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).
Обърнете внимание на т. 17
17. The Assembly regrets that media ownership is not made transparent in all member States and asks them to adopt the necessary provisions to this end. Lack of transparency is
typically used to hide political or commercial interests in controlling major media companies.
The Assembly calls on member States to take proper action for ensuring media transparency and pluralism and promoting journalistic standards. It 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.
Въпросът за собствеността на медиите, отсъстваше в първоначалния проект за резолюция.
Този текст беше постигнат, чрез внасяне на поправка в текста.
Ето текста на внесените поправки :
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:
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;
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”;
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;
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;
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;
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);
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 turque
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
И за пълнота, тук може да видите целия доклад на г-н Йохансон от Швеция, от който тръгна всичко.
