Europarådet 2004-05 (2. samling)
ERD Alm.del Bilag 59
Offentligt
2596984_0001.png
Assemblee parkmentake
Europarådet 2004-05 (2. samling)
ERD Alm.del - Bilag 59
Parliamentary Assembly
Offentligt
Parliamentary Assembly
Assemble parlementaire
Europarådet (2. samlin
g)
ERD alm. del - Bilag
59
Offentligt
***
* *
* * *
COUNCIL
OF EUROPE
CONSEIL
DE L'EUROPE
AACR16
AS (2005) CR 16
Provisional edition
2005 ORDINARY SESSION
(Second part)
REPORT
Sixteenth sitting
Friday 29 April 2005 at 10 a.m.
In this report:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Speeches in English are reported in full.
Speeches in other languages are summar
ised.
Speeches in German and Italian are reprodu
Corrections should be handed in at Roo
ced in full in a separate document.
report has been circulated.
m 1059A not later than 24 hoUrs after the
The contents page for this sitting is give
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly,
n at the end of the verbatim report.
F — 67075 Strasbourg Cedex tel.: +33 3 88
41 20 00, fax +33 3 88 41 27 76, e-mail: asse
mbly@coeint, htlp://assembly.coeint
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0002.png
AS(2005)CP 16
- 2
-
Mr Schreiner, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The sitting is open.
1. Adoption of the minutes
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The minutes of proceedings of the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth
and fifteenth sittings have been distributed.
Are these minutes agreed to?
The minutes are agreed to.
2. References to committees
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Before we start the first debate, I must inform the Assembly
that, at its meeting this morning, the Bureau proposed a number of references to committees. Details of
the references can be found in a document which is available in the document centre.
These references are subject to ratification by the Assembly under Rule 24.2 of the Rules of
Procedure.
Does the Assembly agree these references?
The references are agreed to.
3. Written declaration
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — In accordance with Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure a written
declaration, No. 364, on respect for the rights of the Timok Romanians (Eastern Serbia), Document
10533, which has been signed by twenty-three members, has been printed.
Any Representative or Substitute may add his signature to this written declaration in the Table
Office, Room 1083. If any names are added, the declaration will be distributed again two weeks after the
end of the part-session, with all the accumulated signatures.
4. Referendums
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The first item of business this morning is the debate on the
report, "Referendums: towards good practices in Europe", presented by Mr Elo on behalf of the Political
Affairs Committee, Document 10498.
The list of speakers closed at 5.30 p.m. yesterday. Fourteen names are on the list, and one
amendment has been tabled with two sub-amendments.
I call Mr Elo, rapporteur. He has eight minutes.
Mr ELO (Finland). — When I agreed to be rapporteur for the report on "Referendums: towards
good practices in Europe", I took up a difficult task. No responsible politician or citizen could ever say, "I
am against democracy," but many can say, "I am against referenda." Referenda cause division. They have
supporters and opponents and it is difficult to find a compromise between those polarised positions.
Whatever we think of referenda, they exist. Not'only that, but they are held very often. Since 1960,
there have been no fewer than 250 national referenda in the forty-six member states of the Council of
Europe, excluding Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Since 1990, the number has almost doubled in western
Europe and it has increased by a factor of seven in eastern Europe.
The upward trend will continue in the next two years. The national referenda on the ratification of
the EU Constitution may be the largest European popular vote of all time — 250 million people in at least
ten countries will be asked to express their agreement or disagreement with the most ambitious project of
European integration conceived so far. The political weight of this popular vote will be unprecedented
because a negative stand by the electorate of one country may affect the ratification of the constitution in
all the others.
As I have already said, referenda have supporters and opponents. I shall not reveal to which
group I belong because my main point is that it does not matter whether we support or oppose referenda;
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0003.png
-3-
AS (2005) CR 16
what matters is that we ensure that they are used to impr
ove democracy. Referenda can play a role in that
by reinforcing the democratic legitimacy of political
decisions and enhancing the accountability of
representative institutions. They can also increase the openness
and transparency of decision making and
stimulate the direct involvement of the electorate in the polit
ical process.
However, we must be vigilant so that referenda are not misu
sed as an alternative to parliamentary
democracy and other means of undermining the legitimac
y and primacy of parliaments as legislative
bodies. That is why the Council of Europe, in its role as
the guardian of democracy, should take a lead in
codifying rules on holding referenda and promoting good
practice. It should rely on the expertise of the
Venice Commission as well as its previous work on elaborati
ng guidelines for member states. It should
also collect and disseminate examples of good practice in
referenda and, when necessary, set up
assistance and co-operation programmes to aid member state
s to implement good practice in referenda.
I want to draw attention to one fundamental issue among all the
others that the Council of Europe
should address which is vital for the functioning of democra
cy. Citizens must be able to form their own
opinions. To do so, they should have access to the fullest infor
mation. They should be free to discuss
ideas and form associations to promote them. Direct dem
ocracy requires the recognition of freedom of
opinion, expression and association and the existence of a
pluralist media.
The role of the Council of Europe should not be conserva
tive. We should modernise democracy in
response to the modernisation of our society. One of the main
challenges we face is granting voting rights,
at least in local elections and referenda, to immigrants who
are legally resident in Council of Europe
member states. Representative and direct democracy is flaw
ed unless we have the political will to let legal
residents participate fully in the political life of the country
in which they live.
I call on the members of the Assembly to vote in favour of
the draft recommendation. Whether you
are in favour of or against referenda, you are certainly in
favour of enhancing democracy. That is what the
text wants to achieve.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you. The chai
rperson of the committee is not present
and we will therefore progress to the list of speakers. Ms
Papadimitriou wishes to speak later, so I call Mr
Cekuolis to speak on behalf of the Liberal, Democratic and
Reformers' Group.
Mr OEKUOLIS (Lithuania). - First, I thank our rapporteur,
Mr Elo, for doing such a good job in
preparing the report. The Liberal, Democratic and Refo
rmers' Group fully accepts the rapporteur's position
that referenda, despite their positive use in some coun
tries, cannot be used as an alternative to
parliamentary democracy and should not be misused
to undermine the primacy of parliaments as
legislative bodies.
In general, the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Grou
p takes a positive view of referenda, but
we want to stress one important and evident but som
etimes forgotten factor. Referenda can be used only
in a fully democratic environment. The criteria must
include free media, active participation of non-
governmental organisations and citizens in a public deba
te, political tolerance and free and fair voting.
Those are necessary preconditions for referenda. Otherwise
, they can be used by authoritarian regimes
simply to justify their policies. The best example of such
a negative development is Belarus — the only
European country that is not a member of the Council
of Europe — where referenda are common practice,
but where, as we know well, opponents of the regime
have no say in the press or through other means.
Referenda are used to legitimise some unconstitution
al and undemocratic steps taken by the regime. The
environment and the atmosphere in which referenda take
place are therefore of major importance from the
point of view of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformer
s' Group.
For that reason, the guidelines on referenda whic
h our rapporteur proposed are important. He
placed particular emphasis on the necessity for rules
of participation for non-citizens. We would like to
emphasise the need for clear and transparent mechani
sms. The Council of Europe should not only draw
up the guidelines but establish a strict monitoring mec
hanism to control their implementation in practice in
the national legislation of the countries that wish to
hold referenda. Probably such a mission could be
carried out by either the Political Affairs Committee or
the Monitoring Committee.
Our rapporteur mentioned two major proposals
— the extension of the right to vote in local
referenda to immigrants and also the possibility of
holding referenda at all levels, be it local, regional or
national. The Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Grou
p supports those proposals and we would also like
a clear distinction between advisory referenda and
decision-making referenda. We hope that when the
guidelines are drawn up, our proposal will be take
n into account.
Again, I thank the rapporteur for a careful and very well
done job.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0004.png
AS (2005) CR 16
-4-
THE PRESIDENT. — Thank you. I call Mr Einarsson to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified
European Left.
Mr EINARSSON (Sweden). — Referenda have become an integral part of the democratic political
system today, even if they are not universally used, and there is a great variety of referenda institutions.
The rapporteur is therefore perfectly right to call on the Council of Europe to codify rules on holding
referenda and promote models of good practice to make referenda a tool to strengthen political
democracy and popular sovereignty.
There are, as the rapporteur said, many different views on referenda. Some see them as a threat
to representative democracy. Others see them as a convenient instrument to solve political stalemate or to
avoid party splits. And some see referenda as a more genuine expression of democracy than indirect
representative democracy, which is imperfect.
As a left-wing, red-green, socialist and feminist, I am expected to be an enthusiastic advocate of
direct democracy and referenda — well, I am not. From a genuinely democratic standpoint of popular
sovereignty and political equality, one can argue against the excessive use of referenda. That does not
mean that I am against referenda as such. On the contrary, for some types of political decisions referenda
are not just useful, but indispensable, and I shall return to that point.
However, we must admit that there are, or at least can be, democratic problems with referenda,
and I shall discuss two of them. The first problem is accountability. If the people make a decision, no one
else is responsible for it. That would not be a big problem, if it did not affect the accountability of elected
representatives. No political issue is isolated: every decision in a referendum has consequences for future
decisions made by parliamentarians and governments, who are accountable for those decisions. If the
people decide to lower taxes and increase spending in a referendum, would it then be reasonable to hold
the parliament responsible for exceeding its budget? That example is extreme, but referenda always
undermine accountability to some degree.
The second problem concerns the political agenda. Democracy rests on political equality when it
comes not only to taking a decision — one person; one vote — but to deciding the political agenda. A
popular initiative might give politically and economically resourceful groups in society an unequal influence
over the political agenda that makes it less probable that the will of the people guides the political process.
Nevertheless, there are situations in which referenda are indispensable. As parliamentarians, we
have borrowed our legislative and other political powers from our citizens. On election day, our citizens
lend us political powers that belong to them. At the next election, the people reclaim those powers,
evaluate how we have used them and redistribute them, perhaps to other parties and politicians. What if
parliamentarians give less power back to the people than the amount that they originally received? What if
we parliamentarians were to embezzle some of that power and hand it over to someone else — for
example, the European Union?
The people entrust us, as parliamentarians, with power for a limited period, but we do not have
the right to give it away without consulting its owners, the people. That is why the Treaty on the European
Constitution should not be ratified by parliaments without the permission of the people in a referendum. I
regret that the majority in my own parliament, the Swedish Riksdag, has rejected all proposals on holding
a referendum, but there is still time.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Einarsson. I call Ms Papadimitriou, on behalf of
the Group of the European People's Party.
Ms PAPADIMITRIOU (Greece). — With the escalating European public debate about the new
Constitutional Treaty, the political question of direct or representative votes is on the agenda of all
European political bodies.
I congratulate the Council of Europe on sending out its strong message on referenda at this
moment of public insecurity and Mr Elo on his truly excellent report. Professor Auer's research paper is
attached to the report, and it provides the technocratic background for our political calculations.
In the past year, politicians have faced the great challenge of the ear-piercing popular demand for
a balance between direct and representative democracy. We all agree with our Parliamentary Assembly's
conviction that referenda should not be considered as an alternative to parliamentary decision-making.
They should be used wisely to avoid any 'misuse or undermining of the legitimacy of our parliaments,
which are our democracies' legislative bodies. Complementarity is the key word, but it is not a panacea.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0005.png
-5-
AS (2005) CR 16
In the mature democracies of northern Europe — and
perhaps in southern Europe — the public are
accustomed to exert their right of direct decision-making on
crucial and precisely defined questions. In
some countries, things are different. Some countries
do not even have constitutional provisions to hold
referenda. The problem is often that direct democratic vote
s are used to obtain internal political gains. We
all know our duty to establish a firm framework for relia
ble referenda, which involves education and
immediate access for all citizens to information and know
ledge. In some countries, the establishment of
such a framework involves access to reliable media
not only to provide objective information, but to
ensure that all politicians, citizens and parties have their
right to express their points of view and to
present their ideas.
We are all in a dilemma on the Constitutional Treaty. In Gree
ce, we have examined European
polls carefully. How does one choose between a referendu
m and a parliamentary vote in a country in
which 82% of people are in favour of the treaty? In our mos
t recent European elections, however, turnout
was only 17%. It appears that those 17% have a variable
knowledge of European issues, and it is our role
to be teachers.
We must all decide whether to ratify the treaty. Many
countries have decided to take a
parliamentary decision, which, I am happy to say, is what has
happened in my country, Greece.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Ms Papadimitriou
. I call Mr Gross.
Mr GROSS (Switzerland) thanked the rapporteur for his exce
llent report. It was important to set in
place a clear design for the procedure involved in carrying
out referendums. It was also necessary to
change the way in which the date of referendums was set.
Currently politicians decided dates; potentially
that could lead to a manipulation of the vote. Citizens themselve
s should decide when they wanted to hold
a referendum. It was also important to abolish quorums,
because those who did not want to see change
could refuse to participate, thereby affecting those who
did seek change and so undermine the spirit of
democracy. Above all it was crucial that the people them
selves held power. A successful government
would encourage the participation of citizens in political
decisions because that would lead to integration
and bring together diverse groups of people in a common
goal. It was in the interests of everyone that the
public should be both involved and informed.
He did not believe that the media regularly provided false
information, although it was undeniably
true that standards in the media varied. The media wou
ld of course be crucial in informing citizens. It was
also important that equal budgetary resources were give
n to both sides to ensure a fair, balanced
campaign. He believed people became frustrated whe
n they felt they were being excluded from the
political decision-making process. Citizens should alwa
ys take decisions with their parliament and
referendums could help to make this happen. It was very
important that a good framework was put in
place to regulate the process of holding a referendum.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Gros
s. I call Mr Sami.
Mr åAMI (Serbia and Montenegro) was glad that the
Assembly was discussing this important
issue. He expressed his thanks to the rapporteur for
his informative report. Serbia and Montenegro had
been an undemocratic country in the past and referendu
ms had been manipulated to produce the desired
results. The organisation of a referendum was crucial
to its success or otherwise. Everything should be
regulated at every stage of the process. It was important
to note that referendums in democratic countries
might be used to legitimise undemocratic policies. How
ever standards must be set to ensure that the
referendum process was fair and democratic. To
this end a referendum should be called on a short
question which did not contain any additions or amb
iguity and which, in its wording, did not seek to
manipulate the voter. The media should be regulated
and the behaviour expected of them defined. It was
crucial that the media had an impartial stance and
gave an equal share of coverage to both sides. A
referendum should be valid if more than 50% of citize
ns voted and a suitable qualified majority must be
defined. He suggested that this majority should be two
thirds of those who voted. He hoped that answers
to the problems surrounding the referendum process
could be found.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr åam
i. I call Ms Radulovid-åepanoviC.
Ms RADULOVIC-SCEPANOVIC (Serbia and
Montenegro). - Esteemed colleagues, I come from
Montenegro, which is the state where a lot of work
is under way to achieve the standards that represent
the conditions for accession to the European Unio
n. Still, before joining the EU, we have to solve som
e
important issues. One, which I believe is the most
important for a country, is that of status in respect of
government.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0006.png
AS (2005) CR 16
-6-
The citizens of Montenegro, like all citizens in the world, have the individual and collective right to
choose whether they would like to live in a union with someone or whether they want a sovereign,
independent Montenegro. Montenegro is preparing to hold its referendum in February 2006. We adopted
a new referendum law in 2001. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe participated in
developing this law and evaluated its compliance with European standards. Its provisions are much
stricter than is the case in other countries. It is a requirement that a simple majority — 50% plus one — of
the registered voters take part in the referendum and that the decision is passed with 50% plus one of the
total number of those who voted.
The answer to the question whether a resident or citizen should vote is absolutely clear and is
given in the Constitution of Montenegro, which says that a resident of Montenegro who has turned 18 has
the right to vote and to be voted for — that is, a resident, not a citizen. That is also the international
practice. Requirements that demand the registering of all citizens' names are contrary to the position of
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. In its evaluation of law on referenda, the OSCE
underscored the fact that the participation of citizens born in Montenegro, but who reside permanently in
Serbia, is not recommended, as they would have a double right to vote within the common state.
Creating a voting list following the Montenegrin diaspora is a process that requires diligence. It
might never be complete, thus leading to the possibility that the outcome of the referendum would be
contested. Does that mean that the citizens of Montenegro belong to the only nation in the world that does
not have the right to choose its own destiny, which is conditional on the choices of people who do not live
in Montenegro?
The efforts that have gone into drafting the texts are highly appreciated, and help to support good
practice in European referendums. I am convinced that the international community, including all the
European institutions and the Council of Europe, will defend the notion that human rights should apply to
all people, including us Montenegrins.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Ms Radulovi -åtepanovid. I call Mr Kocharyan.
Mr KOCHARYAN (Armenia). — I congratulate Mr Elo, the rapporteur, on his excellent report. The
referendum is a means of achieving direct and representative democracy. It an important mechanism that
enables the people to exercise power.
I agree with previous speakers that referenda only serve their objective in countries_ where the
results of voting are not falsified. In authoritarian countries, referenda can be used for anti-democratic
purposes such as imposing an anti-democratic constitution on the people, as happened in Armenia in
1995. A referendum can also be used to overturn the prohibition of a new term of office for authoritarian
leaders. Recently, that tactic was deployed by Lukashenko in Belarus. The general guidelines on
referenda that are being drafted by the Venice Commission should state clearly that such tactics are not
acceptable among Council of Europe member countries. The right to hold a referendum should not simply
be a provision in a country's constitution. Both its constitution and its laws should provide concrete
mechanisms for people to hold referenda.
The resolution that states that the electorate should be adequately informed about matters that
will be decided by referendum is of the utmost importance. If an issue that the authorities decide should be
put to a referendum has a number of different solutions, voters should be provided with the opportunity to
choose one of those solutions. The authorities should not try to predetermine the most beneficial solution
for them by making it the only option on the referendum. Before the constitutional referendum in Armenia
in 2003, two drafts were submitted to parliament, one tfy the President and the other by the opposition.
Only the draft proposed by the President was submitted to the referendum, but following the vote it was
not adopted:
The draft resolution deserves to be approved by the Assembly. Its approaches are important for
established democracies as well as for member states that are not yet democratic but are on the way to
democratisation and European integration. The people of Armenia are striving for democracy and should
have the right to express their will, but not via falsified elections and referenda.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Kocharyan. I call Mr Bojovit.
Mr BOJOVIO (Serbia and Montenegro) welcomed Mr Elo's report and said that it made a very
significant contribution to the debate. By adopting proper standards for referendums in the countries of the
Council of Europe we would strengthen the democratic process. Turning to Serbia and Montenegro, he
felt that recognition by the European Union would lead to greater integration of his country in, western
Europe. That was essential for the stabilisation of the whole region. After the Dayton Agreement the
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0007.png
- 7-
situation had become much more settled
in Serbia and Montenegro. Over 65%
of the population had
declared themselves as Serbian language spe
akers. It was important that arrangement
s for referendums
should be harmonised throughout Europe. He
supported the right of legal immigrants
to vote at the local
level. In constitutional referendums a two thir
ds majority was essential.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank
you, Mr Bojovid. I call Mr Torosyan.
AS (2005) CR 16
Mr TOROSYAN (Armenia) congratulated
Mr Elo on his excellent report. He wa
attention to the increase in number refe
s right to draw
of
rendums in Europe. It was right that non
-citizens who had lived
in a country for more than five years should
participate in local referendums and this
had been guaranteed
in Armenia since 2002. Referendums
should be used to give greater weight
to democratic decision
making and the Council of Europe could
do much by establishing common princip
les. There was a role for
citizens' initiatives and participation at
the local level. Many had voted in Nagorno-
Karabakh in 1994 and a
majority was in favour of independence
. There was a case for having another refe
rendum along the lines
recommended by the Council of Europe to
confirm the earlier decision.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank
you, Mr Torosyan. I call Mr 2i2id.
Mr 2I2IC (Serbia and Montenegro) gave
his support to the use of referendums in
states of the Council of Europe. This imp
the member
ortant report set out the principles that sho
uld be followed. There
were occasions in the life of a nation wh
en the national representatives could not nec
essarily come to a
decision and therefore a referendum
of the people was appropriate. In his
area of Montenegro the
government had sought a referendum to
change the constitution of Serbia and Mo
ntenegro and bring
about greater stability. It was extremely hel
pful to have standards to follow when hol
ding a referendum in
transitional circumstances. There were
a number of Montenegrins living in Serbia
and they must also be
allowed to express their views. He felt tha
t a qualified rather than a simple majority
should be secured. He
welcomed the report and hoped that matter
s would be resolved in Montenegro as soo
n as possible.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank
you, Mr 2riid. I call Mr Kalezid.
Mr KALEZIC (Serbia and Montenegro)
said that Montenegro would be holding a
first half of 2006 following standards agr
referendum in the
eed with the European Union. Mr Elo
's report had shown the
extent to which arrangements varied in
the various Council of Europe member
states and how important it
was to establish good practice. Monteneg
ro was one of the states which, with Se
rbia, remained within the
former Yugoslavia. There was a movem
ent for the independence of Monteneg
ro and in 2001 a new, law
on referendums in the area had been ado
pted. Montenegro welcomed the Counc
il of Europe's support for
common standards for referendums. He
hoped that Montenegrins in Serbia wo
uld be able to vote in any
referendums held in Montenegro, but it
was not right that they should vote in bot
h areas.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank
you, Mr Kalezid. I call Mr Severin.
Mr SEVERIN (Romania). — Not for the
first time, Mr Elo is a rapporteur on a
important topic and has presented us wit
very special and
h an excellent report. I commend him for
the excellent job that he
has done.
Many views that I share have already
been expressed. The referendum is
democratic instrument among others;
indeed just one
nobody thinks that it is all that there is
to democracy. Referenda
should not be seen as procedures that
are opposed to parliamentary represent
ative democracy — they are
a complementary instrument, not an
alternative. I agree with my colleague
s that it is important that
referenda cannot be considered valid
within an inappropriate democratic
environment. Without any
ideological connotation, one needs a
liberal democracy before being able
to take the approach of a
referendum.
There is another problem with referen
da — that of the distinction between
representation. One can be a repres
representativity and _
entative without being truly represent
ative — in other words, one can
speak on behalf of others although
those others do not represent a genuine
group that is asked to make
an important decision. The word "se
lf-determination" is there in the bac
kground. We should further
consider the dichotomy between rep
resentativity and representation, which
presents certain difficulties.
Should we consider referenda as
the best way towards self-determination
? Theoretically, perhaps yes;
practically, perhaps no.
I should like to make two more poi
nts. First, democracy is about decisio
about power-sharing. It is important
n-making, but it is also
to look to the possibilities for a fair debate
, a fair negotiation and a fair
procedure in order to share power
in the best possible way so as to leave
democracy to work in favour of
a constructive approach, not as a
recipe for divorces or splits.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0008.png
AS (2005) CR 16
- 8-
Secondly, democracy is about participation, and we have to look to referenda as a way of
increasing participation at a time when people show a certain apathy vis-å-vis their participation in political
life. There cannot be real democracy without "demos", and there is no "demos" without real participation.
Democracy without the participation of the people is a virtual democracy, not a real democracy. We should
therefore look towards ways to increase participation in order to consolidate the democratic mechanism,
and the referendum is one of them.
But democracy is not only about participation — it is about cohabitation. We must not only think
about the rights that some would like to promote by referenda but about how we can ensure that people
live together in a harmonious and peaceful way. Whenever referenda are a recipe for separation and not
at the same time a way for people to express a certain opinion or choice, we should be extremely cautious
in using them. That is the way in which the report should be read; certainly, it is the way in which I read it.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Severin. I call Mr BrajoviC.
Mr BRAJOVIC (Serbia and Montenegro) acknowledged the efforts of the rapporteur and
committee which deserved the support and respect of the Assembly. The present debate had aroused
significant interest in Montenegro. The Belgrade Agreement stated that Montenegro would be entitled to
organise a referendum on independence in the first half of 2006. This was in the framework of recognised
democratic standards and with the European Union acting as observer. The European peoples had no
good common standards for referendums and the practice varied between different states. Montenegro
remained in Yugoslavia after a referendum in 1992 which was held within seven days of its
announcement, and was held without the supervision of the Council of Europe.
There was a growing wish for independence in Montenegro. A new law on referendums had been
adopted which contained strict democratic conditions. Montenegrins who had emigrated to Serbia would
be granted the right to vote in Montenegro which was not a democratic standard. The Council of Europe
was the body best placed to create standards for referendums in Europe. He understood the distinctions
between direct and representative democracy. He was behind the amendment which had been tabled.
Referendums could be a means to reinforce democratic legitimacy. Nevertheless, it was important that
referendums should be seen not as alternatives to democracy but complementary to it. Montenegro was
faced with organising a referendum in the very near future. He welcomed the work of standards which
should be the same for everyone.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). —Thank you, Mr BrajoviC. That concludes the list of speakers. I
call Mr Elo, rapporteur, to reply.
Mr ELO (Finland). — I thank all those who participated in the debate. Our discussion has been
lively, interesting and many sided. All the speakers showed a fundamentally positive attitude towards
holding referenda. However, many mentioned the risks associated with referenda. Mr Cekuolis, who
spoke first in the debate, pointed to the risk of misusing referenda and he cited Belarus as an example.
Perhaps Belarus is the worst example of flagrant misuse of referenda. There are genuine risks of people
in power misusing that power when organising referenda. Mr Einarsson also pointed to the dangers and I
totally agree with his comments.
Ms Papadimitriou spoke about the balance between direct and indirect democracy. One of the
most difficult tasks in deciding whether to hold a referendum is taking account of that balance. However,
as I said in my introductory remarks, referenda should not be viewed as an alternative to parliamentary
democracy.
•
Mr Gross provided a good analysis of the arguments for holding referenda. He comes from a
country where referenda are part of the political system. That country is a good example of the use of
referenda and of giving citizens the possibility of power-sharing. Mr Severin also referred to that.
It was interesting to hear so many speakers from Serbia and Montenegro. I totally understand
their interest because, as they all said, a referendum will probably be held next February on
independence. I have spoken to journalists from Serbia and Montenegro in the past and it is interesting to
note their interest in that referendum. They are right to show such interest. I wish you luck with your
referendum and hope that you will achieve a good result.
Again, I thank all the participants in the debate.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Elo. I call Mr Toshev.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0009.png
-9-
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria). — First, I comme
nd the work of our distinguished rap
porteur, Mr Elo, who
is one of
the
most experienced members
of the Political Affairs Committee.
I thank him for dealing with
such an important issue.
I express my gratitude to all those who
took part in the debate, especially
Mr Kocharyan, who said
that the citizen has no direct means of par
ticipation other than referenda. Mr
Gross made an important
distinction between the referendum and
the plebiscite.
I pay tribute to Ms Papadimitriou and
thank her for her presence today.
For Eastern Orthodox
Christians, today is Good Friday, so it is
not easy for her to be in the Chamber
. She said that referenda
cannot be considered as alternatives to
parliamentary democracy but should
complement it.
Mr Severin pointed to the importance of
participation. He referred to antiquity
word "demos". I remind you all that, in
in his use of the
ancient times, in the town of Miletus, it wa
s decided that the number
of citizens should not exceed 5 000 bec
ause otherwise participation would be
difficult. That is why Miletus
produced so many communists.
The concept of a state of citizens could
be strengthened through the use of refe
should be well prepared and not misuse
renda but they
d. Once again, I thank our rapporteur, Mr
Elo.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Tha
nk you, Mr Toshev.
The debate is closed.
The Political Affairs Committee has
presented a draft recommendation in
Document 10498 to
which one amendment has been tabled
with two sub-amendments.
I remind you that speeches on amend
ments are limited to one minute.
We come to Amendment No. 1, tabled
by MM Luc Van Den Brande, Llufs Ma
Hanne Severinsen, MM G0ran Lindbl
ria De Puig, Ms
ad, Latchezar Toshev and Bernard Sch
reiner, which is, in the draft
recommendation, after paragraph 1, ins
ert the following paragraph:
"The Parliamentary Assembly considers
referendums as one of the instrument
to participate in the political decision-m
s enabling citizens
aking process and recogises the essent
ial contribution of organised
civil society in the framework of partici
pative democracy."
I call Mr Toshev to support the amend
ment.
AS (2005) CR 16
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria). — The amend
ment does not substantially change the
recommendation. It is a very reason
report or the draft
able amendment.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). —
Mr Elo has proposed two sub-amend
ments which can be
considered together but will be subjec
t to two votes. Sub-amendment No. 1
is tabled by Mr Elo, on behalf
of the Political Affairs Committee. It is
in Amendment No. 1, after the words
"decision-making process",
replace the word "and" with the following
words:
"; it also".
Sub-amendment No. 2 is tabled by
Mr Elo, on behalf of the Political Aff
amendment 1, replace the word "pa
airs Committee. It is in
rticipative" with the following word:
"participatory'.
I call Mr Elo to support the oral sub
-amendments.
Mr ELO (Finland). — If Sub-amendm
ent No. 1 is adopted, the words "de
cision-making process" in
Amendment No. 1 will be followed
by "; it also recognises". Sub-amend
ment No. 2 is linguistic and simply
replaces the word "participative" wit
h "participatory".
No. 1?
THE PRESIDENT (Translation).
— Does anyone wish to speak aga
inst oral Sub-amendment
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee
?
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0010.png
AS (2005) CR 16
- 10 -
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria). — The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The vote is open.
Oral Sub-amendment No. 1 is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against oral Sub-amendment No. 2?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria). — The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The vote is open.
Oral Sub-amendment No. 2 is adopted.
Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria). — The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The vote is open.
Amendment No. 1, as amended, is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Doc. 10498,
as amended.
The vote is open.
The draft recommendation in Doc. 10498, as amended, is adopted.
(Ms Papadimitriou, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Schreiner.)
5. Sea pollution
THE PRESIDENT. — The last item of business this morning is the debate on the report on sea
pollution presented by Mr Lengagne on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and
Local and Regional Affairs, Document 10485.
The list of speakers closed at 5.30 p.m. yesterday. Eight names are on the list, and two
amendments have been tabled.
I call Mr Lengagne, rapporteur.
Mr LENGAGNE (France) said that the title of the report itself indicated the vast scope of the topic.
The sea was essential to all life and was threatened d'aily in its internal equilibrium by various forms of
pollution. There were two ways in which to think about that problem. Firstly, there was pollution that
stemmed from the land, a form of indirect pollution, occurring when waste was dumped in rivers and
ended up in the sea. He did not wish to discuss that particular form of pollution in detail but said that many
countries were aware of the problem and were taking steps to resolve it. Secondly, there was the problem
of ship-source pollution which often made the headlines. Rightly, many countries were very concerned
about that too. The problem would seem to be getting worse as ship traffic was increasing, particularly in
the Adriatic Sea. Legislation aimed at resolving the problems-caused by this form of pollution could not
keep up with increases in maritime traffic.
There were two ways in which to address the issue. Firstly, when an accident occurred the
situation clearly had to be dealt with. It was up to individual countries to bear the brunt of the work
necessary to clean up after such accidents. Countries were often treated unfairly when it came to
compensation. For example the Prestige accident had resulted in €1 billion worth of damage tor which the
communities involved had not received full compensation to date. There was also the problem of
sanctions. Although some incidents of pollution were accidental, 80 % of such cases could be attributed to
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0011.png
- 11 -
waste discharge and suitable sanctions mu
st be provided to deal with those
cases. The nature of the
sanctions must be decided to ensure that the res
ponsible parties were penalised app
ropriately. Too often
the responsible parties escaped sanctio
ns, which were instead imposed on sca
pegoats. For example, the
captain of the Prestige had been blame
d for that accident and. although he did
not want to criticise the
Spanish authorities, he felt that this was wro
ng.
It was clear that sanctions needed to be
imposed on the country responsible for
polluted, the so called "flag state", that is,
a ship that
the country whose flag was on the shi
p. This country should be
held liable for accidents from a civil point
of view and should be made to compensat
e victims accordingly.
It was also important to ensure that shi
p crews received proper and full trai
ning as 80% of
accidents were caused by human failings.
Such accidents could be likened to roa
d accidents. In France
improved sanctions had recently been imp
osed on drivers who took to the wheel
under the influence and
this had led to a drop in the number of roa
d accidents.
There was also a political element to
ship source pollution. He cited again the
case of the Prestige
accident which partly stemmed from the
recommendations of the European Ca
pital Commission not being-
adopted. Sometimes drastic action needed
to be taken by countries to deal with
"rogue" ships. In 1985
France had sunk a ship that was on
fire in international waters and posed
a threat. Such action was
necessary and appropriate.
It was important that the European Un
ion should take on a pioneering role in
the problem of sea pollution, anticip
finding solutions to
ating in some instances the work still
to be undertaken by the
International Maritime Organisation. The
report had made reference to European
Union initiatives in that
area. The one issue where interna
tional co-operation was essential was
in combating the problems
involved in international shipping. Me
mbers of the Assembly should be act
ive in encouraging their
countries to ratify the relevant conven
tions, as many had not done so to date. Hu
man beings were entitled
to live in a clean and safe environment.
It was necessary to preserve the sea
s as a space of freedom and
to prevent pollution from interfering wit
h the most basic source of life.
THE PRESIDENT. — Thank you, Mr
Lengagne. I call Mr Dupraz who will spe
Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Gro
ak on behalf of the
up.
Mr DUPRAZ (Switzerland) said that it
may seem that he was a strange choice
of speaker because
Switzerland had no coast and did not
engage in shipping activities to any
great extent. But the issue of
sea pollution was a problem for everyb
ody, as water, along with air and soi
l, was essential to life and to
maintaining the equilibrium of our planet
. It was scandalous that the environme
nt was not being respected.
The question arose about what sort of
a world would be left to subsequent
generations. Politicians must
not allow the needs of global trade
to triumph over the needs of the earth.
The sea was a free, natural
resource that had always been importa
nt for communications and trade. Exc
essive and unsafe shipping
should not threaten those who depend
on the sea for their livelihood. There
should never again be an
accident like the one involving the Pre
stige.
The prevalence of oil discharges and
ballast flushing must be combated.
practices should be severe and dissua
Penalties for such
sive. Less scrupulous countries which
sent unsafe vessels into the
water should bear the consequences of
their actions. Too often the victims of
pollution were not thought of
and after complicated legal proced
ures the compensation they receiv
ed was inadequate. Member
countries should be encouraged to be
cautious and responsible.
The Assembly should be grateful to Mr
Lengagne, the rapporteur, for his exe
excellent resolution. On behalf of
mplary report and its
the LDR party he invited the Assem
bly to accept the resolution
wholeheartedly in the interests of the futu
re of all.
THE PRESIDENT. — Thank you, Mr
Dupraz. I call Mr Mirzazada who will
European Democratic Group.
speak on behalf of the
Mr MIRZAZADA (Azerbaijan) said tha
t his country bordered the Caspian
affected by the same problems as fac
Sea and was therefore
ed other maritime nations. All were
affected by oil pollution and this
had been ignored in the past and
must be tackled much more effectiv
ely now. This was not the last
generation to need clean seas. Our
children and grandchildren would exp
ect a safe environment and we
could not get to the situation where
the next generation asked, 'What is a
clean sea?" It was essential to
reduce the exploitation of the sea
. It was not possible to go on extrac
ting material without thinking of the
consequences. We should limit the use
we make of the sea's resources. Inte
rnational organisations had a
role to play in enforcing the existing
rules and this report was an importa
nt contribution to the debate.
AS (2005) CR 16
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0012.png
AS (2005) CR 16
- 12 -
of the
THE PRESIDENT. — Thank you, Mr Mirzazada. I call Mr Schreiner on behalf of the Group
European People's Party.
ening of the
Mr SCHREINER (France) congratulated Mr Lengagne on his report. Greater strength
two recent examples
rules had led to a drop in the number of maritime accidents, but there were the
the Prestige
involving the Erika and the Prestige. The French Parliament had set up an inquiry after
European Union or
disaster. So much depended on whether the arrangements were bilateral or at the
protection was now
international. He welcomed the passing of the United States Oil Pollution Act. Wider
whereby the risk could be
necessary within the EU, but it was important to prevent the eviction effect
number of
transferred to other countries where the coasts were most vulnerable. There had been a
ion of 1982, but the
initiatives such as the London Convention of 1954 and the Montego Bay Convent
however,
picture was a patchy one and more needed to be done. The Montego Bay Convention had,
belonged to the
involved port, flag and coastal states. One hundred and sixty-two countries now
of single-
International Maritime Organisation and a plan had recently been adopted to phase out the use
s to carriers
hull tankers. Neither the IMO nor its member states could carry out inquiries or apply sanction
July 2003
who broke the law. The French Parliament's report on the Prestige disaster was published in
Europe must do
and had shown how liability had not been accepted by those responsible. The Council of
much welcomed
it all it could to prevent such accidents and protect those affected in the future. He very
Mr Lengagne's report.
THE PRESIDENT. — Thank you, Mr Schreiner. I call Mr Steenblock.
Mr STEENBLOCK (Germany) welcomed the report and said how much we depended on the sea.
However, care was needed to ensure the safety of all. Eight hundred million tonnes of oil passed through
through the
European Union ports according to the most recent figures available and many tankers sailed
a
waters of the Council of Europe countries. He congratulated the European Union for adopting
requirement three weeks ago that oil could no longer be carried in single-hull tankers. Profits were made
by private companies, but the damage caused by accidents affected everyone and the state bore the
brunt of dealing with the aftermath. In 1992 a system of international oil pollution compensation had been
established and that had been updated in 2003. He called for higher insurance premiums to be charged
on the "polluter pays" principle. All flag and port states were liable but it was essential that individual ship
owners bore the responsibility for the safety of their vessels. He regretted that in 2004 only six EU states
had signed up to the international oil pollution compensation arrangements and called on Greece, Cyprus
and Malta to withdraw their opposition. The report set out the necessary action to be taken and he
congratulated the rapporteur.
(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Papadimitriou)
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Steenblock. I call Mr Gardetto.
Mr GARDETTO (Monaco) welcomed the report and described how maritime accidents could
affect coasts, fauna and flora. There had been a whole series of such incidents, including Exxon Valdez,
Erika and the Prestige. Many resolutions had been passed such as Resolutions 1229 and 1370 of the
Assembly. The seas were increasingly treated as a dumping ground and it was crucial that any
irresponsibility and criminality involved was tackled appropriately. Just as the Kyoto agreement had sought
to tackle the problem of greenhouse gases, the Council of Europe should set standards to protect the
maritime environment. Negligence only led to further problems. Monaco was well aware of the risks of
marine pollution and had joined with its neighbours, France and Italy, to take steps to protect their coasts.
Monaco was committed to greater inspection and control of vessels and common rules must be adopted.
If flag of convenience ships broke the law, firm treatment should be administered. He congratulated Mr
Lengagne on his excellent report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you, Mr Gardetto. I call Mr Jakavonis to speak on behalf
of the Liberal, Democratic and Reformers' Group.
Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania) congratulated the rapporteur who had identified the problem and put
forward practical solutions. In his area, the Baltic had suffered from the dumping of chemical weapons
during the Second World War. Unesco had protected certain areas, but Russia had so far failed to agree
to a system of compensation and Lithuania felt very vulnerable to accidents involving oil tankers and the
consequent pollution. He urged the Council of Europe to take action.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). - Thank you,-Mr Jakavonis. That concludes the list of speakers. I
call the rapporteur, Mr Lengagne.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0013.png
AS (2005) CR 16
Mr LENGAGNE (France) said that he had
little to add. He congratulated his
friend Mr Dupraz on
his seafaring experience. The speaker from
Azerbaijan had referred to the Ca
spian Sea, but the
committee had been unable to deal with inla
nd seas. All the recommendations of the
committee in respect
of oceans and seas applied even more strictly
to such inner seas. Reference was ma
de to the problem of
the D6 oil rig facing the Kola peninsula wh
ich was a Unesco world heritage site
. He would be happy to
discuss that problem which would, howeve
r, be the subject of a separate report.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Thank you
.
Does the Chairperson of the Committee on
the Environment, Agriculture and Loc
Affairs, Mr Schmied, wish to speak?
al and Regional
Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland) said that his
tory was soon forgotten — for examp
le, when everyone
had watched television pictures of ships
like the Prestige sinking. Solutions
to such catastrophes were
now available. A great effort had to be
made to avoid the sea becoming an
open sewer. In order to save
itself the sea regurgitated its waste. The
re were many other forms of catastrophe;
many ships sank, and
the statistics for that were known to
insurers and underwriters. He had been
impressed by the standard of
the important debate on a subject which
affected everyone in the world.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The
debate is closed. The Committee on
Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs
the Environment,
has presented a draft resolution in Do
cument 10485 to which
two amendments have been tabled. The
amendments will be taken in the order 2,
1.
I remind members that speeches on am
endments are limited to one minute.
We come to Amendment No. 2 tabled
by Mr Toomas Alatalu, Mr Saulius Bucev
Bårzin, Mr Oskars Kaståns, Ms Ing
itlus, Mr Andris
rida Circene, Ms Anta Rugåte, Mr Rudolf
Bindig, Mr Kimmo Sasi, Mr
Marko Mihkelson, Mr Andres Herkel,
Mr Egidijus Vareikis, Mr Gediminas Jak
avonis, which is, in the draft
resolution, at the end of paragraph 7, add
the following words:
"and single-hull oil tankers should be forb
idden.".
I call Mr Jakavonis to support the amend
ment.
ports.
Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania) said the
amendment was to restrict access of sin
gle hulled tankers to
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Does
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland). -The com
mittee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The
Amendment No. 2 is adopted.
We come to Amendment No. 1, tab
led by MM Guy Lengagne, John Du
Adrian Severin, Renzo Gubert, which
praz, Gy0rgy Frunda,
is, in the draft resolution, after paragr
aph 12.vi, insert the following
sub-paragraph:
"sign and/or ratify the International
Convention on Liability and Comp
connection with the Carriage of Hazar
ensation for Damage in
dous and Noxious Substances by Se
a (HNS Convention) and the
Council of Europe Convention on
the Protection of the Environment
through Criminal Law (CETS No
172);".
I call Mr Lengagne to support Amend
ment No. 1.
vote is open.
anyone wish to speak against the amend
ment?
- 13 -
Mr LENGAGNE (France) said the
amendment was to seek the rati
fication of conventions. He
would not give the Assembly a list
of the culprits. There were two
conventions. The first was the HNS
Convention, which was an IMO con
vention from 1996, which only two
states had ratified. The second
stemined from a Council of Europ
e agreement dating from 1998. Alth
ough thirteen states had signed that
convention only one, Estonia, had
ratified it. That was shameful.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0014.png
AS (2005) CR 16
- 14 -
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?
That is not the case.
What is the opinion of the committee?
Mr SCHMIED (Switzerland). —The committee is in favour.
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — The vote is open.
Amendment No. 1 is adopted.
We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 10485.
The draft resolution in Document 10485, as amended, is adopted.
6. End of the part session
THE PRESIDENT (Translation). — We have now come to the end of our business.
I would like to thank all members of the Assembly, particularly rapporteurs of committees, for their
hard work during this part-session. I would also like to thank the staff, both permanent and temporary, who
have worked hard to make the part-session a success. I can assure you that many of them worked
through a great deal of the night last week.
The Third Part of the 2005 Ordinary Session will be held from Monday 20 June to Friday 24 June
2005.
I declare the Second Part of the 2005 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe closed.
The sitting was closed at 12.05 p.m.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0015.png
-15 -
AS (2005) CR 16
CONTENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Adoption of the minutes
References to committees
Written declaration
Referendums
Presentation by Mr Elo of report, Document
10498, on behalf of the Political Affairs
Committee
Speakers:
Mr Oekuolis (Lithuania)
Mr E tsson (Sweden)
Ms P'å.padimitriou (Greece) .
Mr Gross (Switzerland)
Mr Sami (Serbia and Montenegro)
Ms Radulovid-ådepanovi (Serbia and
Montenegro)
Mr Kocharyan (Armenia)
Mr Bojovi (Serbia and Montenegro)
Mr Torosyan (Armenia)
Mr
2f2i .
(Serbia and Montenegro)
Mr Kalezie (Serbia and Montenegro)
Mr Severin (Romania)
Mr Brajovi (Serbia and Montenegro)
Mr Toshev (Bulgaria)
Amendment No. 1, as amended, adopte
d.
Draft recommendation contained in Do
cument 10498, as amended, adopted.
5.
Sea Pollution
Presentation by Mr Lengagne--- f report,
o
Document 10485, on behalf of the Co
mmittee on the
Environment, Agriculture and Local and
Regional Affairs
Speakers:
Mr Dupraz (Switzerland)
Mr Mirzazada (Azerbaijan)
Mr Schreiner (France)
Mr Steenblock (Germany)
Mr Gardetto (Monaco)
Mr Jakavonis (Lithuania)
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 adopted.
Draft resolution contained in Document
6.
End of the part session
10485, as a' mended, adopted.
 ERD, Alm.del - 2004-05 (2. samling) - Bilag 59: 2005 Ordinary Session, (Second Part) Report, Sixteenth sitting, Friday 29 April at 10 a.m.
2596984_0016.png