19 квітня 2021 року
DEBATE: PRESERVING NATIONAL MINORITIES IN EUROPE
Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO (Ukraine, EPP/CD, Spokesperson for the group) (брала участь онлайн, витяг із протоколу засідань)
Good afternoon to everyone.
I would like to start with complimenting the report and saying that it's so good that we have this discussion. However, at the same time I can say that I'm very sad that in 21st century in Europe we are still having this conversation whether ethnic minorities are protected enough.
Unfortunately, the reality that we have in Europe shows that there are many challenges that different ethnic minorities currently suffer, starting from access to health, COVID vaccine vaccination, and ending with severe violence, aggression and intolerance. Something that makes me very happy when I see this report is that there are many language issues and challenges that are reported. However, other challenges such as hate speech and the spread of fake news about the ethnic minorities is not mentioned and analyzed enough. Unfortunately, what we see is that some member States can really become a parasite and use the justification to protect national minorities as justification to intervene into other state affairs, which is very alarming, which happened in Ukraine, and which happens in different states.
I believe that when we talk about protection of ethnic minorities, we should always separate the political part and the real human rights situation. We shouldn't lie about what some member States are doing simply to justify they aggression.
Another thing that I want to mention, although I wish it were mentioned more in the report, is the protection of Roma minority rights. As we know, COVID-19 and the situation that happened in Europe undermined the human rights situation within Roma communities and their access to the health education and to jobs. Many Roma people lost their jobs, and this is very very alarming.
To conclude, I would like to stress that I believe that there is only one solution that we all can do together, which is to promote more and more education on tolerance, about inclusion and about respect towards each other. I would really like for us one day not to have to have this discussion where something is not being done well enough and for us to have the Europe that we are dreaming about and that it will enjoy peace and mutual respect.
Thank you.
DEBATE: PRESERVING NATIONAL MINORITIES IN EUROPE
Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA (Ukraine, ALDE, Spokesperson for the group): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear Colleagues,
First of all, I want to thank the rapporteur for her work regarding these important issues.
Preserving national minorities in Europe, multilingualism, multiculturalism, and unity in diversity are among the core values of the Council of Europe, which are democracy, human rights and rule of law.
These fundamentals must be ensured for all societies, for all citizens majority or minority nationals. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe is strongly committed to the insurance, enhancing and defending our common core values including equality, non-discrimination, social justice, inclusive and open debate. National minorities are equal citizens who deserve to be treated with respect and sensitivity. Their contributions to cultural diversity should be appreciated.
We welcome the draft resolution and recommendation as the intent to reform Council of Europe members to the framework Conventions for the protection of national minorities and encourage those States which haven't ratified it.
Respecting and protecting national minorities is associated with preserving stability, democratic security and peace in Europe, as well as related to the climate of tolerance and dialogue. Legislative and policy measures are very important, therefore, in particular, to ensure that a person belonging to a national minority can exercise participation meaningfully in cultural, social and economic life, and in public affairs in the country in which they live. It is what researchers in immigration study call "acculturation" or "integration".
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
The issue of national minorities has been and will be discussed numerous times in this Assembly. But what is crucial today is not to let this topic be manipulated for it to become an instrument of hybrid conflicts. I want to add that in the resolution, the report doesn't take into account that language can be used as an instrument in hybrid politics which goes beyond national minority policies or intention of cultural preservation.
After all, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe condemns, stigmatisation, discrimination and violence against national minorities and calls to combat hate speech in media and in political speeches. We call to strengthen multilateral dialogue and to more multifaceted cooperation with civil society and acknowledge to the value of minorities in the intellectual development of Europe.
Thank you for your attention.
DEBATE: PRESERVING NATIONAL MINORITIES IN EUROPE
Mr Oleg VOLOSHYN (Ukraine, SOC): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you.
First I would like to join those who have congratulated Ms Elvira KOVÁCS on her really brilliant work on this really deep and comprehensive and unbiased report.
I'm happy to see that in this report the challenges to national minority rights in my own country, Ukraine, are really reflected. It's no wonder, I believe, that Ms Elvira KOVÁCS made a study visit to Ukraine and possibly these were the findings of those visits that allowed her to be one of the first, if not the first, in this honourable Assembly who supported my call for a current affairs debate on challenges to national minorities in Ukraine as a specific issue.
I fully agree that there is always the need to find a balance between the legitimate right to promote the state language, and an even not less, or even more legitimate obligation of every nation state to protect the weak, thus to protect the minorities.
In 2017, in Kiev, the Eurovision Song Contest was held under the slogan 'Celebrate Diversity'. Brilliant, a very modern and very cute slogan, but unfortunately one that has very little to do with the reality on the ground, because it's not diversity that, already for eight years, one after another government and our country has tried to celebrate, but unification and assimilation. They try to build a form of society where in the public domain everyone speaks one language and professes one ideology, namely the nationalist ideology.
From our opponents we often hear that no one in Ukraine prohibits anyone from speaking Hungarian or Romanian or Russian in private, but the very notion is discrimination in itself. Can you imagine supporting the policy of any government that would say that it's okay if in private someone is Muslim, a woman, LGBT, a Jew, etc. etc.
The protection of national minorities is precisely about the opportunity for them to speak their language and freely use their language in the public domain.
I can give you just one small example. In this honourable plenary room, we all see that Russian is a working language. However, it doesn't preclude the Assembly from very often being critical of this or those policies of Russia. So I can enjoy the ride (I can speak in Russian here at the Assembly), but unfortunately I don't have the right to do that back in my own parliament in Kiev. Every time I try to speak Russian in Parliament, the speaker switches off the microphone under the pressure of nationalist groups. The language of my vote is a language that almost everyone in Ukraine knows, or at least every second [person] believes to be the native one. So why is Russian ok in Strasbourg and not ok in Kiev?
I would like also to stress that, definitely, there is already a proven tradition of Ukrainian government to ignore the conclusions of the Venice Commission and the recommendations enshrined in the resolutions consequently adopted in this honourable Assembly in defence of national minority languages and other national minority rights in my country.
That needs to be stopped. I think that we should be a showcase, as a country, where national minorities enjoy all rights. Thank you.
DEBATE: PRESERVING NATIONAL MINORITIES IN EUROPE
Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK (Ukraine, ALDE): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you.
Dear Colleagues,
Dear Ms KOVÁCS,
First of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her draft Resolution and the draft Recommendation centred on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which Ukraine fully accessed in 1998. Without a doubt, the Convention is the instrument of international law bringing the implementation of its standards closer to people.
I have to underline that the Ukrainian authorities are very much aware of the diverse issues and concerns related to minorities. Because of that, the State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience was established earlier last year. Also, I would like to underline that we are preparing new legislation on national minorities in Ukraine. We hope to adopt the law at least in the first region this year, and it will be widely discussed with representatives of national minorities in Ukraine.
The recently sharpened seven-year ongoing armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and the illegal occupation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, all together, has completely shifted Ukraine's landscape since 2014.
Also, to understand minority issues: there are 48,000 displaced people from Crimea. We now have more than 100 Ukrainian citizens who are political prisoners [being] detained by the occupying authorities; most of them are Crimean Tatars.
In practice, the level of education in Crimean Tatar language in occupied Crimea is decreasing. In practice, schools in Crimea are left without the Ukrainian language of education. By the way, the Crimean Tatars are indigenous people of Crimea.
Thank you Ms KOVÁCS, I will support the Resolution.
DEBATE: PRESERVING NATIONAL MINORITIES IN EUROPE
Ms Maryna BARDINA (Ukraine, ALDE): (Витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear colleagues,
Dear Madam rapporteur,
Thank you for the report prepared on the issue of national minorities. It is extremely important for Ukraine. The Ukrainian authorities have been working on strengthening dialogue with representatives of national minorities for a long time.
"I'm a Member of Parliament from the Ukrainian parliament. I speak Ukrainian and Russian, and nobody can take that right away from me." [spoken in Russian]
For the Ukranian delegation it is crucial that Madam rapporteur has paid attention to the illegal occupation of the Crimean Peninsula by the Russian Federation. Since the beginning of the occupation in 2014, Russia has been pursuing the policy of suppression and Russian illegal authorities have committed multiple human rights violations especially against Crimean Tatars. In the discussed report Madam rapporteur has mentioned the bilateral meetings with the Ukrainian government and Civil Society organisations that were held in November 2020. It is very valuable for us that such meetings were initiated and direct dialogue with national stakeholders was established.
According to the Constitution, Ukraine is continuing to promote the development of the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of indigenous peoples and national minorities in Ukraine. I also want to note the important issue of the Roma national minority because it is one of the most underrepresented groups across the member States and whose basic rights worsened during the quarantine. Representatives of Roma communities admitted limitation of their rights, for example, to health and education.
Despite the crisis caused by the pandemic, I would like to note some positive developments. Despite the two past years in Ukraine we have organised Roma political schools supported by the Council of Europe and the Ukrainian Parliament. Government representatives have been actively involved in these educational courses. As a result, more than 30 representatives of Roma communities participated in local elections in October 2020 in Ukraine and some of them have become deputies of local councils. When we talk about the protection of the rights of national minorities in Europe, we need to promote such good practices of political empowerment because political and civil participation are key for human rights protection.
Thank you.
20 квітня 2021 року
CURRENT AFFAIRS DEBATE: COVID PASSPORTS OR CERTIFICATES: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA (Ukraine, on behalf of EPP/CD): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Merci Président, Chers collègues,
I would like to start my speech with words of gratitude to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Marija Pejčinović Burić, who issued guidelines recently to governments to safeguard human rights using such certification or immunisation. This particular document highlights the relevant human rights standards for addressing the issues of vaccine passports and underlines the importance of stepping up efforts for all of us to produce and administer vaccines in an equal manner, in line with the requirements of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – called the Oviedo Convention – so that restrictions on individual freedoms can gradually be reviewed as broad immunity in achieving among all populations.
Moreover, in terms of ethics, one of the main issues in the order of vaccination in the event of a shortage of vaccines and logistical constraints. This very Convention, which is basically the only legal binding instrument at international level in this field, requires that member States, for instance, of the Council of Europe, take measures to provide equitable access of healthcare, to provide appropriate quality, taking into account health needs and available resources of the countries. And this priority is to provide to health and social care workers, at the first place, and limit the impact of COVID-19 on the functioning of health and social care system. But due to uneven, excessive vaccine, vaccination passports can really become a tool for violation of the human rights.
On the other hand, the possible use of vaccination certificates, as well as immunisation data, for the purpose other than strictly medical, for example, to give individual exclusive accesses to rights, services or public places, raises numerous human rights questions. It should be considered with the utmost caution. This is why many states and organisations are currently shifting from idea of passports to certificates. A vaccination certificate is a medical document that will make travel safer but not create privileges for their owners. Digital solutions must be implemented and therefore, in addition, it is important that there are unified approaches and know the need to establish a separate application, for example, Denmark, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom have already declared about the readiness to use the e-health system for vaccination certificates. The e-health system optimises the use of vaccine and also helps make a necessary management decision.
Dear friends, we now thank all medical workers who fight for millions of lives across Europe today, tomorrow and every day. Thank you, dear colleagues. Merci le Président.
CURRENT AFFAIRS DEBATE: COVID PASSPORTS OR CERTIFICATES: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Ms Larysa BILOZIR (Ukraine, EPP/CD): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear Mr President, Dear colleagues! In March your commission presented a project of Covid passports that will include not only information about vaccines but also information about past illness and negative test on Coronavirus, but on the whole Europe has not yet come to consensus. Opponents talk about the possible violation of human rights and suggest not to rush. The World Health Organization does not currently consider vaccinations to be a guarantee of preventing transmission of the virus. Also, in acute shortage of vaccines, the solution can be ultra fast tests of COVID-19 for travel, that can help people to return to normal life.
One thing is clear: vaccination should not be an obligatory condition for visiting certain places, and those who cannot get vaccinated should not face restrictions.
It seems like a good thing that a passport will ensure movement between EU countries and beyond, but the question is will it be possible to reconcile the idea of Covid passports with the right of EU citizens to freedom of movement?
Formally such grounds are found in article 29 of the EU directive on the right of citizens to move, which states that certain epidemic diseases may require the introduction of quarantine measures restricting freedom of movement, but now we are talking not about sick people, they're not the question in this solution. We are only talking about the vaccinated, and vaccinated on the scale of countries and continents.
The idea of using Covid passports in the context of the right to enter the EU is of particular concern. In fact, the realization of any human right is made dependent on equal access to resources. Lack of vaccine when more than 100 world countries still not have access to vaccines against Coronavirus infection.
Just think about it. Only 10 countries have over 75% of available vaccination doses. In the case of implementation of the vaccine passport system they'll be a division of people into groups which will also be subject to unequal treatment. These key groups may include vaccinated people with ranking vaccines to good or bad, healthy or not vaccinated people, the most suspicious group, people who have been ill-ranked by the time frames, patients with chronic diseases who are contra indicated for vaccination.
So there are many hidden pitfalls in whether there will be exceptions to the general rule and an interesting picture emerged caused by the Covid virus. For the sake of fighting some countries are even ready to destroy economy, block social ties, restrict cultural space, and now particularly legalise discrimination through passport.
We shall not forget that international law defines unequal treatment as discrimination. The consistent fight against it is the most important value for democratic Europe.
Thank you very much for your attention.
CURRENT AFFAIRS DEBATE: COVID PASSPORTS OR CERTIFICATES: PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK (Ukraine, ALDE): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear Colleagues, I want to start my speech with a reminder of the role the Assembly played during the flu pandemic of 2008-2009.
The Assembly in particular argued the approach taken by the World Health Organisation in the estimate of the pandemic threshold and medical treatment method. Did the Assembly bring an added value to the process? Yes. Without a doubt. The only point for criticism was that the Assembly entered the game, so to say, too late.
To this end I want to congratulate the colleagues who initiated the most acute current affairs debates for today.
At first sight the COVID passport, a globally recognised certificate, is the only possible precondition to return into living as usual in the globalised world with non-restricted freedom of movement.
In terms of the negotiation process we have to enhance the Assembly's dialogue particularly with the World Health Organisation to ensure the protection of human rights especially for the most vulnerable populations.
People in need of travel because of health conditions and reunions of families shall be among the top priorities. Travel for education, asylum seekers, seasonal workers, the list is far from being exhaustive. The main idea is to delink the vaccination and the issuing of COVID passports or certificates from the notion of money and wealth, being that the individuals or states.
In its legal dimension the debated issue refers to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome in November 1950. The Convention establishes a right to freedom of movement that cannot be restricted but for the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases.
It is necessary to emphasise that the Convention doesn't even allow in principle to limit the freedom of movement to avoid a risk of collapse for the health system, one of the reasons given to justify the lockdowns. The question according to the Convention is simply whether a person poses a threat to public health.
Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights determined in the case of Enhorn v. Sweden that the essential criteria, it says, in the lawfulness of the detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of the infectious diseases are whether the spreading of the infectious disease is dangerous to public health or safety. The detention of a person is in fact the last resort in order to prevent the spreading of the disease because less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the public interest. When these criteria are no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty ceases to exist.
Obviously, mass introduction of the COVID passports and certificates requires the introduction of the new instruments of the international law. Otherwise the mass appeals to the European Court of Human Rights are inevitable.
I want to conclude by expressing the sincere hope that the EU Digital Green Certificate won't become the new paper curtain between the EU and over a dozen of remaining Council of Europe member States where the EU visa regime used to apply. Thank you very much.
DEBATE: THE ASSEMBLY'S VISION ON THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO (Ukraine, on behalf of EC/DA): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear Colleagues,
It is an extremely important question, and "strategic priorities of the Council of Europe" are such important words. Now, just several minutes ago, Chancellor Angela MERKEL reminded us of the words of Konrad Adenauer who said that we are "the conscience of Europe". The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe in general, "the conscience of Europe": such important words. She said that many things changed, but this is something which will not change. In 50 years but maybe we will not be discussing the question of artificial intelligence or some other question, which is a lot of words about them in the report of Mr Tiny KOX.
There is not any word in the report by Mr Tiny KOX save for one, about territorial integrity of member States, about the sovereignty of member States, about peaceful resolution of conflicts in Europe. We have wars in Europe, and I just want to remind you about this. It seems to me that many of us just forgot about this. I took with myself this flag, just just take a look at this flag.
[Interrupted by President Rik DAEMS]
DEBATE: THE ASSEMBLY'S VISION ON THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK (Ukraine, on behalf of ALDE): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear rapporteur, dear Assembly members, I congratulate Mr Tiny KOX on his work and his topic choice.
The comprehensive human rights challenges of the current world are very clearly emerging in relation to environment and digital transformations. That is why it is very important to stick to the fundamentals of the Council of Europe, which has to contain enough flexibility to address mentioned environment and digital transformations and newly emerging challenges. The flexibility is the precondition to tackle this rise in concerns.
As the rapporteur correctly states under the scope of the report, the Assembly performs as a political driving force of the Council of Europe. To be a driving force, the Assembly has to look and move in one direction: sustainable peace, protection of human rights and the rule of law. That is hardly possible when the member states are in open ongoing military conflicts. In this counter-balance, PACE receives the growing added value and this role has to be acknowledged more than before.
Over 800 million citizens of the Council of Europe are now undergoing the non-precedented restrictions caused by the pandemic. This is the moment to open the Assembly's eyes and ears as wide as possible to prevent unsolicited discards of human rights and freedoms. That is the edge entailing the global informational order which is highly recommended to articulate at this Plenary.
We all have to contribute to ensure that the Assembly remains the pillar of democratic security and successful and effective multiculturalism in Europe, as well as the cornerstone of the European political architecture. The starting point for this shall be making more than 220 legally-binding instruments with the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter obligatory and fully implemented by all the member states.
Thank you.
DEBATE: THE ASSEMBLY'S VISION ON THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Mr Oleg VOLOSHYN (Ukraine, SOC): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Gentlemen,
First, as the representative of the Ukrainian Parliament, I would like to apologise to all of you for this disgraceful performance, which unfortunately, I saw just recently executed by one of my colleagues. As a patriot of my country, I just do not want you to judge Ukraine by this really disgraceful situation. The Ukrainian Parliament is definitely not a circus, unfortunately we just have some clowns in there.
I would like to commend the swift and very appropriate reaction of Mr Rik DAEMS on this occasion. I really believe that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable in this Assembly and I assure you that most, the vast majority of, Ukrainians are polite, well-mannered and really European people who do respect rules.
Now about the report: a really brilliant report, very modern and even the language of the report, I think everyone agrees with that, shows that Mr Tiny KOX understood the principle that Assembly should move ahead together with it all and develop around it. And definitely, this Plenary, this Assembly, should be a place for reconciliation and for inclusive dialogue, and not a place for fighting between the countries and for the continuation of the confrontation. This place was established by the great predecessors of us in order to help nations to come together, not to deepen the the gap between them, not too deepen the conflict between them, and that is what I do stand for and watch a large part of Ukrainians do stand for.
The only remark I would like to make is that there should possibly be more focus on the defence of such a basic principle – a basic European value – the freedom of press. As you might know, on 2 February this year, Ukraine became – set a very disgraceful precedent – we became the first state which imposed sanctions on its own citizens. With these, Ukrainian citizens were deprived of the right to a fair trial. So three TV stations (112, News One and ZIK) were silenced with one presidential decree upon the decision of the National Security Council citing security concerns. But we all know that all dictatorships do always cite security concerns when they do want to silence the freedom of press. So I think that this situation should be well addressed by our Assembly and it should become a real part of the dialogue with the Ukrainian government because the conflict with Russia is no justification for any silencing of the opinion of the press.
In general, I fully agree with the recommendations of the report and the resolution and I would like again to stress that the constructive majority of the Ukrainian Parliament really believes that this Assembly is for dialogue, not for conflicts.
Thank you.
DEBATE: THE ASSEMBLY'S VISION ON THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO (Ukraine, SOC): (брав участь онлайн, витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you. Thank you Mr President.
Talking about strategic priorities of the Council of Europe we should take into consideration two important factors, two important things.
First of all, real, not abstract, problems we face.
Second, concrete solutions to these problems.
What are these problems?
I'll take a risk to single them out.
First of all, no implementation by some member states of the decisions given by the European Court of Human Rights.
What can be the solution to this acute problem?
I think such a solution can be strict policy on the part of the Council of Europe with regard to the violators. Non-implementation of the decisions by the European Court of Human Rights cannot be tolerated any more. Each violator should be faced with a dilemma: either to leave our organisation or to strictly implement decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
Second problem which I view is extraterritorial effect of human rights violations. In other non-European regions, for example, we hear time and again about acts of genocide committed or crimes against humanity committed beyond Europe. Such crimes are crimes against the whole humanity, not only against people of these countries. We should not ignore such crimes. We should develop specific special mechanisms allowing us to address these crimes.
Third problem is the prevention of wars leading to massive violations of the basic human right to life. I understand that our organisation is not about preventing wars. It's not about security. But we should take into consideration the fact that war leads to massive violation of human rights. Again we should also try to find a solution to this problem.
Finally, the problem related to police brutality. The problem of unjustified and excessive use of force by police. I believe that to solve this problem we need to develop a special convention.
Unfortunately I haven't found these problems and solutions to these problems in the current report. Nevertheless I hope that these problems will be addressed in the future. Thank you.
DEBATE: THE ASSEMBLY'S VISION ON THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Ms Maryna BARDINA (Ukraine, ALDE): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Okay, thank you.
Dear Colleagues
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the rapporteur Mr Tiny KOX, who presented the vision on the strategic priorities for the Council of Europe.
On the one hand, the report contains very important points, for example the value of the Council of Europe multi-annual strategy on gender equality that is emphasized. I agree that such complex document as strategy has become a powerful tool for mainstream and gender equality in member States. It has been a good attempt to unify our approaches on women¡s empowerment.
On the other hand, this past report is too idealistic; it does not correspond to the reality. It is true Council of Europe conventions as well as recommendations have become gold standards, but let's talk about the real implementation.
It is clear that some member States, for example the Russian Federation, ignore the scope of international human rights standards. Despite all human rights violations committed by this State's authorities, its delegation still participates in Assembly sessions.
Significant weakening of the PACE sanctions mechanism as provided by the resolution on strengthening the decision-making process or the Parliamentary Assembly on powers and voting took place without any constructive steps by the Russian Federation as well as against the background of Russia's non-compliance with its commitments and base resolutions.
For this reason I believe the report should be improved to respond to the real challenges the Council of Europe faces today.
Thank you.
Debate: The Assembly's vision on the strategic priorities for the Council of Europe
Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA (Ukraine, EPP/CD): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
We salute this report.
It's definitely on time and the Assembly vision was actually in need of strategic priorities for all of us, for the member countries and us colleagues as concrete representatives of constituencies and peoples of 47 member states.
Our delegation would like to stress the best principles, of course, that the Council of Europe must condemn the combat to threat of territorial integrity and security of the member states and that was enshrined in many resolutions that you have passed before.
Of course, the authority of the European Court of Human Rights has to be strengthened as as well, and we know that there are member states who don't comply with that. Moreover, the national law can never prevail above the international one, and this is a rule that we all condemned.
I would also like to stress that the report might have looked in a more compliant way if we would be speaking about the growing threat of the national propaganda never to be twisted or viewed in another member, rather than speaking from your heart or speaking about the issues that we have in member states. So propaganda and the right to speech which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights can never be twisted, and that should not undermine the general democracy and freedom of speech.
However, dear colleagues, we have heard agreat intervention of Chanciller Merkel who pointed out the modern threats, and that is very much linked to conducting fair and democratic elections. And of course we are talking about social networks, mass media and cyber attacks. This is where we all have to join in common efforts to fight such abolishments.
Merci, Président. We salute the report.
DEBATE: THE ASSEMBLY'S VISION ON THE STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA (Ukraine, ALDE): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Mr President, Dear Mr Rapporteur, Dear Assembly, Dear ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you Mr KOX for the presentation and your reminder that the Council of Europe was established based on the idea and value of persevering peace based upon Justice and international cooperation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation. Members of the Council of Europe have proved their devotion to the spiritual and moral values, which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individuals' freedom, political authority and the rule of law, principle which formed the basis of general democracy. We can find these ideas in the preamble of the Statute of the Council of Europe, which all members have to respect and implement. That is what the Council of Europe was established for and that is the essence of its existence.
The report points out that the Council of Europe overall priority is to remain the guarantor of human rights and rule of law, independent of justice, the pillar of democracy security to provide the uniquely platform for a multilateral cooperation in Europe. Such great words, extraordinary ideas but have they recently been fulfilled? And how could we react as a European community if some countries try to manipulate it and use this form for their own political gain? The fundamental values and regulations of the Council of Europe, as well as the international law, have been grossly violated by the Council of Europe member countries which consistently violate this Statute of the Council of Europe and persistently ignore the Assembly resolution, rules of procedure, as well as fundamental values.
It is undefeatable that after 70 years of Council of Europe work, European countries still have threats to their territorial integrity and still face military aggression by one of the Council of Europe members. Goal twelve is dedicated to equality, national minorities and non-discrimination. I do believe that it is highly important to translate Council of Europe standards to national policies. But first we must call those Council of Europe member countries that have not ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages for the Council of Europe to do so urgently. It is one of the strategic priorities of the Council of Europe, global community as well as artificial intelligence.
The Assembly adopted many resolutions and recommendations last year and now it is high time for member countries to learn them, to raise awareness, to discuss how they can be implemented. But what to do when resolutions are ignored by individual members of Council of Europe? A new strategy should focus on really reaction, so I am MP and also support the Environmental Policy Council of Europe.
Thank you for the attention.
DEBATE: FIGHTING FISCAL INJUSTICE: THE WORK OF THE OECD ON TAXATION OF DIGITAL ECONOMY
Mr Dmytro NATALUKHA (Ukraine, EC/DA, Spokesperson for the group): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you very much Mr President, dear colleagues.
Today around 4 billion people are internet users with 80% of the European population using internet daily.
Time spent online amounts now to six hours a day in the digital environment for an average citizen of Europe. Hence, it's no surprise the top seven of global market capitalisation leaders are technology companies: the founding fathers of the digital economy.
The statement made in the report that the digital economy is booming is absolutely correct as much as it is a notion that most value nowadays is created through virtual and stateless platforms.
The question is however HOW such value is created and HOW MUCH of such value is converted to taxes, being in the rapporteur's words a fundamental anchor for democracy.
Since 2020 digital transformation is accelerating as too so many people working from home. New technologies made possible such distant work. In a lot of ways they really make our lives better. In other ways they are making our lives different, transforming the very fabric that lies at the core of the modern economy: capitalism.
With so little left that could be commodified, the last virgin territory was private human experience. The digital economy made this last capture, giving birth to the so-called surveillance capitalism. According to Professor Zuboff, it is a unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data which is then computed and packaged as prediction products and sold to behavioural futures markets, specifically those virtual and stateless platforms with a commercial interest in knowing what we'll do now, soon and later. This complements the answer to the question on how tech giants are creating value through such platforms regardless of their retail sales.
Now, this economic logic however has now spread beyond tech, to new surveillance-based ecosystems in virtually every economic sector, from insurance, health, education, finance, to every product described as smart. The smart digital economy allows us to listen to music we like, find food we crave for, navigate to places we love, communicate with colleagues and friends and enjoy a myriad of other benefits.
If you only look at the GDP numbers, however, you'd think that the digital revolution never happened. The digital sector is contributing surprisingly poorly, ranging from 4% to 6% annually. It seems that we see the digital age everywhere except in the GDP statistics. One answer to that is that GDP captures only monetary value of all final products produced in an economy. Another is because an economy traditionally considers the goods produced by permanently established entities, reverting us exactly to the issue raised by the rapporteur in his report. For this reason we consider this report to be absolutely timely and endorse it, as it provides part of the solution on how to close the loopholes in the concept of permanent establishment which makes all countries especially vulnerable to tax base erosion.
Future tax innovations should be focused on equitable sharing of big tech companies' income tax among customer countries. At the same time we hope that developing countries will be provided with efficient tools to challenge transfer pricing and added value allocation to more developed countries.
Thank you very much, I would like to support the report.
21 квітня 2021 року
JOINT DEBATE: URGENT NEED FOR ELECTORAL REFORM IN BELARUS / HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN BELARUS REQUIRE AN INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION
Mr Oleksii GONCHARENKO (Ukraine, EC/DA): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Dear colleagues,
First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their brilliant work. There really are two brilliant reports and today we can really adopt powerful, mightful resolution.
What is going on in Belarus now? We have a usurper and dictator, Lukashenko, which is killing his own people. Over more than 30,000 people were put in jail. Hundreds of political prisoners just now, right now. Belarus is like a concentration camp inside Europe. What he is doing with people and with human rights there is absolutely awful. I want to share with you the story of one lady, Ekaterina Andreeva, who is a journalist. She prepared the book Belarusian Donbas. We published this book in Ukraine, and that is why I know her personally. She was sentenced for two years in prison, you know for what? Just for streaming from protest a meeting. Just for streaming as a journalist. For her journalist work. Nothing else. She was not even taking part in it. She was just streaming and two years for this bright lady. It is absolutely awful what is going on there. Why is it possible? Because Lukashenko now is on two pillars: first, there is brutal violence from law enforcement forces, but they are now not law enforcement forces, they are Lukashenko's private army and, secondly, by Putin, by help of the Russian Federation. Tomorrow, Lukashenko will fly again to Putin. Those are the two pillars that make this awful regime possible, here in the centre of Europe.
I think that in our Resolution we are putting absolutely clear steps as to what should be done. A road map to free, democratic Belarus. How it should be. That is: first, stop the violence, stop political repressions, and we are addressing to all governments to make any cooperation with Belarus and Belarusian authorities conditional to stopping the violence and to the freedom of political prisoners. Secondly, change of electoral system. Thirdly, new democratic elections and not somewhere in the future —this year— and after this we will see an absolutely different Belarus.
By the way, language is important not BelaruSSian people, Belarusian people, and they have their right to be part of European family. That is very important. I am sure that the first thing that will be done by democratic Belarus is to join our organisation, to become a member State of the Council of Europe, because it is the only country, a European nation, which now is not inside our organisation. That is why it is very important to support this. That is why we need to do it. That is why we need to say that Lukashenko is not a president but a tyrant and we cannot have any co-operation with him and that resolution answered all these questions clearly and powerfully. So, it is very good. In the end, I want to address to the Belarusian people: Brothers, we are with you; we are for your freedom. Long live Belarus! [in Belarusian]
DEBATE: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS DEALING WITH CHRONIC AND LONG-TERM ILLNESSES
Ms Yuliia OVCHYNNYKOVA (Ukraine, ALDE): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you very much.
Dear colleagues, we find this resolution extremely important and urgently needed for the Assembly members. We need proper action.
I want to thank first the rapporteur for your excellent work.
The number and severity of chronic and long-term illnesses in Europe has increased lately while being severely, inefficiently and disproportionately treated across countries.
The resolution highlights that chronic and long-term illnesses are non-communicable diseases that often require long and expensive treatment for the community. This is a key issue to be addressed.
Treatment is long and expensive that means that member state should create proper legal conditions to allow people having chronic and long-term illnesses to afford long treatment from the perspectives of time and social security, as well as in terms of labour law.
Treatment and rehabilitation is very expensive and requires proper funding. Unfortunately, special programmes for adults barely exist. They are not sufficiently funded. Even so, that's why the issue of insurance and access to health care and rehabilitation for adults is highlighted in the resolution in the recommendation.
The public-private partnership and investment into rehabilitation services are urgently required.
The resolution states that chronic and long-term illness are obstacles to dignity, well-being and self-fulfilment. It's very important for the member states to ensure dedicated mental health support for these people, and to create the proper conditions in their lives and geriatric hospitals.
The resolution suggests that through various public policies, the authorities are able to limit the number of consequences of chronic and long-term illnesses, also through innovative visions to disability and disabilities offered by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
We ask member states to reconcile their existing public policies and make them more comprehensive, more inclusive and feasible.
We fully support the action proposed in the resolution, but first I would like to stress the value of genetic research and laboratory facilities for high-quality genetic test analyses, which allow for the early revealing of genetic-based diagnosis and early intervention.
For this purpose, member states should support and ensure proper funding and infrastructure. Genetic tests should become more available for the population. It's very important not to limit generally known chronic and long-term illnesses based on the national registers.
I appreciate that the resolution stresses the important role of parliaments and gives some guidelines of what parliaments should do in their home countries: to promote principles; to adopt legislation; to ensure allocation; and to contribute to awareness raising actions.
Thank you for attention.
DEBATE: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS DEALING WITH CHRONIC AND LONG-TERM ILLNESSES
Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA (Ukraine, EPP/CD): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Kiitos President. Thank you very much in your native language. Kiitos.
Dear Mr President, Dear rapporteur, Ms Martine WONNER, Dear colleagues,
I would like to be focused on one of the most important and personal topics for me, and maybe for my constituency, but also for the member countries.
Nearly 40 years ago, Betty Ford, the former first lady of the United States of America, announced to the world that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and that she would undergo radical mastectomy to remove the tumour. Betty Ford's bold decision to announce this diagnosis shattered the wall of silence surrounding the disease and promoted millions of women to be scanned. As a result, the rate of breast cancer detection in the United States has risen sharply. Researchers have called this the "Betty Ford effect."
Breast cancer accounts for the largest share in the structure of women's cancer. Thus, the percentage of breast cancer among all diagnosed cases of cancer in women per year is 23.1. Ukraine ranks one of the first places in Europe in the number of patients with this pathology unfortunately.
The scale of this problem is growing catastrophically due to the lack of a well-established system of mass diagnosis in member states for prevention and a system of mammology services. As a result, in most cases, cancer is diagnosed at a later stage, which actually increases the risk of mortality by up to 30%.
However, only legislative acts do not provide for us the solution of the issue, as announced in the report, for systemic care for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer: from diagnosis, treatment, to rehabilitation and prosthetics.
It is appropriate to review and amend the relevant regulations governing the relations, rights and responsibilities of bodies, institutions and agencies in the fight against precancerous and breast cancer, to help create conditions for women to reduce female mortality and maintain a healthy gene pool for the nation.
Breast cancer prevention is not just about education, it does depend on each and every one of us, regardless of gender. And therefore, for early detection, it is not at all necessary to have expensive diagnostic equipment, it really depends on us, dear colleagues. Therefore, I highly salute this report and I take this opportunity to send a positive signal to my native constituency of the eastern Ukraine, that this topic is very well covered in the report.
I salute it and I call for all the colleagues to support it.
Many thanks.
Thank you President, thank you again.
DEBATE: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS DEALING WITH CHRONIC AND LONG-TERM ILLNESSES
Ms Larysa BILOZIR (Ukraine, EPP/CD): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you Mr Chair,
Dear colleagues,
First of all, I would like to start by congratulating the rapporteur Ms Martine WONNER. It is a deep and comprehensive report that the Ukrainian delegation will definitely support. The issue of discrimination of people dealing with chronic and long-term illnesses is very relevant in our days, especially in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic when people with chronic illnesses are deprived of sufficient medical support and have a great mortality risk if being infected by Coronavirus.
I also want to support the rapporteur in her call on member states to intensify the reports' efforts and provide the health system with sufficient budgetary resources to offer adequate health protection of such people. As we see today, the big amount of resources are focused to combat Coronavirus, while for example in Ukraine, last year more than 80 per cent of those who died, died from chronic illnesses, such as cardiovascular illnesses, diabetes, cancer and only 1.5 per cent died from COVID-19. Despite this, resources are distributed unproportionally. Often finances are taken from the programmes for treating chronic illnesses, such as cancer or orphan diseases in favour of vaccines and other measures to combat COVID-19. The situation is deteriorating also because of anti-Covid measures. When the number of people that become aware of their disease in the last stage are growing and the death rates are also growing.
It is worth noting that children with disabilities are both a particularly vulnerable category of persons with chronic and long-term illnesses. I would like to go on to the obligation of the Council of Europe member states to ensure the right to education, the right to a family, the harmonious development of children with disabilities and to provide a safe space based on single criteria, the best interest of a child. There are almost 170,000 children with disabilities in Ukraine. They usually cannot exercise their rights at full range, including the right to education. Since 2017, Ukraine has been implementing a strategy for the institutionalisation of children with disabilities and raising a child in the family, according to a strategy recommended by our European partners. But for many children with various nosologies, inclusive education in usual schools is under sufficient and they cannot study in usual schools, so special schools for children with special educational needs with disabilities and simultaneous schools where children with chronic illnesses study and simultaneously undergo rehabilitation have to be preserved. Children with special education needs have the right to a quality education, adaptation and self-realisation.
Thank you for your attention.
22 квітня 2021 року
Mr Oleksandr MEREZHKO (Ukraine, SOC): (брав участь онлайн, витяг із протоколу засідань)
Dear Colleagues,
The life of Alexei Navalny hangs by a thread. Can we really save his life from imminent death? We all know perfectly well that now Alexei is at the hands of the same people who had tried to poison him. We also know who is a primary decision-maker when it comes to a decision on whether Alexei will live or die. This person is Russian President Mr Putin.
Let's have no illusions that there isn't any rule-of-law state in Russia. There is no rule of law in Russia. There Is only rule of Putin. It is up to him to decide Alexei's fate, whether he will live or die.
Now the question. How to influence Mr Putin's decision? How to save the life of Alexei Navalny? Can we say our resolution will help to release Mr Navalny? I strongly doubt it. The other day Mr Petr TOLSTOI had openly declared that Russia is not going to implement the PACE resolutions if Russia doesn't like them under the pretext that these resolutions come into conflict with Russia's legislation.
Therefore, I'd like to put a question to the head of the Russian delegation. And my question is: Is Russia going to implement the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the resolution of the PACE demanding the release of Alexei Navalny and to honestly investigate his poisoning? Please tell us openly.
I also have a suggestion to my colleagues in PACE. Dear friends, you are members of the parliaments of 46 countries and if you really want justice to prevail, if you want to save Navalny's life, turn to your respective governments and demand serious sanctions against Russia, because only this kind of pressure can stop Putin from killing Alexei Navalny.
Thank you.
DEBATE UNDER URGENT PROCEDURE: THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF ALEXEI NAVALNY IN JANUARY 2021
Mr Sergiy VLASENKO (Ukraine, EPP/CD): (витяг із протоколу засідань)
Thank you President.
Many colleagues already mentioned that we are discussing not the case of Alexei Navalny. We are discussing the question of violation of human rights and the question of the implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. That's the issue, despite the fact that Alexei Navalny is a prominent anticorruption activist and the opposition leader in the Russian Federation.
By the way, the representatives of the Russian authority mentioned that there is some legal discussion. No colleagues, no. The legal discussion was finished by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. We have no legal discussions at all.
We must implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Mr Navalny's case. That's the only question, no discussions. Discussions are ended by the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
By the way, this Assembly welcomed the Russian Federation with no sanctions two years ago by the reasoning... there were two reasons. The first one, that we should create a dialogue and we should create an umbrella of ECHR over the Russian people.
So about the dialogue with the Russian Federation, do we have the dialogue with the Russian delegation? When we are talking about climate change or immigration in Europe yes, we have a dialogue. But when we start talking about the LGBT people in the North Caucasus, the illegal annexation of the territories of other member states like my Ukrainian Crimea, when we start talking about the violation of human rights or implementation of the ECHR judgments there is no discussion. There is no discussion.
And about the umbrella, I have a strict question, does Mr Navalny and thousands of his supporters enjoy the umbrella of the ECHR? The answer is totally clear. No, no. So what are we talking about? No dialogue, no implementation of decisions of the ECHR.
I would also say that that case is totally like the case of Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine in 2011. Totally the same. Politically motivated hearings of the court, arbitrary detention, conviction and imprisonment, absence of medical care. The same arguments of the government. Totally the same. Madam Tymoshenko was released as a result of the implementation of the ECHR decision only after the revolution of dignity in Ukraine. I'm not calling for the revolution in Russia, but that's just the fact.
I do not believe that Mr Putin and his authority will release Mr Navalny if there is no strong signal for him to do that. If we do not strongly push him to do that. For the sake of human rights, for the sake of the implementation of the ECHR decisions as a cornerstone of our Organisation, we should send a strong signal to the Russian authorities. Without that, nothing will happen.
Thank you.