Contact EPC
epc.sg@once.es
(s)
EPC webmaster
María
Isabel Velasco (i)
The President welcomed all participants to the General Assembly in Dublin and thanked the Irish Paralympic Council for hosting the meeting. He addressed the Assembly with an opening speech, looking back on the development of the last 4 years, the challenges for the future, and the need to increase the understanding of the different needs in the various countries and the need for mutual respect for differences in cultures and opinions.
Delegates from in total 27 National Paralympic Committees were present.
Official voting delegates from National Paralympic Committees
Austria – Andrea Scherney
Belgium – Denis Jaeken
Croatia – Ratko Kovacic
Czech Republic – Frahtisek Jahouch
Denmark – Karl Vilhelm Nielsen
Estonia – Allan Kiil
Faroe Islands – Jon A Steig
Finland – Maria Laakso
France – Bernard Verneau
Germany – Brigitta Blomqwist
Great Britain – Mike Brace
Greece – Ionna Karyofilli
Hungary – Pa’l Na’das
Iceland – Sveinn Aki Ludviksson
Ireland – Anthony Guest
Israel – Radu Rosenthal
Italy – Luca Pancalli
Lithuania – Vythautas
Netherlands – Jon Teunissen
Norway – Odd-Roar Thorsen
Poland – Witold Dluzniak
Portugal – António Neves
Slovakia – Pavol Straka
Spain – Enrique Sanchez Guiso
Sweden – Bengt Lindstedt
Switzerland – Jurg Weber
Ukraine – Valery Sushkevych
European Sports Co-ordinators attending the meeting as observers:
Archery – Arik Vamosh
Athletics – Chris Cohen
Cycling – Tony Yorke
Equestrian – Ulf Wicken
Shooting – Walter Vlaminck
Swimming – Tim Reddish
Table Tennis – Jeri Danek
Wheelchair Dance Sport– Gertrude Krombholz
It was announced that a simple majority would require 14 votes; a 2/3 majority requires 18 votes.
The General Assembly agreed to the appointment of the following individuals as tellers to serve throughout the meeting :
Great Britain moved and Germany seconded to adopt the agenda as circulated with the meeting documents. The motion carried unanimously.
France moved and Switzerland seconded to adopt the Minutes of the 1999 General Assembly. The motion carried unanimously.
5.1 General Report on term 1999-2001
A comprehensive over-all report on the activities and achievements of the term 1999-2001, which had been circulated to the members in advance, was presented. In addition separate reports from individual officers had been circulated.
Reference was made to the report on development initiatives and the need to a formal approval on the recommendation of the Development Officer. As a result, Great Britain moved and Iceland seconded to accept the recommendation that the development commission as established in 1998 would be dismissed and to commission the incoming Executive Committee to appoint people to the commission as needed. The motion carried unanimously.
Germany moved and Denmark seconded to receive the report of the Executive Committee. The motion carried unanimously
5.2 Operations Plan 2002-2003
The President presented a proposal for a detailed operations plan for the term 2002-2003 and pointed out that approval of the operations plan would imply that the commission is given to the incoming Executive Committee to carry out the plan. He further referred to one of the motions submitted by the British Paralympic Association (BPA) that would be discussed later on in the agenda, and that may represent a conflict with the proposed operations plan in relation to the championships; it was clarified that in such case the discussion on the operations plan in that area may need to be taken up again.
Further clarification was provided on some of the questions raised by Switzerland and Iceland.
In connection to the item 1.3 dealing with the development of an official EPC regular multi-disability Athletics programme, Switzerland moved for EPC to recognise the currently existing European Athletics for Disabled group (EAD) as EPC contact for the multi-disability Athletics programme in Europe. The President reported on his efforts to start discussions with the aim to establish a multi-disability programme with that group and suggested to leave it to the incoming Executive Committee to appoint individuals to work towards this. Switzerland accepted the suggestion.
Great Britain referred to its motion on marketing and pointed out that this motion, if approved, would also have impact on the operations plan item 5, dealing with Marketing and Fundraising. In referring to item 5.1 Great Britain asked the Executive Committee to be more restrictive with the Marketing Agency in ensuring that they would not approach companies in the countries without the approval of the relevant NPC. Great Britain stressed the need for consultation with the NPCs and asked that the incoming Executive Committee to distribute to the national members for comments and feedback details on the marketing plan prior to its implementation.
It was reported that in connection to the Doping Disables website there had been possibilities to create an EPC website. The webmaster,Leif Söderberg, was introduced and members were invited to contribute with information, suggestions, comments.
As a result of the discussions Germany moved and Spain seconded to adopt the Operations Plan 2002-2003 as circulated. The motion carried unanimously.
(The adopted Operations Plan 2002-2003 is attached as an appendix to these minutes)
6.1 Audited Accounts 1999-2000
The Treasurer presented the audited accounts for the year 1999 and 2000. Referring to the 1999 General Assembly decision to introduce the EURO as official currency rather than using the USD, the Treasurer explained that this transfer and the differences in exchange rate between USD and EURO had created some complications for the accounts.
On the question raised by France it was clarified that point 8 related to balancing the debts towards IPC, which levies 2/3 on the capitation taxes for European Championships, and the income received from IPC for administrative purposes and development projects.
Sweden moved and the Netherlands seconded to adopt the audited accounts. The motion carried unanimously.
6.2 Financial update 2001, Budget 2002-2003
The Treasurer presented an overview on income and expenditures expected for 2001 and forecast budgets for 2002 and 2003.
On the question raised by Great Britain, it was clarified that the income on point 3, logo rights, was related to payment for the use of the EPC name, symbol and flag at European Championships.
The Netherlands referred to the need for both IPC and EPC to approve long term budgets and congratulated the EPC Treasurer for providing a responsible financial overview that can be monitored by the membership in a timely manner.
The Netherlands moved and Norway seconded to adopt the report on the 2001 budget and approve of the proposed budget for 2002 and 2003. The motion carried unanimously.
6.3 Appointment Auditors
Switzerland moved and Germany seconded to approve of the Executive Committee’s proposal to appoint as auditors: TRB, Treuhand-Revision-Beratung, from Düsseldorf, Germany. The motion carried unanimously.
6.4 Membership fee
Great Britain moved and Denmark seconded to adopt the recommendation for the annual membership fee to remain unchanged at EURO 300. The motion carried unanimously.
6.5 Membership status overview
The Treasurer informed that in addition to the overview circulated with the meeting documents, three more countries had now paid their dues: Latvia, Romania, and Ukraine.
6.6 Discharging the Executive Committee
It was reported that according to the EPC registered constitution and required by German legislation the General Assembly should be asked to discharge the Executive Committee from its responsibilities.
Austria moved and Germany seconded to discharge the EPC Executive Committee. The motion carried unanimously.
7 Competition Calendar
The Technical Officer referred to the decision at the 1997 IPC General Assembly that IPC Sports Committees are responsible for the co-ordination of the competition calendar. The Technical Officer presented the results of such long-term planning in an overview up until the year 2007.
The following comments were made in addition:
Hungary referred to problems related to the terrorist attacks in the US and the cancellations of many athletes at the 2001 Powerlifting Championships in Budapest. Hungary formally announced it would bid for the 2003 European Championships in Swimming and in Table Tennis.
The Technical Officer and President extended appreciation and gratitude for the valuable administrative support of IPC Sports Department staff in the bidding and awarding process.
An extensive report was provided on the process followed to register the EPC constitution as adopted by the 1999 General Assembly.
The lower court in Bonn had imposed a number of changes and additions to the 1999 draft, which the Executive Committee had analysed and agreed on, following which the constitution had been registered. Those changes had been identified and sent out to the EPC membership in July 2000 and had been added again to the meeting documents for the 2001 General Assembly. A formal ratification of those changes, identified in bold text, needed formal ratification.
Germany moved and Great Britain seconded to endorse the changes to the constitution that had been required by the lower court in Bonn. The motion carried unanimously.
It was reported that the constitution identifies EPC as a non-profit organisation and that this legal status also need to be confirmed by the tax authorities, therefore after the registration with the lower court the audit agency TRB had applied for tax exemption status with the tax authorities in Bonn. As a result, some further changes to the constitution had been proposed; those changes to the constitution had been identified in a paper and submitted to the EPC members together with the General Assembly meeting documents. However, only a couple of days prior to the General Assembly information had been received that in addition to the Bonn tax authorities also the Regional tax authorities required further changes. The Executive Committee had extensively discussed the suggested changes and found that there were major implications on the changes required for articles 2.1.2 and article 3.4 (combined into article 3.3 in the German version) and on the article 9.2.4. For those changes the approval of the General Assembly would be required. The main rationale for those proposed changes is that tax authorities see legal implications with the fact that EPC is an integral part of IPC and that such dependence may result in IPC imposing commercial activities to EPC.
The Executive Committee had decided to recommend the General Assembly to give priority to obtaining tax exemption status for the present time and to seek alternative solutions that would clarify the relations with IPC. Therefore the Executive Committee recommended to seek a solution with IPC in developing an agreement with EPC that specifies the “integral part” concept and lists the relevant duties and obligations as well as privileges.
It was clarified that tax exemption status is needed for the following areas
Germany informed that all sports federations in Germany have an agency on the side, which deals with all tax related issues for the federation.
Extensive discussion followed with Great Britain stressing the importance of maintaining the “integral part” concept in the constitution and the Netherlands expressing concern over a hasty decision on such complicated issue. It was felt that there had not been sufficient time to analyse all consequences of the changes and that with more time, other solutions could be identified. It was suggested that the Executive Committee should first obtain all possible information from legal advisors and from the different authorities and then come back to the General Assembly with a full proposal and clearly identify the consequences. Hungary suggested that if needed an extraordinary General Assembly could be called in connection to next year’s conference.
The President suggested to table the matter and refer it to the incoming Executive Committee. Great Britain moved and the Netherlands seconded to defer the matter to the Executive Committee to prepare a complete proposal for the General Assembly including a full investigation on possible costs and implications. The motion carried unanimously.
9.1 Motion submitted by the EPC Executive Committee
The Executive Committee proposed to reduce the number of members at large from 4 to 3 and to introduce instead the position of Vice President.
It was reported that no nominations had been received for Vice President for the term 2001-2005.
Great Britain proposed an amendment that the motion would become effective from 2005 on. There was no seconder for the amendment. It was stated that if the original motion passes the motion could come into effect immediately with the understanding that the Executive Committee could fill a vacancy and could appoint someone in that position. A discussion followed whether in that case 3 or 4 members at large should be elected at this General Assembly and whether the Executive Committee could appoint one of the members at large as Vice President. Great Britain suggested that if the motion was withdrawn the Executive Committee could take with them the message that they have the possibility to co-opt members as needed. The President reported he was of the same opinion especially since there are no nominations for the next term and that there is still a possibility for the Executive Committee to re-introduce the motion in 2003, if so wished. As a result of the discussions the motion was withdrawn.
9.2 Motions from member nations
Motion 1 submitted by the British Paralympic Association
-Constitutional motion that requires a 2/3 majority-
Great Britain moved and Sweden seconded that a new sub-article 4.2 be added to Article 4 on Membership of the European Paralympic Commitee constitution which states:
“art. 4.2 Membership of the EPC shall be available to each International Sports Organisation for the Disabled (IOSD) in membership and good standing with the IPC”
Great Britain clarified that the words: “in exactly the same manner as within IPC itself” used in the rationale for the motion was purely meant for the IOSDs to be part of EPC as members; it is not meant in such a way that IOSDs would also automatically have membership in the Executive Committee or any other committee of EPC.
The friendly amendment proposed by Germany was accepted by mover and seconder that the right for membership should only apply for the relevant European bodies of the IOSDs or, is delegated to a European representative in the case no European body or committee is properly constituted. The amended motion was carried with 2 abstentions.
Motion 2 submitted by the British Paralympic Association
- Constitutional motion that requires a 2/3 majority-
Regional Championships
Great Britain moved that under article 3 “Aims and objectives” of the EPC constitution sub-articles 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 are all removed and the remaining sub-articles renumbered accordingly.
The motion was not seconded.
Motion 3 submitted by the British Paralympic Association
Subject : Marketing rights
The BPA moved “that the EPC supports the principle of the tabled IPC GA 1999 motion prepared by Great Britain to be re-presented at the IPC General Assembly in Athens in December 2001, namely that the rights to the use of, and the protection of the Paralympic symbol, flag, motto, hymn and the name Paralympics in whatever form rests with each National Paralympic Committee for observance in its own country or territory. That global exploitation of these symbols, flag, etc. can only be undertaken by the IPC with the express approval of the NPCs, individually or collectively depending on the circumstances”
In presenting the motion the BPA made reference to the discussions held in 1999 and stated that due to the lack of progress and the fact that no marketing strategy had been developed within IPC, BPA had no other choice than to re-introduce a motion that stresses the importance of the marketing rights for the NPCs. It was clarified that the motion is not intended to undermine the development of a marketing strategy for IPC and that the IPC’s exclusivity is recognised, the intention however is to require IPC to enter into a partnership with the NPCs. The motion puts the responsibility for marketing both to the IPC Executive Committee and to its partners, the NPCs, and it reinforces that marketing is an internal IPC business and not a matter for the IOC. Reference was made to the fact that the entry fees would be waived for the Paralympic Games and although that is positive news the entry fees only represent 10% of the income BPA needs for a 4-year term, therefore the protection of the marketing right in the country is of vital importance. BPA recognised that IPC would not be in the position to share revenue in the next couple of years and stressed that the motion is not about taking shares of the IPC’s world wide rights strategy but about effectively handling the marketing process and ensuring the NPCs are part of the debate. NPCs would not only have rights and benefits but also obligations towards IPC. BPA felt the motion was needed to ensure NPCs have equal rights as the NOCs. NPCs marketing programmes are already seen as a threat by the NOCs; in Great Britain marketing strategies are being developed to limit the BPA’s marketing opportunities. The motion reflects the rights of the NOCs to protect the marketing in the own country, as described in the IOC charter. It is correct that the IOC would wish to change that policy, however in reality the matter never comes to the table as the objections of the NOCs are feared. BPA gave an example of how they perceive what the reality would be if the motion would not pass, namely that the IOC could put restrictions on an NPC whereas they cannot do that to an NOC unless there is a compensation for it.
The Netherlands seconded the motion. The EPC President remarked that the issue should be debated but referred to the fact that the motion was asking for EPC support to a motion which had been submitted to the IPC and that if this motion would be voted on and passed, it could not be binding for any NPC on how they should vote at the IPC General Assembly.
France supported that NPCs should be part of the debate but referred to some legal aspects that may be in conflict with the IPC constitutions. The Chairman of the IPC Legal Committee listed the areas of conflict in the constitution and bylaws and informed that IPC would be meeting BPA on October 4, 2001 to discuss the motion and recommended to await the results of that discussion.
The Netherlands stated that the real problem is that there is no policy in place on world wide marketing. It was felt that as a priority and first step in the process a common policy must be established and approved by the General Assembly before any decision can be taken on marketing policies for NPCs and regions. The Netherlands is supporting the motion but would wish to introduce an amendment in saying that “…global exploitation of these symbols, flag, etc. can only be undertaken by the IPC after consultation with the NPCs, individually or collectively depending on the circumstances.”
The Czech Republic expressed support to the motion and referred to the fact that for many NPCs the marketing undertaken on national level is successful whereas the IPC’s marketing is zero. The motion is helpful to guarantee the NPC’s rights and ensure there is a money flow to those countries that are involved in the marketing programme.
The IPC President remarked that in fairness to the other IPC motions, this BPA motion should only be discussed and not voted on, especially in view of the meeting on October 4th where the motion and its implications will be discussed in detail. Reference was made to the need to review the wording of the motion since it gives exclusivity to the NPCs which implies that IPC’s rights are totally cut off. If such conditions are decided on before a marketing policy has been established on IPC level, it will make it extremely difficult and will jeopardise IPC’s discussions and negotiations with the IOC. The rights of the NPCs are only part of a full concept, the motion does not take into consideration the rights of the sports and the regions. A full and thorough discussion is needed with the IOC first and then IPC should bring back to the General Assembly a more effective policy that fits into an overall concept and is in line with the strategic review of the organisation.
The EPC President suggested not to vote on the motion but to see it as a show of concern and agreed that the development of a marketing policy and the strategic review in the next term is of the highest priority.
Great Britain clarified it had not been their intention to force people into voting in block but to generate a discussion to get an indication on the views and feelings of the other NPCs.
Finland stated it regretted IPC’s lack of efficiency in the marketing area, however it did not wish to tie IPC’s hands in the negotiations and the development of a strategy. It was felt a more close discussion with the Executive Committee was needed to ensure the strategy would satisfy all parties.
France stated it understood the views of the BPA, other NPCs, and of the IPC; issues are however sensitive and should be presented to the IPC General Assembly as a concern.
The IPC President confirmed he was 100% in support of BPA’s request for NPCs to be involved in the debate and in the process of establishing overall marketing policies, however, they should not already start developing such policies and work out such details as outlined in their motion to the IPC General Assembly, which gives all rights to the countries and leaves nothing for IPC. He made an appeal not to tie hands now, as every one would lose on it.
The Netherlands stated an important signal should be given to the IPC General Assembly, that if in the next 2 years there is no significant change and no positive marketing strategy for all is in place, the next General Assembly would take up the discussion again and take the marketing rights to the NPCs.
The EPC General Assembly agreed to accept the proposal of the EPC President not to vote on the motion but to formally express EPC’s strong concerns with the lack of a marketing policy that encompasses the rights of the NPCs.
The IPC President informed that during the meeting of October 4th, IPC hoped it could focus on positive discussions that would eventually lead to the development of an overall marketing plan.
9.3 Motions for the IPC General Assembly
Motions submitted by European member nations for the IPC General Assembly had been circulated to the EPC members. It was clarified that the intention was to provide an opportunity for exchange of views and opinions but that no vote would be taken on these motions. Also, due to time restrictions only a few motions were discussed.
President Dr. Robert Price (Great Britain) was declared elected by acclamation
Secretary General Mr. Enrique Sanchez Guijo (Spain) was declared elected by acclamation.
Treasurer Germany moved and Ukraine seconded for the General Assembly to accept the late nomination of Mr. Jurg Weber (Switzerland), who was the only nominee for the position, although it had been sent in after the time deadline. The Netherlands and Great Britain objected to the fact that the motion only included the late nomination for the Treasurer and felt the second late nomination for a member at large from France, Mr. Michel Fourcade, should be considered at the same time as it is a matter of general principles whether or not to accept late nominations. It was stated that if a position remains vacant, the Executive Committee has the authority to fill that vacancy and appoint someone into the position. Germany and Ukraine accepted that the motion in favour to accept late nominations would concern both nominees. The motion was defeated, with 12 votes in favour and 14 against.
Subsequently no election was held and the position remained vacant.
Technical Officer Dr. Karl Quade (Germany) was declared elected by acclamation.
Member at Large 5 valid nominations were submitted for 4 positions. As a result of the voting round the following individuals were elected:
Mr. Sverre Bergenholdt (Norway)
Mr. Ratko Kovacic (Croatia)
Mr. Arto Pehkonen (Finland)
Mr. Pal Szekeres (Hungary)
Closing
Mr. Lindström thanked the outgoing Executive Committee members for their commitment and hard work over the past 4 years, which he declared, being the most rewarding of his career in sports for disabled. Dr. Price addressed the Assembly, thanked the BPA for their support and for submitting his nomination for the position of EPC President, thanked the outgoing EPC Executive Committee and closed the meeting.
Leen Coudenys
Executive Assistant
Hans Lindström
EPC President
APPENDICE I
EPC General Assembly
September 29, 2001
Agenda item 5.2
Within the general policies and objectives of the European Paralympic Committee as determined by the General Assembly, the main goals as seen by the Executive Committee are to:
A long-term goal to be observed when sufficient financial resources are available, is the establishment of a professional administration for EPC.
Projects overview
1 Championships/Cup programme
1.1 Together with relevant IPC Sports Assembly Executive Committees and European Sport Co-ordinators establish strategy and procedures for encouraging bids for European Championships by February 2002, to be implemented as soon as possible thereafter.
1.2 Goals:
- At least 7 championships/official EPC events for 2003;
- Bids for 7-8 championships for 2005 by October 2002;
- Bids for at least 8-9 championships for 2007 by October 2003.
1.3 The development of an official EPC regular multi-disability Athletics programme for implementation in 2005. (First) meeting to be held with European athletics representatives first half of 2002.
1.4 Continue relations and further support to the EPC European Alpine Cup Committee and EPC Cup Committee in Nordic Skiing by the 2000-2001 winter sports season. Establish formal bylaws winter season 2001-2002.
1.5 Establish formal bylaws for EPC Committee European Sledge Hockey Cup for club teams in connection to tournament 2002.
1.6 Support and supervise the European Archery Committee until such a time when it can be returned to Co-ordinator status. Establish formal bylaws spring 2002.
2 Development work
2.1 Completion of currently undertaken Development projects – see report Development Officer and continuation of applications for IPC Development projects in Europe.
2.2 Continue to map the needs for developing projects and assistance in European developing and war torn nations. Establish a development programme in close co-operation with the relevant countries, relevant Sports Assembly Executive Committees and/or IOSDs.
2.2 Continue the support for participation of Eastern European qualified volunteers in classification and TD seminars organised by the relevant IPC relevant Sports Assembly Executive Committees.
2.3 Continue offer to IPC and ATHOC to establish a joint education programme for technical officials in Greece, which is open to interested candidates from other countries.
2.4 Evaluate possibilities for establishing European Sports Programmes for Disabled Youth.
2.5 Establish contacts with the relevant new IPC commissions with the aim to increase participation of severely disabled athletes and women in Europe.
3. Relations
Where relevant establish or maintain relations with European and other International Federations/Organisations/Institutions with the aim to:
3.1 Further the co-operation between EPC and European and International IOSDs.
3.2 Further the integration into mainstream sport.
3.3 Strengthen the relations on national level between able-bodied and disabled sports organisations.
3.4 Increase public awareness. In particular, further explore possibilities for joint activities in relation to the EU’s “European Year for Disabled” in 2003 and the “Year of Sport” 2004. Seek co-operation with European Disability Forum.
4. EPC Newsletter and information folder
4.1 Publish the EPC News , with 3 issues annually.
4.2 Establish an editorial committee to assist in the production of the newsletter.
4.3 Update the information folder based on 2001 General Assembly/elections
5 Marketing and Fundraising
5.1 Monitor the work of the Marketing Agency with the aim to obtain Sponsor partnerships and funding of the EPC official competition programme and EPC News.
5.2 Continue to explore funding possibilities with various European institutions and through fundraising projects.
5.3 Explore possibilities to establish a donation’s programme.
5.4 Seek professional assistance in developing an education package and a training session with the aim to provide media and PR training to the NPCs on how to promote sports for disabled within their respective countries.
On behalf of the Executive Committee,
Hans Lindström
President