Quote:

---

Doc. 10961
12 June 2006



Ratification of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the member states of the Council of Europe

Report
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Rapporteur: Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Latvia, Socialist Group

Summary

The protection of national minorities and the promotion of their rights are among the greatest successes of the Council of Europe and one with which the Parliamentary Assembly is closely associated. They are essential for maintaining social and political stability, for democratic security, and for the prevention of social tensions, as well as for promoting diversity of cultures and languages in Europe.

The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has been ratified by 38 of the Council of Europe’s 46 member states. Four states - Belgium, Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg - have signed but not ratified; four other states - Andorra, France, Monaco and Turkey - have neither signed nor ratified.

A. Draft recommendation

2. To date, four states – Belgium, Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg – have signed the Framework Convention but have still not ratified it, and four others – Andorra, France, Monaco and Turkey – have neither signed nor ratified. The Assembly recalls that in Recommendation 1492 (2001), it already called upon the above-mentioned states to sign and/or ratify as soon as possible and without reservations and declarations the Framework Convention. It deplores the derisory progress that has been made with regard to ratification since its last 2003 recommendation was adopted: only three new ratifications – by the Netherlands, Latvia and Georgia – have been recorded.

5. The Assembly notes that Andorra, Belgium, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco and Turkey are persisting in their refusal to sign or ratify the Framework Convention, on the ground that they respect the principle of non-discrimination in their domestic law. It is therefore surprised that they are still not parties to Protocol No 12 and would regard ratification of Protocol No 12 by these seven states as evidence of their desire to match their deeds to their words, and thus ensure effective protection for the rights of persons belonging to national minorities or to minority groups under the authority of the European Court of Human Rights.

II. Analysis of obstacles in the way of ratification of the Framework Convention

i. France, Greece, Turkey

14. These three states – France, Greece and Turkey – present similarities: first as regards their constitutional and legal systems, and secondly because they do not recognise the existence of national minorities on their territory.

a. France: the constitutional argument that the nation is indivisible


b. Greece: favouring the approach to non-discrimination defined by EU instruments

21. Both in their reply to the questionnaire and at the hearing in November 2005, the Greek authorities were keen to point out that the Greek constitutional and legislative framework is fully in conformity with the fundamental principles set forth in international instruments, including the Framework Convention. According to the reply from the Greek parliamentary delegation, there is “no obstacle of a constitutional, legal or political kind to ratification of the Framework Convention by parliament”, and the delegation is therefore optimistic about the prospect of seeing the Framework Convention ratified in the near future.

22. The Greek constitution fully recognises the principles of equality under the law and non-discrimination; Articles 4 and 5 prohibit discrimination on the basis of belonging to a minority. Several laws exist to preserve and promote the religion, language and cultural heritage of minority groups. The Lausanne Treaty of 1923 secures to the members of the Muslim minority in the Greek territory rights relating to religion, language and education which in some respects go beyond those envisaged in the Framework Convention. The legislation in force ensures the promotion and protection of the rights of minorities, even providing for measures of positive discrimination, especially in the educational sphere. Persons with a specific ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity enjoy freedom of thought, conscience, expression, assembly, association, etc. without restriction. Practice is likewise in accord with international obligations concerning respect for fundamental human rights: for example, there are Turkish-language electronic and print media.

23. At the hearing on 22 November 2005, the Greek government representatives stressed the approach being followed at the present time, which aims to strengthen the legislative framework in order to ensure strict respect for the principle of non-discrimination. Two European Union directives on implementation of the principle of equal treatment of all persons irrespective of race or ethnic origin (2000/43/EC), and equal treatment in employment and labour (2000/78/EC), were incorporated into Greek law in 2005. The new legislation seeks to give effect to the principle of equal treatment whatever a person’s racial or ethnic origin, religious or other beliefs, handicap, age or sexual orientation; it also establishes institutions to promote equal treatment.

24. The Greek government considers that the kind of protection afforded by Community law is far more substantial for the persons concerned, first because it tackles the most fundamental problem facing the members of minority groups – discrimination – and secondly because the inflexible supervision exercised by the Community organs really guarantees that the relevant domestic legislation is passed in time and actually applied. Moreover, the Greek representatives at the hearing emphasised that this broader approach made it possible to include the problems of the new minorities whose members, in Greece, make up a far bigger proportion of the population than persons claiming to belong to minority groups.

c. Turkey: promoting application of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights

25. It is regrettable that the Turkish parliamentary delegation did not reply to the questionnaire sent to states which have not ratified. However, the delegation was represented at the hearing in November 2005 and so had an opportunity to make its views known. They are very close to the position expressed by the Greek delegation, claiming application of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights. Its representatives also pointed to the basic shortcoming of the Framework Convention which, by focussing on national minorities only, takes no account of the new minorities resulting from immigration. From their point of view, it is in particular paramount to promote and protect the rights of millions of Turkish citizens living in western Europe, for whom the Framework Convention is irrelevant.

26. Reference is therefore made here to the stance taken by the Assembly and expressed in Resolution 1380 (2004) on the honouring of commitments and obligations by Turkey, in which it invites Turkey to ratify the Framework Convention 5.


V. Conclusions

69. Moreover, it is an approach which the Parliamentary Assembly supports, in parallel, when it seeks to promote ratification of Protocol No 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights. Even so, those same states, which are so ready to criticise, must prove themselves above reproach and be parties to the Protocol. One may therefore legitimately wonder why countries such as France, Greece or Turkey have still not ratified Protocol No 12 on non-discrimination.

---

- albwatch -

- albwatch -

Quote:

---

Why are albanians interested in this anyway?Only refugees and people that run away from their homlands and settle in other countries should be interested in this.

---

-----------------
It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended, but the glory belongs to our ancestors.
--Plutarch

Quote:

---

Because we won!!!!
5 mayors of the minority won !!!

---

___________________________________________________________
Dobrica Cosic Former Yugoslav President.
“Lažemo da bi smo obmanuli sebe, da utešimo drugog; lažemo iz samilosti, da nas nije strah, da ohrabrimo, da sakrijemo svoju i tudju bedu, lažemo zbog poštenja. Lažemo zbog slobode. Laž je vid našeg patriotizma i potvrda naše urodjene inteligencije. Lažemo stvaralacki, maštovito, inventivno.”

“We lie to deceive ourselves, to console others; we lie for mercy, we lie to fight fear, to encourage ourselves, to hide our and somebody else’s misery. We lie for love and honesty. We lie because freedom. The lie is the trait of our patriotism and the proof of our innate smartness. We lie creatively, imaginatively, inventively.”

Dobrica Cosic Former Yugoslav President “The Divisions”

Burden of fault caries the Orthodox Church! If you have a chance to read “The Mountain Wreath” written by P.P. Njegoš you will see how Vladika (high rank clergyman and statesman) blesses those who murdered their own brothers of different faith – Slavic muslims (bošnjaci) and very likely Albanians of the Monte Negro too.
_____________________

- albwatch -

"Ardelean copil de munte, ia ridica`ti a ta frunte, si te`nsufla de mandrie, ca esti fiu de Romanie"

Quote:

---

Romania

International Religious Freedom Report 2006
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

In February 2005, the Government abolished the requirement of a construction permit from a special national commission in order to build places of worship; instead, only local permits are required as with any construction. Minority religions, however, continued to report unjustified opposition by local authorities to granting such permits for some minority religious groups.

Restrictions on Religious Freedom

There is no law against proselytizing, nor is there a clear understanding by the authorities of what activities constitute proselytizing. Although proselytizing is protected by law, several minority religious groups, which include both recognized and unrecognized religions, made credible complaints that low-level government officials and Romanian Orthodox clergy impeded their efforts to proselytize, interfered in religious activities, and otherwise discriminated against them during the period covered by this report.


In many cases, religious minorities have not succeeded in regaining possession of properties, despite restitution by these decrees. Many properties returned by decree contain government offices, schools, hospitals, or cultural institutions that would require relocation, and lawsuits and protests by current possessors have delayed restitution of the property to rightful owners. In July 2005, new legislation to improve the process of property restitution came into effect. The law clarified and simplified the procedures for property restitution; broadened the scope of restitution; established new application deadlines and fines for the officials who hindered the process; and created a $4 billion (ROL 117,884 billion) property fund to pay damages to former owners for properties that cannot be returned in kind. These provisions resolved some of the impediments to property restitution in earlier legislation that were criticized by religious denominations, i.e., not restituting the land of demolished buildings and not providing for compensation. Although the large majority of restitution cases of religious property remained unresolved, the pace of restitution increased slightly during the period covered by this report as a result of the new legislation. In many cases, local authorities refused to turn over restituted properties in which county or municipal governments had an interest and challenged the decisions of the Special Restitution Commission in court. There were many complaints that the local authorities consistently delayed supplying information about the reclaimed properties to the Special Restitution Commission, thereby obstructing the restitution process, despite the fines stipulated by the new legislation for such delays. The Office of Property Restitution reported at the end of the reporting period, however, that local authorities were improving with regard to supplying information. The number of restitution claims submitted by religious denominations increased because of the six-month extension of the deadline for the submission of claims, i.e., until January 25, 2006. The compensation process had not begun by June 30, 2006.

---

- albwatch -

"Ardelean copil de munte, ia ridica`ti a ta frunte, si te`nsufla de mandrie, ca esti fiu de Romanie"

-----------------
It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended, but the glory belongs to our ancestors.
--Plutarch

Quote:

---

Because we won!!!!
5 mayors of the minority won !!!

---

Quote:

---

They were not all "5 mayors". And it's 5 out of 384 winners/electoral entities for the whole country. (not even 2%)

---

Quote:

---

I don't think anyone particularly cares about the elections in Himara... Nobody in Albania, thats for sure.

---

Quote:

---

Plus, the main (Greek) minority party (PBDNJ) had put candidates (with Muslim & Catholic names) as far north as Kukes, Shkoder and even Malesi e Madhe (Bajza e Kastratit).

---

-------------------------------------------------
SarPlaninac's own Darwinian evolution;


Before


Sar now

A slight improvement ... but he needs to break Jacko's record in order to look decent. Right flubby?

P:S Sar, stop shaving your eyebrow and you might advertise for McDonald's my dear friend. Some serious bucks in that bussines!

-----------------
It is indeed a desirable thing to be well-descended, but the glory belongs to our ancestors.
--Plutarch

Edited by: Meltdown711  at: 2/22/07 9:12 pm