Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No.211 - Council of Europe Convention on the counterfeiting of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public health
Declarations in force as of today
Status as of 19/11/2017
CyprusObjection contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Cyprus, dated 17 October 2017, registered at the Secretariat General on 7 November 2017 - Or. Engl.
The Republic of Cyprus has examined the Declaration deposited by the Republic of Turkey upon ratification of the “Council of Europe Convention on the Counterfeiting of Medical Products and Similar Crimes Involving Threats to Public Health” (CETS No. 211) dated 28 October 2011, and registered at the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe on 21 September 2017.
The Republic of Turkey declares that its ratification of the “Council of Europe Convention on the Counterfeiting of Medical Products and Similar Crimes Involving Threats to Public Health” neither amounts to any form of recognition of the “Greek Cypriot Administration’s pretention to represent the defunct “Republic of Cyprus”, as party to that Convention, nor should it imply any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the “so-called Republic of Cyprus” within the framework of the said Convention”.
The Republic of Cyprus is not a State Party to the “Council of Europe Convention on the Counterfeiting of Medical Products and Similar Crimes Involving Threats to Public Health” (CETS No. 211). However, in the view of the Republic of Cyprus, the content and purported effect of this Declaration makes it tantamount in its essence to a reservation contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention. By such Declaration, the Republic of Turkey purports to evade its obligations under the Convention vis-à-vis another equal and sovereign State Party, namely the Republic of Cyprus. Indeed, the Declaration prevents the realization of cooperation between State Parties foreseen by the Convention.
The Republic of Cyprus therefore strongly rejects the aforesaid Declaration made by the Republic of Turkey and considers such declaration to be null and void. The aforementioned objections by the Republic of Cyprus shall not preclude the entry into force of the Convention, in its entirety, between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey.
Regarding the Republic of Turkey’s pretension, as expressed in the same Declaration, that “the Greek Cypriot Administration’s pretention to represent the defunct “Republic of Cyprus” as party to that Convention, nor should it imply any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the so-called Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Convention”, the Republic of Cyprus would like to remind of the following:
Despite, being, through binding international agreements, a guarantor of “the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus” (Article II of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee), the Republic of Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus in 1974 and continues since then occupying 36.2% of the territory of the Republic.
The illegality of such aggression was made manifested by the U.N. Security Council Resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Resolution 541’s operative paragraph 2 considers “the declaration [of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus] as legally invalid and “calls for its withdrawal”. Paragraph 6 then “calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus” and further at paragraph 7 “calls upon all States not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus”. Resolution 550, operative para. 2, also “condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid, and calls for their immediate withdrawal”. Para. 3 then « reiterates the call upon all States not to recognize the purported state of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity”.
The European Court of Human Rights additionally, in its Judgment of 10th May 2001 on the Fourth Interstate Application of Cyprus v. Turkey, found, at para. 77, that Turkey, which has “effective control over northern Cyprus”, is responsible for securing all human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and for violations of such rights by her own soldiers or officials, or by the local administration, which are imputable to Turkey. The responsibilities of the occupying power emanate from international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Turkey is responsible for the policies and actions of the “TRNC” because of the effective control she exercises through her army. Her responsibility is engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration, which survives by virtue of Turkish military and other support (Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, 10 May 2001, at pp. 20-21, reiterating Loizidou). From the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Security Council Resolutions on Cyprus, it is evident that the international community does not regard the “TRNC” (Turkey’s subordinate local administration in occupied Cyprus, condemned in the strongest terms by the Security Council) as a State under international law (Cyprus v. Turkey, 10 May 2001, para. 61). In contrast, the Republic of Cyprus has repeatedly been held to be the sole legitimate Government of Cyprus, contrary to Turkey’s assertions about that Government, which Turkey calls “the Greek Cypriot Administration” with pretences “to represent the defunct Republic”. The Turkish assertions constitute a propaganda ploy to divert attention from Turkey’s responsibility for the violations in occupied Cyprus. Turkey’s assertions and her assorted objections to the Republic of Cyprus’ authority, jurisdiction and sovereignty, and her claims on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and the “TRNC”, have repeatedly been rejected by the international community and relevant judicial bodies where such claims were fully argued and then rejected in Cyprus’s pleadings. Misrepresentations about the treatment of Turkish Cypriots by the Government of Cyprus were made. In fact, the European Court of Human Rights and the Commission accepted Cyprus arguments and refutation of Turkish assertions and exaggerations about the period prior to Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in July 1974. It refused to pronounce on Turkey’s version of the ejection of Turkish Cypriots from offices of State (there was in fact a Turkish boycott).
It is now time for the relevant pronouncement in Resolutions and the decisions therein, as well as in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to be heard and acted upon. The Court itself insisted in its 12 May 2014 Just Satisfaction Judgment that this must happen once the Court had spoken (Cyprus v. Turkey, p. 23 Joint Concurring Judgment of nine Judges). It should be emphasized that, as recently as 26 July 2016 (Security Council Resolution 2300), the Security Council reaffirmed all its relevant Resolutions on Cyprus, having, over several decades, reiterated their content.
Nevertheless, the Republic of Turkey, not only flagrantly holds in contempt all relevant U.N. Resolutions, International Law rules and the U.N. Charter on the matter, but furthermore she continues violating international legality, by systematically questioning the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus and further promoting the illegal secessionist entity in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus, including through declarations, as the one at hand.
Articles concerned : -
FranceReservation contained in the instrument of approval deposited on 21 September 2016 - Or. Fr.
In conformity with Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Convention, France declares that, as regard to Article 10, paragraphs 1.d and 2, of the Convention, in offence related matters, the applicability of the French law on acts committed abroad will remain subject to the local criminalisation of the acts, and to the complaint of the victim or to the denunciation of the State where the crime was committed, and that France does not intend to exercise jurisdiction in respect of acts committed abroad by or on persons habitually residing in France but not of French nationality, jurisdiction that the general criminal procedure does not provide for and for which it does not seem appropriate to create exemptions for individual case.
Period covered: 01/01/2017 -
Articles concerned : 10
Declaration contained in the instrument of approval deposited on 21 September 2016 - Or. Fr.
In conformity with Article 29, France declares that the Convention applies to the entire territory of the French Republic.
Period covered: 01/01/2017 -
Articles concerned : 29
HungaryReservations contained in a Declaration from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, dated 7 February 2014, registered at the Secretariat General on 18 February 2014 - Or. Engl. - supplemented by a communication from the Permanent Representative of Hungary on 5 March 2014 - Or. Engl.
Hungary reserves the right not to apply Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention, on the basis of Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
Hungary reserves the right not to apply Article 10, paragraph 1.d and paragraph 2, of the Convention, on the basis of Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Convention.
[ Note by the Secretariat : The Permanent Representation of Hungary declares, in its Communication dated 5 March 2014, that, due to an administrative oversight, the following reservations, contained in Act no. 208/2013 on the ratification of the Convention and communicated to the Secretariat after the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Convention, are to be considered as deposited simultaneously with the said instrument]
Period covered: 01/01/2016 -
Articles concerned : 10, 7
SpainDeclaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent representation deposited at the signature of the Instrument on 8 October 2012 – Or. Engl. and confirmed in the instrument of ratification deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 5 August 2013 - Or. Spa. / Engl.
In the event that this Convention were to be extended to Gibraltar, Spain would like to make the following declaration:
1. Gibraltar is a non-autonomous territory whose international relations come under the responsibility of the United Kingdom and which is subject to a decolonisation process in accordance with the relevant decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
2. The authorities of Gibraltar have a local character and exercise exclusively internal competences which have their origin and their foundation in a distribution and attribution of competences performed by the United Kingdom in compliance with its internal legislation, in its capacity as sovereign State on which the mentioned non-autonomous territory depends.
3. As a result, the eventual participation of the Gibraltarian authorities in the application of this Convention will be understood as carried out exclusively as part of the internal competences of Gibraltar and cannot be considered to modify in any way what was established in the two previous paragraphs.
Period covered: 01/01/2016 -
Articles concerned : -
TurkeyDeclaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 21 September 2017 - Or. Engl.
Turkey declares that its ratification of the “Council of Europe Convention on the Counterfeiting of Medical Products and Similar Crimes Involving Threats to Public Health” neither amounts to any form of recognition of the Greek Cypriot Administration’s pretention to represent the defunct “Republic of Cyprus” as party to that Convention, nor should it imply any obligation on the part of Turkey to enter into any dealing with the so-called Republic of Cyprus within the framework of the said Convention.
Period covered: 01/01/2018 -
Articles concerned : -