Print
Download XMLCouncil of Europe Convention on the counterfeiting of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public health
Parties with reservations, declarations and objections
| Party | Reservations / Declarations | Objections |
|---|---|---|
| Croatia | Yes | No |
| France | Yes | No |
| Hungary | Yes | No |
| Russian Federation | Yes | No |
| Slovenia | Yes | No |
| Spain | Yes | No |
| Switzerland | Yes | No |
| Tunisia | Yes | No |
| Türkiye | Yes | Yes |
| Ukraine | Yes | No |
Croatia
20-09-2019
In accordance with Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Republic of Croatia reserves the right to apply the jurisdiction rules laid down in Article 10, paragraphs 1.b and 2 of the Convention, subject to the conditions prescribed by the criminal legislation of the Republic of Croatia.
France
21-09-2016
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.
In conformity with Article 29, France declares that the Convention applies to the
entire territory of the French Republic.
Hungary
05-03-2014
The Permanent Representation of Hungary declares 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:
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.
Russian Federation
20-03-2018
The Russian Federation declares that, pursuant to subparagraph “d” of paragraph 1
of Article 10 of the Convention, it will criminally prosecute foreign citizens and
stateless persons, permanently residing in the territory of the Russian Federation,
only in case provided for in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
The Russian Federation declares that, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 21, when
no international treaty on extradition or mutual legal assistance exists, it will,
on the basis of reciprocity, consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition
or mutual legal assistance in respect of offences established in accordance with this
Convention, including for the purposes of ensuring liability of legal persons pursuant
to Article 11 of the Convention.
The Russian Federation, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 22 declares that, for the
purposes of the Convention, the Federal Service of Surveillance in Healthcare will
be designated national contact point responsible for transmitting and receiving requests
for information and/or co-operation in connection with the fight against counterfeiting
of medical products and similar crimes involving threats to public health, excluding
extradition requests and requests for legal assistance in criminal matters.
Slovenia
03-05-2022
In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Convention, the Republic of Slovenia declares that it reserves the right not to apply the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraph 1, subparagraph d, and in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of this Convention.
Spain
05-08-2013
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 foreign relations come under the
responsibility of the United Kingdom and which is subject to a decolonisation process
pursuant to the relevant decisions and resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.
2. The authorities of Gibraltar are local in nature, and exercise exclusively internal
competences which have their origin and foundation in a distribution and attribution
of competences implemented by the United Kingdom in compliance with the provisions
its domestic legislation, in its capacity as a sovereign State upon which the aforesaid
non-autonomous territory depends.
3. Consequently, the possible participation of the Gibraltarian authorities in the
application of the present Convention shall be understood as carried out exclusively
within the framework of the internal competences of Gibraltar, and cannot be considered
to modify in any way that which is set for in the two previous paragraphs.
Switzerland
25-10-2018
In accordance with Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Convention, Switzerland reserves
the right to apply its jurisdiction in accordance with Article 10, paragraphs 1.d
and 2, only when the offence is committed by one of its nationals (paragraph 1.d)
or against one of its nationals (paragraph 2).
In accordance with Article 22 of the Convention, Switzerland declares that the “Institut
suisse des produits thérapeutiques (Swissmedic) Hallerstrasse 7, CH-3000 Berne 9”
is the national contact point within the meaning of Article 22, paragraph 2, of the
Convention.
Tunisia
07-02-2024
In accordance with Article 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Tunisian Republic
declares that it reserves the right not to apply, or to apply only in specific cases
or conditions, paragraph 1, as regards documents related to excipients, parts and
materials.
In accordance with Article 10, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Tunisian Republic
declares that it reserves the right not to apply, or to apply only in specific cases
or conditions, the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraph 1, subparagraph d, and
paragraph 2 of Article 10.
Türkiye
21-09-2017
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.
Objection Cyprus, 07-11-2017
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.
Ukraine
19-04-2022
The Permanent Representation of Ukraine to the Council of Europe presents its compliments to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and has the honour […] to inform about the impossibility to guarantee the implementation by the Ukrainian Side in full of its obligations under the above mentioned international treaties of Ukraine for the period of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine and introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine, until full termination of the infringement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders of Ukraine.
07-12-2023
[…]
Referring to Ukraine’s notification dated 18 April 2022 N° 31011/32-119-26603 [Council
of Europe Notification JJ9359C dated 13 May 2022] in connection with the full-scale
invasion of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, [the Government of Ukraine] further
clarif[ies] that international treaties mentioned therein are implemented on the territory
of Ukraine in full, with the exception of the territories where hostilities are (were)
conducted, or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, on which it is impossible
to fully guarantee the Ukrainian Party’s fulfillment of its obligations under the
relevant treaties as a result of the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against
Ukraine, as well as the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine until
the complete cessation of encroachment on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and
inviolability of the borders of Ukraine.
The regularly updated list of territories where hostilities are (were) conducted,
or temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation is located at the link below:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1668-22#Text