessibility of accurate, up-to-date data concerning direct and beneficial ownership of the media, as well as other interests that influence the strategic decision making of the media in question or its editorial line. This information is necessary for media regulatory and other relevant bodies to be able to conduct informed regulatory and decision-making processes. It also enables the public to analyse and evaluate the information, ideas and opinions disseminated by the media.
4.2. Any transparency requirement should be based on clear criteria as to which media are targeted. Whether or not a media outlet is subject to the requirement of ownership disclosure may depend on the commercial nature of the media outlet, how wide its audience reach is, if it exercises editorial control, what the frequency and regularity of publication or broadcast is, etc., or a combination thereof. Legislation should also determine the time frame within which reporting obligations should be met.
4.3. Transparency requirements should be implemented in accordance with the right to privacy and data protection and should be limited to individuals directly involved in the ownership of a media outlet or its editorial oversight structures. Furthermore, in exceptional circumstances to be laid down in national law, where full disclosure would expose the owner to personal risk or where the owner is a minor or otherwise incapable, States should provide for an exemption from access to all or part of the information on ownership on a case-by-case basis. States should ensure that these exemptions are granted upon an evaluation of the exceptional nature of the circumstances.
Transparency requirements
4.4. Media transparency requirements should be specific and include a requirement for media outlets operating within State jurisdiction to disclose ownership information directly to the public on their website or other publication and to report this information to an independent national media regulatory body or other designated body, tasked with gathering and collating the information and making it available to the public. This body should be provided with sufficient and stable financial resources and staff to enable it to effectively carry out its tasks.
4.5. States should adopt and implement legislative or other equally effective measures that set out disclosure or transparency obligations for media in a clear and precise way. Such obligations can include the following information:
– legal name and contact details of a media outlet;
– name(s) and contact details of the direct owner(s) with shareholdings enabling them to exercise influence on the operation and strategic decision making of the media outlet. States are recommended to apply a threshold of 5% shareholding for the purpose of disclosure obligations;
– name(s) and contact details of natural persons with beneficial shareholdings. Beneficial shareholding applies to natural persons who ultimately own or control shares in a media outlet or on whose behalf those shares are held, enabling them to indirectly exercise control or influence on the operation and strategic decision making of the media outlet;
– information on the nature and extent of the shareholdings or voting rights of the above legal and/or natural persons in other media, media-related or advertising companies which could lead to decision-making influence over those companies, or positions they may hold in political parties;
– name(s) of the persons with actual editorial responsibility;
– changes in ownership and control arrangements of a media outlet.
4.6. The scope of the above criteria for disclosure or transparency obligations for the media includes legal and natural persons based in other jurisdictions and their relevant interests in other jurisdictions.
4.7. High levels of transparency should also be ensured with regard to the sources of financing of media outlets in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the different sources of potential interference with the editorial and operational independence of the media and allow for effective monitoring and controlling of such risks. To this end, States are encouraged to adopt and implement legislation or other equally effective measures that set out the disclosure of information on the sources of the media outlet’s funding obtained from State funding mechanisms (advertising, grants and loans). States are furthermore encouraged to promote the disclosure by media outlets of contractual relations with other media or advertising companies and political parties that may have an influence on editorial independence.
Transparency databases and reports
4.8. Such legislation should also provide for the independent national media regulatory authority or other designated body to ensure that the public has easy, swift and effective access to data about media ownership and control arrangements in the State, including disaggregated data about different types of media (markets/sectors) and regional and/or local levels, as relevant. These data should be kept up to date and made available to the public free of charge and without delay, and their availability should be made public. Ideally, they should be accessible and searchable, for example in the form of online databases; their contents should be made available in open formats and there should be no restrictions on their reuse.
4.9. States should encourage the independent national media regulatory body or other designated body or institution (academic institution, civil society organisation) to publish regular reports on media ownership. Each State’s reporting requirements should include:
– a description of media ownership and control arrangements for media under its jurisdiction (including media whose services are directed at other countries);
– a description of changes to the media ownership and control arrangements within the State during the reporting period;
– an analysis of the impact of those changes on media pluralism in the State.
4.10. The publication of the reports on media ownership should be accompanied by appropriate explanations of the data and the methodologies used to collect and organise them in order to help members of the public interpret the data and understand their significance.
Co-ordination of transparency regimes
4.11. States are encouraged to issue clear, up-to-date guidance on the interrelationship and implications of the different regulatory regimes and on how to implement them correctly and coherently. This guidance could take the form of user-friendly guidelines, handbooks or manuals.
4.12. States should also facilitate inter-agency co-operation and co-ordination, including the relevant exchange of information about media ownership held by different national authorities (such as media regulatory authorities, competition authorities, data protection authorities, company registers and financial supervisory authorities). Similarly, the exchange of information and best practices with equivalent authorities in other jurisdictions should be facilitated.
4.13. Up-to-date and reliable information relating to media-ownership issues constitutes a valuable resource for citizens and a wide range of stakeholders, but collecting such information in a comprehensive manner remains a challenge. States are therefore encouraged to support information gathering, updating and dissemination activities relating to media-ownership issues, such as relevant activities of the European Audiovisual Observatory, in particular its MAVISE database, insofar as these activities contribute to a fuller understanding of media ownership in Europe.
5. Media literacy and education
5.1. States should introduce legislative provisions, or strengthen existing ones, that promote media literacy with a view to enabling individuals to access, understand, critically analyse, evaluate, use and create content through a range of legacy and digital (including social) media. This should also include appropriate digital (technological) skills for accessing and managing digital media. Another important aim of media literacy is to enable individuals to know and understand how their personal data are collected, stored and used by internet platforms.
5.2. States should also develop a co-ordinated national media literacy policy and ensure its operationalisation and implementation through annual or multiyear action plans and by providing adequate resources for these purposes. A key strategy could be to support the creation of a co-ordinated national media literacy network comprising a wide range of stakeholders, or the further development of such a network where it already exists. Positive practices developed within national networks should be actively exchanged and promoted in relevant international forums.
5.3. In the multimedia ecosystem, media literacy is essential for people of all ages and all walks of life. Measures promoting media literacy should thus help to develop the teaching of media literacy in school curricula at all levels and as part of lifelong learning cycles, including by providing suitable training for teachers and adequate resources for educational institutions to develop teaching programmes and project-oriented learning schemes.
5.4. States should encourage all media, without interfering with their editorial independence, to promote media literacy through policies, strategies and activities. Public service media and community media can play leading roles in promoting media literacy by virtue of their objectives, mandates and working methods. States should also promote media literacy through support schemes for media, taking into account the particular roles of public service media and community media.
5.5. States should ensure that independent national regulatory authorities and/or other bodies have the scope and resources to promote media literacy in ways that are relevant to their mandates and encourage them to do so.
5.6. States are encouraged to take particular account of media pluralism and transparency of media ownership in their coordinated national media literacy programmes in order to help citizens make an informed and critical evaluation of the information and ideas propagated via the media. To this end, States are called upon to include in their strategies for ensuring transparency in the media sector educational content which enables individuals to use information relating to media ownership, organisation and financing to better understand the different influences on the production, collection, curation and dissemination of media content.
..................................................................................................................................
[1] When adopting this recommendation, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation indicated that, in accordance with Article 10.2c of the Rules of Procedure for the meetings of the Ministers’ Deputies, he reserved the right of his government to limit the scope of application of the Recommendation for the Russian Federation to the media as specified in the legislation of the Russian Federation.
До тази препоръка на Комитета на Министрите на Съвета на Европа (където заседават 47 министри на външните работи на страните - членки) се стигна, когато въпросът беше поставен от Парламентарната Асамблея на Съвета на Европа (ПАСЕ).
Observatory (Strasbourg) to develop further its MAVISE database on media ownership and to provide
assistance to its members in establishing transparency of media ownership.
AS/Cult (2012) 46
23 November 2012
Or. English
COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND MEDIA
The state of media freedom in Europe
Rapporteur: Mr Mats JOHANSSON, Sweden, European People’s Party Group
Memorandum
I. Introduction
Following the discussions of the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media held at the approval of my report on the state of media freedom in Europe on 2 October 2012, I suggest four amendments dealing with specific issues emerged during the discussions, which would complete this report.
II. Amendments to the draft resolution
Amendment A:
Add the following sentence at the end of paragraph 15 of the draft resolution:
“Referring to the recent 14-months prison sentence imposed on Alessandro Sallusti in Italy, the Assembly asks the Venice Commission to prepare an opinion on whether the Italian laws on defamation are in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Explanation:
Mr Alessandro Sallusti, editor of the newspaper “Il Giornale”, published in February 2007 an article written by Mr Renato Farina (a former journalist and member of the Italian Parliament and the Italian delegation to the PACE) under the pseudonym Dreyfus. The article reported that an Italian judge had ordered a girl of 13-years to have an abortion against her will, while the judge had only authorised her to abort. The author suggested in the article that if the death penalty were available, it should be applicable in this case for the parents, the gynaecologist and the judge. As Mr Sallusti had not revealed the author of that article, he was held liable for defamation under Italian penal law. Assembly Resolution 1577 (2007) “towards the decriminalisation of defamation” recommends that member States should abolish prison sentences for defamation. Therefore, the Venice Commission should be asked to prepare an opinion on whether the Italian laws on defamation are in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amendment B:
Add the following sentence at the end of paragraph 17 of the draft resolution:
“The Assembly welcomes the report on transparency of media ownership in Europe prepared by Access Info Europe (Madrid) and the Open Society Media Programme (London) in October 2012 and invites the European Audiovisual Observatory (Strasbourg) to develop further its MAVISE database on media ownership and to provide assistance to its members in establishing transparency of media ownership.”
Explanation:
The discussions at the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media underlined the need to ensure greater transparency of media ownership, as media owners often used their power over their media for political purposes. The non-governmental organisation Access Info Europe (Madrid) and the Open Society Media Programme (London) prepared in October 2012 a survey on transparency of media ownership in several European countries and presented it to the EU High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism of the European Commission (Brussels), which referred to the MAVISE work of the European Audiovisual Observatory of the Council of Europe. Amendment B calls for targeted action in this area.
Amendment C:
Add the following paragraph after paragraph 20 of the draft resolution:
“The Assembly welcomes the successful organisation of the inter-parliamentary seminar on the independence and financing of public service broadcasting, which was hosted by the Croatian Parliament in Zagreb on 15 October 2012 with the financial support by the Open Society Media Programme. It invites national parliaments and partner organisations to collaborate in future similar projects.”
Explanation:
The Parliamentary Projects Support Division organised with the committee a seminar on the independence and financing of public service broadcasters, following-up Assembly Recommendation 1878 (2009). This seminar was hosted by the Croatian Parliament in Zagreb on 15 October 2012 and received financial support by the Open Society Media Programme (London). In view of the success of this seminar, this new opportunity for the Assembly to organise such projects with outside partners is to be welcomed and utilised for future projects in the field of media freedom. Therefore, the Assembly should refer to the organisation of such projects in this report. This is the aim of amendment C.
III. Amendment to the draft recommendation
Amendment D:
Add the following sub-paragraph after sub-paragraph 2.1 of the draft recommendation:
“review whether the recommendations concerning media law and practice in Turkey and Hungary made by the Commissioner for Human Rights in 2011 and 2012 have been fully implemented;”
Explanation:
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights had prepared substantial reports on Turkish media laws and practice in July 2011 and January 2012 as well as a substantial report on the Hungarian media laws. It is worth verifying whether and to what extent his proposals for improvements were followed. This is reflected in the proposed amendment D to the draft recommendation.
От мотивите към поправката на чл. 17 се разбира, че в Комисията е имало дискусия по този въпрос.
Интересно е да се види в какво се е състояла тази дискусия отразена в краткия протокол на заседанието тук :
AS/Cult (2012) PV 06
13 November 2012
COMMITTEE ON CULTURE, SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND MEDIA
Draft minutes
of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 2 and 4 October 2012
The Committee met on 2 and 4 October 2012, with Mr Gvozden Srećko Flego (Croatia, SOC), Mr Jan Kaźmierczak (Poland, EPP/CD) and Ms Anne Brasseur (Luxembourg, ALDE) in the chair.
The Chairperson opened the meeting, took note that there was no quorum and therefore closed the meeting and opened a subsequent meeting under Article 46.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
1. Agenda
[AS/Cult (2012) OJ 06rev]
The Chairperson explained that there were requests for changes in the memberships of the sub-committees and proposed that this question be considered as “other business” and dealt with after the adoption of the agenda.
Agreed
The agenda was adopted (see appendix I).
The Committee then approved the lists of members of its three sub-committees, as presented in the appendix to the appendix I.
2. For more democratic elections
Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Postanjyan, Armenia, EPP/CD
[AS/Cult (2012) 34; Doc. 13021]
Ms Postanjyan emphasised the timeliness of the report prepared by Mr Gardetto and presented her draft opinion, including the proposal for four amendments to the draft resolution. In reply to Mr Connarty, she explained that draft amendment A should raise awareness of the relevant norm under the European Convention on Human Rights. Replying to Mr Johansson, she said that candidates should have fair and equal access to the media.
Mr Jensen referred to the prohibition in Denmark of political advertising on television.
Mr Connarty said that it might be necessary to regulate Internet platforms or blogs in the context of democratic elections. He therefore proposed not to delete the reference to Internet media in draft amendment B.
Not agreed.
Finally, the committee adopted unanimously the 4 amendments and approved the opinion.
3. Minutes
[AS/Cult (2012) PV 05]
The minutes of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 25, 26 and 28 June 2012 were approved.
4. Election of a vice-chair of the committee
[AS/Cult (2012) 02 – October]
The Chairperson thanked Ms Kyriakidou for her past work as Vice-Chairperson.
Following nomination by his political group, Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark, SOC) was elected by acclamation. He thanked all members for their support.
5. The state of media freedom in Europe
Rapporteur: Mr Johansson, Sweden, EPP/CD
[AS/Cult (2012) 35]
Mr Johansson presented his draft report which contained a preliminary draft resolution and a preliminary draft recommendation. He thanked Mr Horsley for his background report which served partly for the explanatory memorandum. He also thanked those members who had contacted him to discuss the media situation in their country. Having heard the President of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) before the committee, he had consulted the EFJ with regard to this draft report and received a supportive letter from the EFJ President. As the report became longer than originally planned, he suggested having such reports more often. However, the preliminary draft recommendation made only a few concrete proposals. He regretted that media freedom in Europe had not improved since 2010. Having received today a number of proposals for changes by Mr Dişli on behalf of Turkey, he regretted that he had not been able study them in detail yet and therefore suggested to come back to this issue at the next meeting when discussing a possible addendum to the report.
Ambassador Hajnoczi congratulated Mr Johansson for his excellent report. The Committee of Ministers had organised thematic debates on media freedom and the protection of journalists, thus strengthening the complementarities of the two pillars of the Council of Europe. He informed the Committee that Austria had initiated a resolution on the protection of journalists, which had been adopted by the UN Human Rights Council last week. As it was necessary to continue focusing on media freedom, it would be helpful to have such a report on a regular basis.
Mr Dişli said that media freedom was important. Turkey was in a special situation of fighting terrorism for some 40 years. The number of imprisoned journalist had decreased to 76, and he was ready to forward to the committee the information about the 76 journalists which had been submitted by the Turkish Minister of Justice to the European Court of Human Rights. He insisted that they had been prosecuted not because of their activity as journalists but on other grounds. He recognised that the length of judicial detention was a problem, but Turkey co-operated with the European Court on this issue. Turkey would also seek assistance by the Venice Commission. As the recent 3rd Judicial Reform Package would have a positive impact, he invited Mr Johansson to pursue a fact-finding visit to Turkey. He suggested that the report should reflect the real situation in Turkey.
Mr Johansson repeated that he could not comment at this stage on the four pages of information and proposals presented to him by Mr Dişli before the meeting. For the preparation of this report, he had contacted the former Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, who had visited Turkey. He also contacted Turkish human rights lawyers. Therefore, he could not share the views expressed by Mr Dişli now. He was one of the few Swedish supporters of Turkish membership in the EU, but Turkey could not deny that improvement was necessary in the area of media freedom.
M Bilgehan said that she was from the opposition in Turkey and was saddened to see her country in this situation after the third term of the current government. Media freedom in Turkey was affected by the numerous judicial detentions of journalists and self-censorship out of fear of prosecution. She also invited Mr Johansson to visit Turkey.
Ms Bergamini congratulated Mr Johansson for his report which showed the existing differences in policies on media and media freedom in Europe. She also agreed that such a report should be done regularly.
The Chairperson recalled that the Committee and the Assembly had supported regular reports in Recommendation 1897 (2010). The current report was following-up from this Recommendation.
Ms Boldi referred to the suspended 14-months prison sentence pronounced against the editor of the Italian newspaper “Il Giornale” for defamation of a judge who had allowed a 13-years old girl to have an abortion. It was inacceptable to condemn journalists to imprisonment on such a ground.
Mr Johansson had been informed about this Italian case by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, but would need more background information before making a thorough evaluation. However, a 14-months prison sentence seemed too long. It was also worrying that this inflammatory article – which stated that, if admissible, the death penalty should have been applicable to this judge – had been written by an Italian member of the Assembly’s EPP Group, Mr Renato Farina. The EPP Group would discuss this issue with Mr Farina.
Mr Jensen congratulated Mr Johansson for this report and the information it provided. It would be useful to have a regular report, which could be linked to a specific website. Referring to Turkey, he found it remarkable that a Council of Europe member state had the highest number of journalists imprisoned worldwide.
Ms Guţu felt that paragraphs 17 and 18 of the preliminary draft resolution should be enlarged. Media owners were the real deciders in Moldova, for example.
Mr Johansson agreed that transparency of media ownership and media concentration were important and hence referred to in this report. A deeper analysis would merit a specific report. He also supported that regular reports should be drawn up. He recalled that he had used the preparatory timeframe for the organisation of committee hearings at the Swedish Parliament in Stockholm and in Strasbourg.
Mr Corsini referred to two problems in Italy: on the one hand, the exorbitant intrusion of political influence into the media and questions about Mr Berlusconi’s “conflict of interest”; on the other hand, the threats to media freedom by the organised crime which tried to silence investigative journalists – such as Roberto Saviano – enquiring and writing about criminal powers. While he appreciated the European orientation of Turkey, it was difficult to reconcile such orientation with the sentencing of Orhan Pamuk for speaking about the Armenian genocide and the Kurdish issue. He supported the decriminalisation of defamation, but felt that journalists needed to respect their own professional ethics.
Mr Dişli replied that Orhan Pamuk’s sentence had been dropped.
Mr Bocchino stressed that, although there were some problems in Italy, there were also checks and balances which were lacking in other countries. Then, he referred to various defamation trials in Italy against journalists. In some cases there could be a distorted use of freedom of speech. However, journalists should not be imprisoned for their opinions, but other sanctions should be considered.
Regarding the preliminary draft resolution, Mr Dişli proposed changing the wording of paragraph 3. It was not enough for states to ensure that terrorism could not threaten human lives and freedom of expression, but states should fight terrorism.
Mr Johansson replied that he was ready to reinforce the wording of the last sentence of paragraph 3, using the verb “fight”.
Agreed
Mr Dişli proposed deleting paragraph 6, which referred to Turkey.
Not agreed
Mr Dişli proposed changing the wording of, and references to Turkey in, paragraphs 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16.
Not agreed
Mr Toshev felt that the verb “regret” in paragraph 17 was too weak. He therefore proposed urging member states to make media ownership transparent.
Agreed
Mr Corsini proposed adding a reference to Italy in paragraph 18.
Not agreed
The thus revised draft resolution was adopted with two votes against.
Regarding the preliminary draft recommendation, Mr Dişli proposed deleting paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3.
Not agreed
The draft recommendation was adopted with one vote against.
Mr Dişli proposed changing several paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum which referred to Turkey.
Mr Johansson did not agree to this and the committee voted against the proposal by Mr Dişli.
Ms Bergamini proposed moving the reference to the Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society from paragraph 27 of the explanatory memorandum to the end of it.
Mr Johansson accepted this and the committee voted in favour of this change.
Finally, the committee approved the full report.
Mr Johansson thanked all committee members and invited them to send him any additional information well in advance of the next meeting, when he intended to present an addendum to his report.
6. The ethics of science
Rapporteur: Mr Kaźmierczak, Poland, EPP/CD
[AS/Cult (2012) 37]
The Rapporteur, Mr Kazmierczak, briefly presented his preliminary draft report and outlined the preparatory work which had been undertaken so far. A proposal for a new title had been made by Prof. Capurro at the last hearing in June; this proposal was now before the Committee, though he had still some doubts about the possibility to speak about ethics in technology. He mentioned that governmental institutions in 33 member states had replied to the questionnaire sent to them and proposed to address a second round of questions to non governmental scientific institutions. The aim was to gather a more complete picture of the current situation with regard to legal provisions in the field of ethics, institutional set-up for monitoring, and any gaps either in the legal (regulatory) structure or institutional structure that need to be addressed at national and possibly European level. In conclusion, the Rapporteur suggested asking for a six months extension of the reference to the committee in order to complete the research.
With regard to the proposed new title, Mr Connarty argued that science and technology were becoming more and more closely interrelated, and illustrated the point with nanotechnology example which could be highly intrusive to human health.
The committee secretariat explained that this report had been foreseen for a joint debate with the report on nanotechnologies of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development at the part-session of the Assembly in January 2013.
Referring to the philosophical work of Martin Heidegger and Emanuele Severino, Mr Corsini argued that science and technology had overpowered politics and that ethical regulation was therefore more difficult to impose by the politicians. There was an urgent need to set ethical limits: what can be achieved (by science and technology) may not necessarily have to be done.
Mr Kazmierczak agreed with the points raised by Mr Corsini and Mr Connarty.
Mr Sudarenkov informed the Committee that his report on nanotechnologies was foreseen for adoption at the next meeting of the Committee on Social Affairs in Moscow in November 2012. His report made appeal to the member States and the private sector to set firm ethical standards in the field of nanotechnology; he therefore welcomed the proposal to hold a joint debate.
Mr Kazmierczak concluded that his report could be ready in February-March next year so that it could be on the agenda of the part-session in April 2013.
The Committee agreed to the new title and to request the Bureau for the extension of reference.
7. Status of chairpersons of political groups in Assembly committees
[letter by Mr Diaz Tejera and information memorandum prepared by the AS/Pro Secretariat]
The Chairperson referred to the letter by Mr Diaz Tejera asking for the Committee’s views on the status that chairpersons of the political groups should be given within Assembly committees. His opinion was that the chairpersons of political groups, in addition to their present assignments, could be ex-officio members of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy, with all related rights; however, they should not be ex-officio members of all committees.
The Committee agreed with this opinion and asked the Chairperson to reply in this sense.
8. Right to freedom of choice in education in Europe
Rapporteur: Ms Quintanilla, Spain, EPP/CD
[Doc. 13010]
The Chairperson informed the Committee that there were 6 amendments tabled to this report.
Ms Gutu presented Amendment No. 2. Ms Quintanilla supported it. The Committee voted in favour of the amendment unanimously.
Mr Connarty presented Amendment No 1. Provision of funds in the UK for private education was due if there was a statutory obligation which was not met through public provision. This could be the case, for example, for educational institutions for children with disabilities. Ms Quintanilla supported the proposal. Mr Comte spoke against it, as States could not be in a position to meet such financial obligation. The Committee voted by majority in favour of the amendment.
Mr Gale presented Amendments No 3 and 4, indicating that there was cross-party agreement to have paragraph 5.1. deleted. Ms Quintanilla opposed the amendments, recalling that the Committee had already taken position on these paragraphs accepting them when adopting the report. For her these were part of the core proposals related to the freedom of choice in education. The Committee voted by majority in favour of Amendment No 3. Then the Committee voted by majority in favour of Amendment No 4.
Amendments No 5 and 6 would fall automatically if Amendment No 4 were adopted by the Assembly. However they were put to the vote in case the Assembly rejected Amendment No 4, so that the Committee could express its position in all cases.
Mr Connarty presented Amendment No 5. Ms Quintanilla supported it. The Committee voted in favour of the amendment unanimously.
Mr Connarty presented Amendment No 6. Ms Quintanilla presented a sub-amendment, suggesting to include the word “students” but to keep the word “families” instead of deleting it. Mr Connarty disagreed.
The Committee voted by majority against the sub-amendment. Then the Committee voted by majority in favour of Amendment No 6.
9. European cultural and educational policies through national parliaments
Rapporteur: Ms Brasseur, Luxembourg, ALDE
[AS/Cult (2012) 38]
Ms Brasseur presented the preliminary draft report which complemented the proposals put forward for the implementation of the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue and was aimed at triggering a more coherent discussion on national policies for culture and education rather than making very specific and detailed proposals. The report took into account the views expressed during the hearing held in Paris. To start the discussion, she referred to the definition of culture. There were various meanings of the word “culture”: on one hand, in a more restricted sense as music, arts, literature, etc; on the other hand, in a more comprehensive, anthropological sense as a set of norms, convictions, belief systems and behaviour. This report looked at the second meaning of this term.
Ms Brasseur underlined that culture and education were at the basis of all other policies. It was essential to invest time for developing a strategic vision of policies in these areas.
She continued by referring to the obstacles encountered by national parliaments, including the fact that the short-term perspective took over the long-term perspective simply because pressure was put to respond to urgent matters. There was often no time for a deep reflection on long-term policies.
In addition, parliaments worked often in a reactive mode. Legislation was proposed on narrow issues and there was no global vision of how new specific legislative proposals would fit together with implementation measures in other, interconnected policy areas.
Ms Brasseur stressed the importance of going beyond the narrow understanding of education as a means of giving people skills to become a productive workforce. The logic and knowledge were not sufficient for the 21st century citizens. The emotions and attitudes people had as regards democracy were crucial elements.
In Europe, the tendency was to focus on academic abilities, but one had to go “back to basics”, building up attitudes, such as solidarity and respect for other people’s dignity. This was a basis that came through culture, culture being a pillar for all other competences.
Education and culture were instrumental not only to act against unemployment, but also to counter inequalities and marginalisation, fight divisions which lead to intolerance and extremism, and support sustainable socio-economic growth. None of these challenges could be faced without education and culture.
Thus, there was a need to rethink funding and resource allocation. This did not mean doing more, but doing things better. Finally she stressed that national parliaments had a key role to play even within the legal framework of the European Union, as education and culture were part of national competences.
Mr Schneider quoted Edouard Henriot, who said that culture was what was left when everything was forgotten.He called for actions aimed to protect people from indoctrination and to make sure these actions helped awaken the mind. Education should help citizens develop the ability to make choices in a responsible and critical manner. He agreed that the EU only had subsidiary functions in the field of culture and education. The EU had funds to support member states’ programmes. But it was for national parliaments to develop a vision for the future in these areas.
Mr Connarty considered the draft report was an excellent start. He suggested that more attention be devoted to the empowerment of citizens. He recalled one of his life experiences when he brought “punk” music records to a country where this music was prohibited and referred to the enormous impact of the Beatles on the young people across Europe, and beyond. The dynamic of “culture from below” had to be supported. He mentioned “Creative Scotland” – a project aimed at developing young people’s creativity. He also warned against the burden of bureaucracy on creativity, and against “package culture”, where a standardised package would be passed on rather than allowing students to choose for themselves. The accent should be on empowering people to create culture. He did not agree with the drafting of paragraph 14: the references to lack of adequacy in learning outcomes could be read as placing the responsibility for not getting a job on young people.
Mr Corsini congratulated Ms Brasseur for the validity of the conclusions in the preliminary draft report. He warned, however that the reference to “cultural policy”, could imply the design to “direct” culture and “produce” a State culture, as this was the case with Nazi, fascist and communist dictatorships. State “dirigisme” was contrary to what culture was supposed to promote – the freedom to create. He suggested speaking about “policies for culture and education”. He referred to the tendency of always looking at the past when promoting culture; the capacity to look forward and create new vision was given less attention. He was tempted to be provocative and shared his feeling that politics in general, and governments in particular, did the least possible to free the cultural spirit of each individual. National cultural expressions were elements of national pride and should be valued, but should not act as breaks preventing the promotion of European culture. The key was interculturality. One had to overcome prejudices when confronted with cultures other than one’s own. This applied both to “Orientalism” and “Occidentalism”. In Europe, there were more and more examples of rejection of Eastern culture. Europe needed to uphold democratic principles without neglecting the value of the latter. Finally, he warned against Europe’s self-centredness, stressing that Western society was decadent, because it did not achieve to define its aim. More had to be done to develop the European sense of identity and the question remained whether culture had the means to provide this identity.
Ms Brasseur thanked the Committee members for their support and contributions. She endorsed the plea not to impose culture and proposed to change the title to “Culture and education through national parliaments: European policies”. The Committee agreed.
Ms Brasseur stressed that proper means had to be given to promote creativity. Education had to include this perspective. Without that, education risked becoming too “utilitarian”, building up “technician”-type of competences only. People needed a foundation, which would make them feel part of human kind, and on which other competences had to grow. Referring to Mr Corsini’s statement, she insisted that advantage should be taken of diversity in Europe. Education had to build a basis for recognising and appreciating the value of ”the other”. She concluded by informing the Committee that the draft resolution would be presented at the Committee meeting in Paris in December 2012. She also proposed adding an appendix listing the Council of Europe instruments in the fields covered by this report, to make these instruments better known and used by national parliaments.
10. Destruction or restoration of industrial heritage
Rapporteur: Ms Ismeta Dervoz, Bosnia and Herzegovina, EPP/CD
[AS/Cult (2012) 30]
The Rapporteur, Mrs Dervoz presented a draft outline for the report as it stands in document AS/Cult (2012) 30 and referred to a very dense and informative one-day hearing with 13 experts which the Sub Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage had held in Maribor, Slovenia, on 21 September 2012. She warmly thanked Mrs Rihter, former Chair of the Sub Committee, who initiated the report and helped to organise the hearing and the current delegation of the Parliament of Slovenia who were co-organising partners for this very successful event, which had been also part of the Maribor 2012 European Capital of Culture Programme. In conclusion, Mrs Dervoz asked the Committee to approve the Sub Committee’s proposal to simplify the title into “Industrial Heritage in Europe” and informed the Committee that the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina has the intention to organise an exhibition on the subject of industrial heritage in the Palais during June 2013 part-session.
The Committee agreed.
11. Appointment of rapporteurs
The Committee appointed on Tuesday 2 October 2012 the following rapporteurs:
Ms Komar, Slovenia, ALDE (to replace Ms Kovács, Serbia, EPP/CD) for the report Young Europeans: an urgent educational challenge (Doc. 12256)
Ms Jaana Pelkonen, Finland, EPP/CD for the report The right to Internet access (Doc. 12985)
and took note of their written declarations on absence of conflict of interest.
The Committee resumed the issue of appointment of rapporteurs on Thursday 4 October 2012.
Mr Franken referred to the current report by Mr Fischer on protection and security of Internet users and wondered whether a new report on Internet issues was desirable.
The Chairperson replied that Mr Fischer had proposed holding a joint Assembly debate of his report and the report by Ms Pelkonen, in order to avoid potential discrepancies of both reports.
Sir Roger Gale regretted that this agenda item had been taken up during his earlier absence, as he was interested in this subject.
The committee secretariat explained that the indicated times on the agenda were only indicative and depended on the actual progress with agenda items. Therefore, the committee’s chairperson could take all items on the agenda as time permitted. Members could revert to agenda items subsequently if necessary.
Mr Connarty reminded the committee of the desirability of a political balance among rapporteurs and regretted that there was currently only one rapporteur from the Socialist Group.
Ms Brasseur understood the worries by Mr Franken, but recalled that references for report had been given to the committee by the Assembly Bureau, which had considered possible overlap of references. Referring to the problem of political balance, she felt that interest and competence had legitimately been the decisive factors for appointing rapporteurs in the past, although political balance was also desirable in principle.
12. The consolidation and international openness of the European Higher Education Area
Rapporteur: Mr Huseynov, Azerbaijan, ALDE
[Doc. 13009]
The Committee took note that no amendments had been tabled to the draft resolution and draft recommendation.
13. Governance of higher education institutions in the European Higher Education Area
Rapporteur: Mr Flego, Croatia, SOC
[Doc. 12964; Doc. 12964 Addendum]
The Chairperson excused Mr Flego, who had to return to Zagreb because of the death of the Speaker of the Croatian Parliament. He therefore could not present his report at the Assembly debate, but had asked Mr Connarty to do this on his behalf.
Mr Türkes explained sub-amendment 2, which sought to delete the words “Turkey and Ukraine” in amendment 1. The situation of higher education institutions in Turkey was not problematic.
Mr Connarty replied that it was particularly worrying that the directors of the Turkish Academy of Sciences were now appointed by the government and that several Turkish professors were held in judicial detention for years without trials. Therefore, it was important to keep the reference to Turkey.
Sir Roger Gale spoke against naming individual countries.
The committee voted against sub-amendment 2.
Mr Marmazov explained sub-amendment 1, which sought to delete the word Ukraine in amendment 1. He said that educational institutions using the Russian language had been at a disadvantage and western Ukrainian institutions were in fact living on subsidies from the eastern part of the country.
Mr Connarty felt that the cited reports by Freedom House and Education International were credible in their position on Ukraine.
The committee voted against sub-amendment 1.
Ms Memecan wished to make a dissenting opinion on behalf of the Turkish delegation to this report under Rule 49.4.
Ms Bilgehan said that this issue had neither been discussed by the Turkish parliamentary delegation, nor could she agree to a dissenting opinion. It was a well established fact that professors and students were held in Turkish prisons for expressing criticism of the current government.
The committee secretariat explained that Rule 49.4 was only applicable at the time of voting on a draft report. At this stage, the committee took only position on amendments tabled to a draft resolution and a draft recommendation contained in a report already approved by the committee. Therefore, a dissenting opinion was not possible anymore.
Mr Sudarenkov explained amendment 2, which sought to delete the last sentence of paragraph 6 because it was not justified to cite the sanctions imposed against Belarus by the EU as well as the decision against membership of Belarus by the ministers participating in the Bologna Process.
Mr Connarty was against this amendment, as it was important to support the ministers participating in the Bologna Process as well as the EU. Several rectors of universities in Belarus had fired students for protesting peacefully against the current government.
The committee voted against amendment 2.
Mr Le Déaut explained amendment 3, which sought to introduce the term collegiality in paragraph 9.
Mr Connarty supported this amendment.
The committee voted in favour of amendment 3.
The Chairperson reminded members that this report would be debated by the Assembly on Friday morning.
14. Replies from the Committee of Ministers
The Chairperson asked the Committee to take note of the reply to Recommendation 1990 (2012) on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life, and asked the Sub-Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage to propose to the committee a rapporteur for follow-up.
Agreed
15. Follow-up to Parliamentary Assembly recommendations
[AS/Cult (2012) 40; AS/Cult/MIS (2012) 02; AS/Cult/MIS (2012) 03]
Sir Roger Gale referred to his memorandum and proposed inviting the Council of Europe Commissioner for Data Protection to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society.
Agreed
The committee agreed on the other proposals made in the reference documents of this agenda item.
16. Committee work programme
[AS/Cult (2012) 01 - October]
Mr Connarty proposed following-up Resolution 1875 (2012) by inviting to the next committee meeting a high representative from FIFA, possibly its Secretary General, as well as Mr Mohammad Bin Hammam, former President of the Asian Football Confederation; Prof. Mark Pieth, Chairman of the FIFA’s Independent Governance Committee; Mrs Sylvia Schenk, Transparency International; and Mr Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association.
Agreed
Ms Brasseur informed the committee that she had received many emails concerning match-fixing in the Turkish League and the position of UEFA. Accordingly, she had written to UEFA President Mr Platini in order to receive more information. She proposed pursuing this issue at committee level as a follow-up to Resolution 1876 and Recommendation 1997 (2012).
Agreed
The Committee then decided to request the extension until 30 June 2013 of the following references:
Young Europeans: an urgent educational challenge (new rapporteur Ms Komar, Slovenia, ALDE),
Ethics of science [new title: Ethics in science and technology] (rapporteur: Mr Kaźmierczak, Poland, EPP/CD).
16.1 Reports on recent meetings
Mr Kaźmierczak made a brief report of the meeting of Directors of EPTA (14-16 May, Sitges, Spain) which he had attended as PACE General Rapporter on Science and Technology Impact Assessment.
Sir Roger Gale had participated in the Enlarged Bureau of the Executive Committee of the North-South Centre (14 September, Strasbourg) and informed the committee that the winners of the North-South Prize had been selected.
Mr Connarty informed the Committee about the recently held Conference of Ministers responsible for Youth (24-25 September, St. Petersburg), which he attended together with PACE President Mignon, Mr Flego and Mr Volontè. Mr Connarty took part, as speaker, in the thematic panel on “democracy and participation”. Youth representatives put forward very interesting proposals, which Ministers were invited to adopt as an appendix to the Ministerial Declaration. Unfortunately, Ministers did not agree on the Declaration. The host country disagreed with the proposal to include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” as grounds for protection against discrimination. The other Ministers present did not accept deleting this reference from the Declaration. As a result, young people’s proposals did not get Ministers’ endorsement. Mr Connarty insisted on the importance that young people’s recommendations be taken into account in the Council of Europe future work.
16.2 Designation of representatives for forthcoming events
The Committee designated Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan, ALDE) to participate, at no cost for the Assembly, in the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on 6-9 November in Baku.
16.3 Sub-Committees
p.m.
17. Other business
The Chairperson referred to the recent reform of the Assembly, which offered the possibility of organising parliamentary projects. In this framework, the Croatian Parliament had offered to host on 15 October a seminar on the role of national parliaments in ensuring the independence of Public Service Broadcasting. Delegations from the region had been invited. Such events could be organised next year in other capitals.
18. Next meetings
The Committee decided to hold its next meeting in Paris on 18-19 December 2012 and took note of the proposal to meet in 2013 as follows:
Strasbourg, 1st part-session (21-25 January 2013)
Paris, Council of Europe Office (March 2013 - tbc)
Strasbourg, 2nd part-session (22-26 April 2013)
Strasbourg, 3rd part-session (24-28 June 2013)
Strasbourg, 4th part-session (30 September - 4 October 2013)
Paris, Council of Europe Office (3-4 December 2013 - tbc)
Appendix I
Agenda:
Agenda
For more democratic elections
Minutes
Election of a vice-chair of the committee
The state of media freedom in Europe
The ethics of science
Status of chairpersons of political groups in Assembly committees
Right to freedom of choice in education in Europe
European cultural and educational policies through national parliaments
Destruction or restoration of industrial heritage
Appointment of rapporteurs
The consolidation and international openness of the European Higher Education Area
Governance of higher education institutions in the European Higher Education Area
Replies from the Committee of Ministers
Follow-up to Parliamentary Assembly recommendations
Committee work programme
Other business
Next meetings
List of Decisions:
The committee:
on Tuesday 2 October from 8.30 to 9 am, as regards:
Membership in Sub-Committees: approved the lists of members of its three Sub-Committees, as presented in the appendix;
Election of a Vice-Chair of the Committee: elected Mr Mogens Jensen (Denmark, SOC) as a Vice-Chair of the Committee;
For more democratic elections (Rapporteur for opinion: Ms Postanjyan, Armenia, EPP/CD): considered a report prepared by the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and adopted an opinion;
on Tuesday 2 October from 2 to 3.30 pm, as regards:
The state of media freedom in Europe (Rapporteur: Mr Johansson, Sweden, EPP/CD): considered and approved a report and adopted a draft resolution and a draft recommendation;
The ethics of science (Rapporteur: Mr Kaźmierczak, Poland, EPP/CD): decided to change the title to “Ethics in science and technology”;
Appointment of rapporteurs:
Young Europeans: an urgent educational challenge (Doc. 12256): appointed Ms Polonca Komar, Slovenia, ALDE (to replace Ms Kovács, Serbia, EPP/CD), and took note of her written declaration on absence of conflict of interest,
The right to Internet access (Doc. 12985) ): appointed Ms Jaana Pelkonen, Finland, EPP/CD, and took note of her written declaration on absence of conflict of interest;
Status of chairpersons of political groups in Assembly committees: took note of the letter by Mr Diaz Tejera and expressed the views that Chairpersons of Political Groups, in addition to their present assignments, could be ex-officio members of AS/Pol (with all related rights), but they should not be ex-officio members of other committees;
on Thursday 4 October from 8.30 to 10 am, as regards:
The ethics of science (Rapporteur: Mr Kaźmierczak, Poland, EPP/CD): discussed a preliminary draft report;
European cultural and educational policies through national parliaments (Rapporteur: Ms Brasseur, Luxembourg, ALDE): discussed a preliminary draft report; decided to change the title to “Culture and education through national parliaments: European policies”;
Destruction or restoration of industrial heritage (Rapporteur: Ms Dervoz, Bosnia and Herzegovina, EPP/CD): considered a draft outline and presented the outcomes of the hearing with experts during the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage in Maribor on 21 September 2012; decided to change the title to “Industrial Heritage in Europe”;
on Thursday 4 October from 2 to 3.30 pm, as regards:
Right to freedom of choice in education in Europe (Rapporteur: Ms Quintanilla, Spain, EPP/CD): considered the amendments tabled to the draft resolution;
The consolidation and international openness of the European Higher Education Area: (Rapporteur: Mr Huseynov, Azerbaijan, ALDE): took note that no amendments have been tabled to the draft resolution and draft recommendation;
Governance of institutions of higher education in the European Higher Education Area (Rapporteur: Mr Flego, Croatia, SOC): considered the amendments and sub-amendments tabled to the draft resolution;
Replies from the Committee of Ministers: took note of the reply to Recommendation 1990 (2012) on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life, and asked the Sub-Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage to propose to the committee a rapporteur for follow-up;
Follow-up to Parliamentary Assembly recommendations: considered the memoranda on follow-up to the Committee of Ministers’ replies to Assembly Recommendations:
1950 (2011) on the protection of journalists’ sources (prepared by the rapporteur for follow-up, Mr Mats Johansson, Sweden, EPP/CD),
1962 (2011) on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue (prepared by the rapporteur, Ms Anne Brasseur, Luxembourg, ALDE),
1984 (2011) on the protection of privacy and personal data on the Internet and online media (prepared by the rapporteur for follow-up, Sir Roger Gale, United Kingdom, EDG);
approved the analysis and the follow up actions proposed in the memoranda, namely:
to inform the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) that the Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media would be willing to co-operate with the CDMSI, if it decided to initiate following the proposals in paragraphs 17.3 and 17.4 of Recommendation 1950 (2011);
to monitor the question of setting up a dialogue platform for the Council of Europe and high-level representatives of religions and non-denominational organisations, as part of its contacts with the GR-C and the Ministers’ Deputies, and to stress the importance of expanding the intercultural cities project and including in it the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue;
to co-operate with the committee established by the Convention No 108 (T-PD) as well as the Commissioner for Data Protection of the Council of Europe, and to use its contacts with parliamentary delegations from non-member States in order to achieve more signatures and ratifications of this Convention;
Committee work programme: decided to request the extension until 30 June 2013 of the following references:
Young Europeans: an urgent educational challenge (new rapporteur Ms Komar, Slovenia, ALDE),
Ethics of science [new title: Ethics in science and technology] (rapporteur: Mr Kaźmierczak, Poland, EPP/CD);
decided to invite to a hearing in the framework of the follow-up to Resolution 1875 (2012) on good governance and ethics in sport: Mr Mohammad Bin Hammam, former President of the Asian Football Confederation Prof. Mark Pieth, Chairman of the FIFA’s Independent Governance Committee; Mrs Sylvia Schenk, Transparency International; and Mr Stewart Regan Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association;
Reports on recent meetings: heard statements by:
Mr Kaźmierczak (Poland, EPP/CD) for the meeting of Directors of EPTA (14-16 May, Sitges, Spain),
Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom, EDG) for the Enlarged Bureau of the Executive Committee of the North-South Centre (14 September, Strasbourg),
Mr Michael Connarty (United Kingdom, SOC) for the Conference of Ministers responsible for Youth (24-25 September, St. Petersburg);
Designation of representatives for forthcoming events: designated:
Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan, ALDE) to participate, with no cost for the Assembly, in the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) (6-9 November, Baku);
Next meetings:
Paris, Council of Europe Office (18-19 December 2012 )
Strasbourg, 1st part-session (21-25 January 2013)
Paris, Council of Europe Office (March 2013 - tbc)
Strasbourg, 2nd part-session (22-26 April 2013)
Strasbourg, 3rd part-session (24-28 June 2013)
Strasbourg, 4th part-session (30 September - 4 October 2013)
Paris, Council of Europe Office (3-4 December 2013 - tbc)
Appendix
Sub-Committee on Culture, Diversity and Heritage/
Sous-commission de la culture, de la diversité et du patrimoine
(28+1)
Members / Titulaires Alternates / Remplaçants
Chairperson / Président(e)
ZZ…
Vice-Chairperson / Vice-Président(e)
FALZON Joseph, Mr Malta
Members / Membres
BAQUELAINE Daniel, M. Belgique COËME Guy, M.
BATAILLE Christian, M France
BRASSEUR Anne, Mme Luxembourg
BROEKERS-KNOL Ankie, Ms Netherlands KOX Tiny, Mr
COSTA NEVES Carlos, Mr Portugal
DERVOZ Ismeta, Ms Bosnia and Herzegovina
ECCLES Diana, Baroness United Kingdom LIDDELL-GRAINGER Ian, Mr
GROSS Andreas, M. Suisse SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER Elisabeth, Mme
HUSEYNOV Rafael, Mr Azerbaijan
KAŹMIERCZAK Jan, Mr Poland
KOMAR Polonca, Ms Slovenia DIMIC Iva, Ms
KOSTŘICA Rom, Mr Czech republic
KUODYTĖ Dalia, Ms Lithuania PETKUS Almantas, Mr
MALGIERI Gennaro, M. Italie SANTINI Giacomo, Mr
MUTTONEN Christine, Ms Austria
NACHBAR Philippe, M. France LEGENDRE Jacques, M.
NICOLAIDES Nicos, Mr Cyprus KYRIAKIDOU Athina, Ms
NOUVION Laurent, M. Monaco MARQUET Bernard, M.
POSTANJYAN Zaruhi, Ms Armenia
QUINTANILLA Carmen, Mme Espagne MUÑOZ ALONSO Alejandro, Mr
RYBAK Volodymyr, Mr Ukraine
SCHENNACH Stefan, Mr Austria
STAVROSITU Maria, Ms Romania STOICA Mihaela, Ms
SUDARENKOV, Valeriy Mr Russian Federation
TATSOPOULOS Petros, Mr Greece DRAGASAKIS Ioannis, Mr
TÜRKES Ahmet Kutalmiş, Mr Turkey
Ex-Officio / Ex-Officio
FLEGO Gvozden Srećko, Mr Croatia
Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society/
Sous-commission des médias et de la société de l’information
(28+1)
Members / Titulaires Alternates / Remplaçants
Chairperson / Président(e)
BERGAMINI Deborah, Ms Italy
Vice-Chairperson / Vice-Président(e)
GALE Roger, Sir United Kingdom ECCLES Diana, Baroness
Members / Membres
ABLINGER Sonja, Ms Austria SCHENNACH Stefan, Mr
BRAGA António, Mr Portugal
BRASSEUR Anne, Mme Luxembourg MUTSCH Lydia, Mme
COMTE Raphaël, M. Suisse REIMANN Maximilian, M.
DE BRUYN Piet, Mr Belgium SANNEN Ludo, Mr
DERVOZ Ismeta, Ms Bosnia and Herzegovina
DIŞLI Şaban, Mr Turkey BILGEHAN Gülsün, Mme
FISCHER Axel E., Mr Germany STRENZ Karin, Ms
FRANKEN Hans, Mr Netherlands KLEVER Reinette, Ms
GÓRCZYNSKI Jarosław, Mr Poland
GRAHAM Sylvi, Ms Norway
HERASYM’YUK Olha, Ms Ukraine
HUSEYNOV Rafael, Mr Azerbaijan
JENSEN Mogens, Mr Denmark
JOHANSSON Mats, Mr Sweden HÄRSTEDT Kent Mr
KOMAR Polonca, Ms Slovenia
KUBATA Václav, Mr Czech Republic
MUÑOZ ALONSO Alejandro, Mr Espagne
NOUVION Laurent, M. Monaco MARQUET Bernard, M.
O’REILLY Joseph, Mr Ireland O’SULLIVAN Maureen, Ms
PELKONEN Jaana, Ms Finland
PETROV Petar, Mr Bulgaria
PIPILI Foteini, Ms Greece DRAGASAKIS Ioannis, Mr
POSTANJYAN Zaruhi, Ms Armenia
REISS Frédéric, M. France SCHNEIDER André, M.
STAVROSITU Maria, Ms Romania STOICA Mihaela, Ms
Ex-Officio / Ex-Officio
FLEGO Gvozden Srećko, Mr Croatia
Sub-Committee on Education, Youth and Sport /
Sous-commission de l’éducation, de la jeunesse et du sport
(28+1)
Members / Titulaires Alternates / Remplaçants
Chairperson / Président(e)
CONNARTY Michael, Mr United Kingdom BENTON Joe, Mr
Vice-Chairperson / Vice-Président(e)
WACH Piotr, Mr Poland MARCZUŁAJTIS-WALCZAK Jagna, Ms
Members / Membres
BARDINA PAU Josep Anton, M. Andorre
BILOZIR Oksana, Ms Ukraine
CORSINI Paolo, Mr Italie BOLDI Rossana, Ms
DIMIC Iva, Ms Slovenia
FALZON Joseph, Mr Malta
FETISOV Vyacheslav, Mr Russian Federation
GAJDŮŠKOVÁ Alena, Ms Czech Republic
GUTIÉRREZ Antonio, Mr Espagne QUINTANILLA Carmen, Mme
GUŢU Ana, Mme République de Moldova
HÄRSTEDT Kent Mr Sweden
KLEVER Reinette, Ms Netherlands BROEKERS-KNOL Ankie, Ms
NICOLAIDES Nicos, Mr Cyprus KYRIAKIDOU Athina, Ms
O’SULLIVAN Maureen, Ms Ireland O'REILLY Joseph, Mr
SANNEN Ludo, Mr Belgium DE BRUYN Piet, Mr
SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER Elisabeth, Mme Suisse REIMANN Maximilian, M.
TALIADOUROS Spyridon, Mr Greece TATSOPOULOS Petros, Mr
TERRIER Gérard, M. France SCHNEIDER André, M.
TÜRKEŞ Ahmet Kutalmiş, Mr Turkey
Ex-Officio / Ex-Officio
FLEGO Gvozden Srećko, Mr Croatia
Appendix II
Presence list
The names of the members present at the meeting are printed in bold
Members / Membres Alternates / Remplaçants
|
Mr Damian GJIKNURI |
Albania / Albanie |
ZZ... |
|
M. Josep Anton BARDINA PAU |
Andorra / Andorre |
Ms Sílvia Eloïsa BONET PEROT |
|
Ms Zaruhi POSTANJYAN |
Armenia / Arménie |
Mr Vahe HOVHANNISYAN |
|
Ms Sonja ABLINGER |
Austria / Autriche |
Ms Christine MUTTONEN |
|
Mr Stefan SCHENNACH |
Austria / Autriche |
ZZ... |
|
Ms Sevinj FATALIYEVA |
Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan |
Ms Sahiba GAFAROVA |
|
Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV |
Azerbaijan / Azerbaïdjan |
Mr Fazail İBRAHIMLI |
|
Mr Piet DE BRUYN |
Belgium / Belgique |
M. Guy COËME |
|
Mr Ludo SANNEN |
Belgium / Belgique |
M. Daniel BACQUELAINE |
|
Ms Ismeta DERVOZ |
Bosnia and Herzegovina / Bosnie-Herzégovine |
ZZ… |
|
Mr Petar PETROV |
Bulgaria / Bulgarie |
Mr Kirtcho DIMITROV |
|
Mr Latchezar TOSHEV |
Bulgaria / Bulgarie |
Ms Irena SOKOLOVA |
|
Mr Gvozden Srećko FLEGO |
Croatia / Croatie |
Mr Frano MATUŠIĆ |
|
Mr. Nicos NICOLAIDES |
Cyprus / Chypre |
Ms Athina KYRIAKIDOU |
|
Mr Rom KOSTŘICA |
Czech Republic / République tchèque |
Mr Václav KUBATA |
|
Mr Vaclav MENCL
|
Czech Republic / République tchèque |
Ms Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ |
|
Mr Michael Aastrup JENSEN |
Denmark / Danemark |
Mr Mogens JENSEN |
|
Mr Paul-Eerik RUMMO |
Estonia / Estonie |
Mr Indrek SAAR |
|
Ms Jaana PELKONEN |
Finland / Finlande |
Mr Jouko SKINNARI |
|
M. Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT |
France / France |
M. Christian BATAILLE |
|
M. Jacques LEGENDRE |
France / France |
Mme Anne GROMMERCH |
|
M. Frédéric REISS |
France / France |
M. Philippe NACHBAR |
|
M. André SCHNEIDER |
France / France |
M. Gérard TERRIER |
|
Mr Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ |
Georgia / Géorgie |
Mr Giorgi GABASHVILI |
|
Mr Axel E. FISCHER |
Germany / Allemagne |
Mr Karl-Georg WELLMANN |
|
Mr Patrick MEINHARDT |
Germany / Allemagne |
Ms Sylvia CANEL |
|
Mr. Martin SCHWANHOLZ |
Germany / Allemagne |
Mr Axel SCHÄFER |
|
Ms Karin STRENZ |
Germany / Allemagne |
Mr Michael HENNRICH |
|
Mr Spyridon TALIADOUROS |
Greece / Grèce |
Ms Foteini PIPILI |
|
Mr Petros TATSOPOULOS |
Greece / Grèce |
Mr Ioannis DRAGASAKIS |
|
Ms Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI |
Hungary / Hongrie |
Mr Péter HOPPÁL |
|
Ms Bernadett SZÉL |
Hungary / Hongrie |
Mr Gábor Tamás NAGY |
|
Mr Birkir Jón JÓNSSON |
Iceland / Islande |
Mr Gunnar Bragi SVEINSSON |
|
Ms. Maureen O’SULLIVAN |
Ireland / Irlande |
Mr Joseph O'REILLY |
|
Ms Deborah BERGAMINI |
Italy / Italie |
M. Gennaro MALGIERI |
|
Mr Italo BOCCHINO |
Italy / Italie |
Mr Giacomo SANTINI |
|
Ms Rossana BOLDI |
Italy / Italie |
Mr Paolo GRIMOLDI |
|
M. Paolo CORSINI |
Italy / Italie |
Mr Marco MINNITI |
|
Mr Jānis DOMBRAVA |
Latvia / Lettonie |
Mr Aleksandrs SAKOVSKIS |
|
Mr Leander SCHÄDLER |
Liechtenstein / Liechtenstein |
Mr Gebhard NEGELE |
|
Ms Dalia KUODYTĖ |
Lithuania / Lituanie |
Mr Almantas PETKUS |
|
Mme Anne BRASSEUR |
Luxembourg / Luxembourg |
Mme Lydia MUTSCH |
|
Mr Joseph FALZON |
Malta / Malte |
Ms Giovanna DEBONO |
|
Mme Ana GUŢU |
Republic of Moldova / République de Moldova |
Mme Corina FUSU |
|
M. Laurent NOUVION |
Monaco / Monaco |
M. Bernard MARQUET |
|
M. Džavid ŠABOVIĆ |
Montenegro / Monténégro |
Mr Ervin SPAHIĆ |
|
Ms Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL |
Netherlands / Pays-Bas |
Mr Hans FRANKEN |
|
Ms Reinette KLEVER |
Netherlands / Pays-Bas |
Mr Tiny KOX |
|
Ms Sylvi GRAHAM |
Norway / Norvège |
Mr Tor BREMER |
|
Mr Jarosław GÓRCZYNSKI |
Poland / Pologne |
Ms Jagna MARCZUŁAJTIS-WALCZAK |
|
Mr Jan KAŹMIERCZAK |
Poland / Pologne |
Mr Maciej ORZECHOWSKI |
|
Mr Piotr WACH |
Poland / Pologne |
Mr Zbigniew GIRZYŃSKI |
|
Mr António BRAGA |
Portugal / Portugal |
Mme Ana Catarina MENDONÇA |
|
Mr Carlos COSTA NEVES |
Portugal / Portugal |
ZZ... |
|
Mr Viorel Riceard BADEA |
Romania / Roumanie |
Mr Traian Constantin IGAŞ |
|
Ms Maria STAVROSITU |
Romania / Roumanie |
Ms Mihaela STOICA |
|
Mr Varujan VOSGANIAN |
Romania / Roumanie |
Ms Ana Adriana SĂFTOIU |
|
Mr Alexey KNYSHOV |
Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie |
Mr Robert SHLEGEL |
|
Mr Ivan MELNIKOV |
Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie |
Mr Anvar MAKHMUTOV |
|
Mr Yury SOLONIN |
Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie |
Mr Shamsail SARALIEV |
|
Mr Valeriy SUDARENKOV |
Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie |
Mr Vyacheslav FETISOV |
|
M. Pier Marino MULARONI |
San Marino / Saint-Marin |
ZZ… |
|
Ms Vesna MARJANOVIĆ |
Serbia / Serbie |
ZZ… |
|
Mr Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ |
Serbia / Serbie |
ZZ… |
|
M. Pavol GOGA |
Slovak Republic / République slovaque |
Mr Ľubomír PETRÁK |
|
Ms Polonca KOMAR |
Slovenia / Slovénie |
Ms Iva DIMIC |
|
M. José María BENEYTO |
Spain / Espagne |
M. Ramón MORENO |
|
Mr Antonio GUTIÉRREZ |
Spain / Espagne |
ZZ… |
|
Mr Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO |
Spain / Espagne |
Mme Carmen QUINTANILLA |
|
Mr Kent HÄRSTEDT |
Sweden / Suède |
Mr Jonas GUNNARSSON |
|
Mr Mats JOHANSSON |
Sweden / Suède |
Ms Tina ACKETOFT |
|
M. Raphaël COMTE |
Switzerland / Suisse |
M. Andreas GROSS |
|
Mme Elisabeth SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER |
Switzerland / Suisse |
M. Maximilian REIMANN |
|
Mr Aleksandar SPASENOVSKI |
''The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'' / ''L'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine'' |
Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI |
|
Mme Gülsün BİLGEHAN |
Turkey / Turquie |
Mr Deniz BAYKAL |
|
Mr Şaban DİŞLİ |
Turkey / Turquie |
M. Burhan KAYATÜRK |
|
Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ |
Turkey / Turquie |
Ms Nursuna MEMECAN |
|
Mr Serhiy KLYUEV |
Ukraine / Ukraine |
Ms Olha HERASYM'YUK |
|
Mr Volodymyr RYBAK |
Ukraine / Ukraine |
Ms Oksana BILOZIR |
|
Mr Petro SYMONENKO |
Ukraine / Ukraine |
Mr Yevhen MARMAZOV |
|
Mr Michael CONNARTY |
United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni |
Mr Joe BENTON |
|
Baroness Diana ECCLES |
United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni |
Mr Oliver HEALD |
|
Sir Roger GALE |
United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni |
Baroness Margaret EATON |
|
Mr Ian LIDDELL-GRAINGER |
United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni |
Mr Edward LEIGH |
Turkish Cypriot Community / Communauté chypriote turque1
Mr Mehmet ÇAGLAR
Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie
Mr El Mokhtar GHAMBOU Morocco
Mr Mohamed YATIM Morocco
Observers / Observateurs
Ms Joyce BATEMAN Canada
Mr David TILSON Canada
Mr David Tkachuk Canada
Delegation Secretary / Secrétaires de délégation
Permanent Representations / Représentations Permanents
Others / Autres
Mr Oleg GOLUBEV Belarus
Mr Oren GOSTIAUX European Parents Association
Secretariat of the Council of Europe / Secrétariat du Conseil de l’Europe
Ms Onur ANDREOTTI Directorate of Information Society and Action against Crime, DG I – Human Rights and Rule of Law
Mr Björn JANSON Directorate of Information Society and Action against Crime, DG I – Human Rights and Rule of Law
Ms Stefania KRUGER Directorate of Human Rights and Antidiscrimination, DGl II – Democracy
Mr André-Jacques DODIN Directorate of Democratic Citizenship and Participation, DGl II – Democracy
Mr Nicolai ATEFIE Secretariat of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities
Secretariat of the Parliamentary Assembly / Secrétariat de l’Assemblée parlementaire
Mr Roberto FASINO Head of the Culture, Social and Sustainable Development Department
Mr Rüdiger DOSSOW Secretary
Ms Dana KARANJAC Secretary
Ms Angela GARABAGIU Secretary
Ms Tatiana STATE MASSON Assistant
Ms Judy BUTLER Assistant
1 En accord avec Résolution 1376 (2004).
