AS (2012) CR 01



(First part)


First Sitting

Monday 23 January 2012 at 11.30.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

Mr Iwiński, the longest-serving member of the Assembly, took the Chair at 11.35 a.m.

1. Opening of the 2012 Ordinary Session

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The sitting is open.

2. Address by the provisional President

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, for the first time, in keeping with the new rules that are in force, the honour of opening the Session of the Assembly falls not to the eldest member but to the parliamentarian who is the longest-serving member of the Assembly. This bears witness to the ideals of the founding fathers as well as to the values that are at the heart of our Organisation.

I have been a member of the Assembly for 20 years, during which time major changes in central and eastern Europe have taken place. The Council of Europe, the longest-standing Organisation in Europe, is 63 years old. Nonetheless, its activities are not always fully appreciated.

I bid you all a warm welcome and ask you to accept my best wishes for the next year. I convey my best wishes to the current members of the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as the new members of delegations with observer status, and those representing Observer States co-operating with the Council of Europe. I also send my best wishes to all the Secretariat of the Council of Europe and of our Assembly.

Over the last few months, parliamentary elections have been held in many member States: Switzerland, Spain, Slovenia, Croatia, Russia, and in my own country of Poland, but also in Morocco, Tunisia and Kazakhstan. That has resulted in changes to the membership of delegations, among other things, once again bearing out Max Weber’s paradigm that the art of politics is not to be elected but to be re-elected.

Last week, Giuseppe Vedovato died at the age of 99. He was one of the most important figures in the history of the Council of Europe, a member of our Assembly for many years, as well as its President during the first half of the 1970s. He was dedicated to the construction of the idea of a greater Europe, and he donated his library to the Council of Europe.

I would like to ask the Assembly to stand for a minute’s silence in memory of the deceased.

The Assembly observed a minute’s silence.

(The speaker continued in English)

Ladies and gentlemen, after the adoption last year of the key report on the reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, prepared by Mr Mignon, our united inter-parliamentary body, representing 800 million Europeans, is going to work in partly new conditions and according to the new Rules. For instance, we will have fewer committees but the number of challenges is not diminishing. On the contrary, apart from the old problems such as the situation in Belarus or the rights of different minorities, we are facing new ones – for example, those linked to the breaches of democratic standards in Hungary.

3. Examination of credentials

THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business is the examination of credential of new members.

The names of the members and substitutes are in Document 12828. If no credentials are contested, their credentials will be ratified.

Are any credentials challenged?

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – Yes.

THE PRESIDENT – Before calling a member to speak at this point, I must remind the Assembly that the rules on challenges to credentials require the member challenging credentials to state: which credentials are being challenged; whether the challenge is under Rule 7 (procedural grounds), or Rule 8 (substantive grounds); and the reasons for the challenge.

I call Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, I wish to challenge the credentials of three members of the Ukrainian delegation. Mr Volodymyr Pylpenko, Mr Valeriy Pysarenko and Mr Oleksandr Feldman are here as members of the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc, as opposition members. However, in reality, in their own parliament, one of them is a member of the ruling party and the other two are independents. I wish to challenge that abnormal situation on procedural grounds.

THE PRESIDENT – I remind the Assembly that under Rule 7 a challenge must be supported by at least 10 members, from at least five national delegations, who are present in the Chamber. Will members who support the challenge please rise in their places and remain standing while we check whether the requirement has been met?

The challenge has the support required under the Rules of Procedure.

Accordingly, the credentials of the Ukrainian delegation are referred without debate to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.

I draw your attention to Rule 7 under which that committee may conclude that the credentials should be ratified, in which case it may submit an opinion to the President of the Assembly who shall read it out in the plenary sitting of the Assembly without debate.

If the committee concludes otherwise, the committee’s report shall be placed on the agenda for debate. The President will make proposals for the examination by the Assembly of a possible report from that committee when we consider the draft agenda.

I remind you that members or substitutes whose credentials are contested are entitled to take their seats provisionally until the Assembly has reached a decision in their case; however, they may not vote in any proceedings relating to the examination of their own credentials.

Are there any other challenges? That is not the case.

The other credentials set out in Document 12828 are ratified.

I welcome our new colleagues.

4. Election of the President of the Assembly

THE PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the election of the President of the Assembly. First, however, I want to express our gratitude to the outgoing President, Mr Çavuşoğlu. He was the first Turkish President of the Assembly and, as I am sure we all agree, he contributed significantly to the increase in its dynamism.

I have received only one candidature: that of Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, from France, representing the European Democrat Group. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 14, I declare Mr Mignon elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for this Ordinary Session. Mr Mignon, I congratulate you on your election.

(Mr Mignon, President of the Assembly, took the Chair.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Let me begin by extending personal greetings to my wife, who is sitting in the gallery, and to all the friends who have kindly attended today’s sitting. This is not established practice as far as I am aware, and I hope that the Assembly will forgive me if I am rather emotional.

I want to thank several people for being present. First, with her permission, I want to mention Catherine Lalumière, the former Secretary General. Your presence, Catherine, is a source of immense pleasure for me, and I am sure that that applies to a great many parliamentarians. You were Secretary General before my friend Mr Jagland. I hope that I may call him a friend, because ours is a sincere friendship. However, I was lucky enough to enter this building at a time when you were Secretary General. You and Mr Martínez were in charge at the time, and Mr Iwiński reminded us what an historic era that was for his country. You managed the process and completely overhauled this Organisation, along with Mr Martínez and all who followed in his wake. You have taught me a great deal. It is important for members to note that, although you are not necessarily from the same political school as me, I was pleased to campaign for you so that you would have a second term as Secretary General.

I also wish to thank René van der Linden, who was a great President of the Assembly. Nor can I forget Leni Fischer, Sir Russell Johnston or Lluís Maria De Puig. Leni Fischer was the only woman to preside over our proceedings. However, you were my teacher in the Group of the European People’s Party, and it is also thanks to you that I am in this position.

It has been 23 years since a Frenchman chaired this body, and I hope to be equal to the task. It is with gratitude and humility that I accept this high office that you entrust to me. I am grateful for the confidence you vested in me. I thank Bruno Haller and Mr Sawicki, and all the members in my group, the EPP, for their support. I also want to thank the other political groups and especially their chairs. I hail the relations between the various heads of the political groups; Anne Brasseur, Tiny Kox, Andreas Gross, Robert Walter. It is a unity, which means that this Parliamentary Assembly is not like all the others where the political battles are much more strained. I mention humility, as I am aware of the magnitude of the task.

The Council of Europe is today going through a crisis and is questioning its future. Following the glorious decade of the 1990s, in which the Organisation welcomed in the countries of central and eastern Europe, the start of the new millennium placed the Council of Europe on the defensive, especially vis-à-vis the European Union. Sometimes it is in danger of being the “shrinking violet” – some even say the “sleeping beauty” – on the banks of the River Ill. In fact, the reality is quite contrary, particularly in western Europe. And, because of this, the exemplary achievements of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the Pharmacopoeia, the Venice Commission, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the Commissioner for Human Rights are all but disregarded.

Some, adopting a simplistic philosophy of history, wish to believe that we belong to the past. Our results, in their eyes, are of little importance, and the fact that they are obtained at modest cost carries little weight. Here I turn to the Secretary General, who knows just how meagre are the resources available to us. We are certainly very reasonable when it comes to the budget of this Organisation. For some, it is of little importance that the Council of Europe has, thanks to its partial agreements, invented a flexible format for co-operation which has yielded exemplary results, and it matters little to them that we have 47 member States and represent no fewer than 800 million Europeans.

It was in order to counter this mindset of ignorance and intellectual superficiality that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, and my predecessors including Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu took steps to abandon that defensive stance in order to go on the offensive, so that the Council of Europe finds its rightful place, both in Europe and internationally. It was in order to contribute to this renewal that I, as rapporteur, suggested convening a new summit of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers believes it would be preferable for the Parliamentary Assembly to begin its own reform process before a summit is convened. That has now been done and I therefore believe that a summit is feasible and would give fresh impetus to the reform process.

With regard to the reform of the Assembly, I wish first of all to pay particular tribute to former President Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, whose initiative it was. The reform would not have been possible without his strong commitment. He has brought this Assembly closer together, which was not easy given that he was our first Turkish President. He has enjoyed unanimous support and travelled all over Europe, expending a vast amount of energy on burnishing our image. He should be publicly thanked for that. He has always supported me and I have always supported him. Irrespective of the responsibilities he takes on tomorrow, I am sure we will still have great pleasure working together, giving pride of place to dialogue rather than confrontation. As I say, he should be thanked warmly for everything he has accomplished in just two years. That meant he had to move swiftly to do what he wanted. This reform comes into effect today and its implementation will, of course, be one of my priorities.

Before I explain how I view this reform, I would like to stress the importance of the Assembly and the decisive role it played in the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the abolition of the death penalty. My regret, as a French parliamentarian, was that I was not elected early enough. Had I already been a member of the French Parliament when France took the decision to repeal the death penalty, I would have backed that law unequivocally. We also played a decisive role in the Bioethics Convention, in the fight against counterfeit medicines and in welcoming in the countries of central and eastern Europe with the introduction of special guest status, to name but a few. We also have Partnership for Democracy status. Without the existence of a genuine Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe would be just one intergovernmental organisation among many others. I think this deserves to be said, given that our Assembly is sometimes underestimated. If we are to live up to this admirable track record, we need to change. This is why reform is necessary.

It is clear to me that parliamentarians are, in two ways, at the very heart of the reform. First, the success or failure of change depends much more on the men and women who will be applying it than on texts. Secondly, the reform’s primary objective is to give them better working conditions. The new Rules of Procedure should therefore enable all members to express their views. The increase in the time allocated to committees and political groups will allow more detailed debates and should also make it easier for everyone to participate.

In addition, I intend to take a number of practical measures, such as supplementing the induction seminar for new members with a welcome pack given to each member, as it is vital for us, on our arrival, to familiarise ourselves with the rules and practices that differ in certain points from those applicable in our own national parliaments.

I would also like to have the opportunity to listen to what everyone has to say, in order to gather your suggestions, comments and complaints. To do this, I first intend regularly to attend meetings of committees so as to be fully informed of their work. In this way, I would always be in a position to listen to all members of the Assembly. Facilitating the work of members of the Assembly also means making sure that they have the working papers in good time. This is not easy even when one’s mother tongue is English or French. I can therefore completely understand how difficult it is for the majority of our colleagues who are not in this situation. I would advocate the strict application of existing deadlines, or even tightening them up, so that neither in committees nor in plenary are we in a situation where we are discussing a draft document that has not been distributed to members two or even three weeks in advance, except of course for urgent debates. It goes without saying that, in return, there would be less flexibility. I would be happy to know your feelings on this issue, and I shall of course take your opinions happily on board.

I stress that we are in a house of democracy here. If we are to put members at the heart of our Assembly, there has to be a more participatory functioning of the Bureau, whose role I would like to enhance – Mr Çavuşoğlu has already made a start.

I would also like to ensure that the responsibilities of the Vice-Presidents are not limited to replacing the President in chairing sittings, and that other responsibilities can be delegated to them, if they so desired. A further major objective of mine is to make the Assembly more relevant in political terms. This means that we must fully subscribe to the rationale of the reform and have the courage to resist the temptation to over-diversify. Let us refocus our attention on our priorities and cut down the number of topics we discuss. We must also strive to limit the number of recommendations we address to the Committee of Ministers and to make them as relevant as possible; in exchange, we could be more demanding regarding the follow-up to our proposals.

I shall endeavour to ensure that those strict guidelines are upheld in the Bureau, and do so in as transparent a way as possible. I would like us over time to develop a sort of “case law”, which could result in an annual report explaining the guidelines that we have followed. Being more relevant also means not being afraid to tackle the real problems. For example, we in western Europe consider peace to be a given, and it is true for this part of our continent. It is indeed one of the major achievements of the process of European integration. It is not quite so true, however, of Cyprus, a member State of the European Union, where the United Nations peacekeepers patrol a wall, which reminds us of another, of more sinister memory. It is the same in Georgia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. It is all too easy to close your eyes and accept the unacceptable, but this carries the risk that one day what is happening in practice becomes law. One of the first duties of our Assembly is to ensure that these questions remain on the agenda and that the parties talk to each other. We are here for dialogue. Parliamentary diplomacy, while it cannot perform miracles, can advance the dialogue on questions where State diplomacy and organisations have failed.

On this subject, as on others, I shall try to ensure that the President’s travels are co-ordinated with all the competent organs of the Council of Europe, depending on the subject – for example, the Secretary General and the Chairs of the Committee of Ministers and of the Monitoring Committee. I firmly believe that our voice will be better heard if we act together.

Another sensitive topic is respect by member States for the values of the Council of Europe. Certain excesses are unacceptable. Nonetheless, I would like us to proceed along the path of dialogue, dialogue and more dialogue, and it takes two to do that. In other terms, let us avoid stigmatisation and threats of exclusion or expulsion, which is the weapon of last resort and the sign of an irreparable failure.

During my term as President, I also wish to build on and take forward the progress achieved by my predecessor in relations with the European Union. It was for this reason that I welcomed the agreement between the European Parliament and the Assembly on arrangements for participation by the European Parliament in the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights. I will endeavour to continue along this path.

Still on this subject, I would like the Assembly to continue to keep a very close eye on the issue of the European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. This unification of the European human rights area is a fundamental achievement of the Treaty of Lisbon and enshrines recognition for the European Court of Human Rights – our European Court of Human Rights. We cannot allow certain narrow bureaucratic interests to stand in the way of this, even if this is always done in the name of lofty principles. The Court is the Council of Europe’s flagship. Here, too, we have a duty to keep a close eye on the Court’s reform process, in liaison with the Committee of Ministers and the Court itself. The Court faces many dangers and I am delighted that the Government of the United Kingdom is making it a priority of its chairmanship.

We all know that the Court is currently inundated with cases and can no longer keep up. Only very recently it received 8 000 similar applications against a Hungarian law on pensions. Many courses of action can be, and are being, envisaged. I simply think that, whatever solutions are adopted, the Court is such an important institution that they should be the subject of public debate. In other words, I would be wary of a solution which would involve allowing the caseload to build up, with the Court only deciding those cases which it considers to be of priority importance. If the right of individual application is to be called into question, that must be the result of a fully transparent political choice.

I welcome the Assembly’s increasing role in monitoring the execution of the Court’s judgments. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the exemplary work accomplished in this field by our colleague Christos Pourgourides, who unfortunately no longer sits in this Chamber. I also welcome the efforts made by some national parliaments to follow up this work in the member States. I will do my utmost to ensure that these efforts continue and are stepped up in liaison with the Court. I would like to take this opportunity to pay special tribute to Jean-Paul Costa, who until a few weeks ago was the President of the Court. He did a sterling job there and I wish every success to his successor, a Briton, Sir Nicolas Bratza.

Another priority of my term as President will be to continue efforts to improve relations with the Committee of Ministers. We must strengthen and enhance the dialogue between the Council of Europe’s two statutory organs. It is normal and legitimate that we should not always agree, just as the legislative and executive branches may sometimes disagree in the member States. It is the role of parliamentarians to innovate, criticise and stimulate the work of the Committee of Ministers. Tension between these two institutions can be a source of movement and progress. On the other hand, we have a duty to avoid any deadlock.

To foster a better understanding between the Council of Europe’s two statutory organs, the best solution is for parliamentarians to take an active part in the work of the various working groups and steering committees reporting to the Committee of Ministers, which are being held today. I recently suggested to the ambassadors that the President or members of the Bureau might attend their meetings as witnesses, such is the importance of our being aware of each other’s concerns and priorities. I fully approve of the proposals made by Mr Vareikis and Mr Holovaty for enhancing dialogue. As regards written questions, I would like us to exercise self-discipline and be careful only to ask questions directly relevant to the Council of Europe’s activities.

I – or rather we – would like to reform the Joint Committee in close consultation with the Committee of Ministers. Meetings should perhaps be moved to a new time slot, as Thursday evening is not necessarily ideal. Above all, their scope should perhaps be restricted to a specific topic, with all the parliamentarians competent in that area. Both meetings at which I addressed the Committee of Ministers as rapporteur were highly constructive.

If we are to be more politically relevant, our activities will also need to be better known in the outside world. This therefore brings me to the very difficult issue of our Assembly’s communication policy. I think we will have to try gradually to identify one or two key themes for each part-session to enable people in the outside world to gain a clearer understanding of them. One idea might be to produce an attractive annual activity report. In liaison with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, I am going to start looking into the question of how coverage of our sessions by journalists might be improved. Our Assembly’s website is of a very high quality, but I am sure we can increase its clarity and accessibility still further.

I now wish to broach a subject which is a source of irritation to most of you, namely Strasbourg’s transport links. It is a very difficult subject, but rest assured that I will make every effort to change things. I believe in Strasbourg’s role as European capital; but the logistical means for this have to be provided. I have already established a whole series of informal contacts with my country’s political authorities on this subject. Some possible lines of approach are beginning to emerge, which I would like to share with you: align the taxes applied to Strasbourg airport with those of airports in the surrounding region; bring a low-cost airline to Strasbourg; consider ways of improving links with certain hubs; and improve services between Basel-Mulhouse airport and Strasbourg.

I cannot promise you any miracles, but I undertake to be extremely active on this issue and to ensure that you are involved. In particular, I will try to organise a meeting between Alsatian political leaders and the members of our Assembly in the months ahead. Above and beyond the issue of Strasbourg’s transport links, I will, indeed, endeavour to develop closer relations between the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the region’s elected representatives.

I wish to pursue a policy based on results. To achieve results, we will need courage, energy and a spirit of innovation. If there is no precedent, we must create one, and if traditions have to be called into question, we must not hesitate to do so.

In conclusion, I would like to quote Catherine Lalumière, who has been kind enough to honour me, and us, with her presence today. At a colloquy which I organised recently in Paris in co-operation with the Schuman Institute, you, Catherine, stressed that the Council of Europe has a major political role to play, that of “restoring the true meaning of the European project”. If our fellow citizens view the European project solely from a consumer standpoint, you said, that will spell the end of Europe. If Europe does not bring consumer-citizens the hoped-for prosperity, they will wonder what purpose Europe serves. To use your own words, Catherine, the Council of Europe must be the soul of our continent. It embodies the original spirit of the European project and its ultimate goal. You called on us to combat this ignorance which weighs so heavily on our Organisation. As the great Swiss philosopher, Denis de Rougemont, once said, “a united Europe is not a modern expedient, but an ideal which we will only attain by building it.”

I am sorry for speaking at such length, dear friends and colleagues. Thank you for your attention.

5. Voting cards, register of attendance and written declaration

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – May I remind all representatives, including substitutes and observers, to sign the attendance lists outside the doors of the Chamber at the beginning of every sitting?

May I also remind all representatives and duly designated substitutes to place their voting cards in the slot so as to ensure that the electronic system will work properly?

I ask all those present in the Chamber to ensure that their mobile phones and other electronic devices are switched off or set to silent mode while you are in the Chamber.

Finally, I remind representatives that a number of written declarations tabled in the last part-session remain open for signature until the end of this part-session. These are listed in today’s Organisation of debates. To add your name to a written declaration, please go to the Table Office, Room 1083.

6. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly

THE PRESIDENT (Translation – The next item of business is the election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly.

No Representative or Substitute may be elected as a Vice-President unless proposed in writing by the chairperson of the national delegation concerned on behalf of that delegation. This is in accordance with the rules on geographical rotation of offices and seats. It is also based on the principle of gender parity. Nominations have been received for 19 Vice-Presidents. They are listed in an Assembly document which is available. The document is AS/Inf (2012)01.

If there is no request for a vote, they will be declared elected.

As there has been no request for a vote, I declare these candidates elected as Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure.

They will take precedence by age.

7. Appointment of members of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business is the appointment of members of committees.

The candidatures for committee members have been published in document Commissions (2012) 1 and Addenda 1 and 2.

These candidatures are submitted to the Assembly for ratification.

Are these proposals approved?

The proposed candidatures are approved and the committees are appointed accordingly.

8. Proposals for debates under urgent procedure and on current affairs

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Before we examine the draft agenda, the Assembly needs to consider requests for debates under urgent procedure and on current affairs. The Bureau has received two requests for urgent debates: one from the Political Affairs Committee and Monitoring Committee on the Russian Federation between two elections; and the other from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe on the state of democracy in Hungary.

The Bureau has also received two requests for debates on current affairs: one from the Danish delegation on the democratic situation in Hungary; and the other from the Group of the European People’s Party, the Group of the Unified European Left and the European Democrat Group on the Russian Federation between two elections.

Out of these, at its meeting this morning, the Bureau agreed to propose to the Assembly only that it hold a current affairs debate on the Russian Federation between two elections and denied the three other requests. If agreed to, this will take place on Thursday morning as set out in the draft agenda with Mr Gross to open the debate.

On this question, only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against, a representative of the committee concerned and a representative of the Bureau speaking in its name.

I call Ms Brasseur to speak in favour of the request.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) emphasised that the urgent procedure debates on the political situations in both the Russian Federation and Hungary were essential to the Assembly’s business. If the Assembly wished to be true to the spirit of its mission, both debates should be included in the agenda.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I call Mr Kox to speak against the request.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We need to have a debate on the situation in Russia between two elections but it should be an open debate. The pre-electoral committee and the electoral committee will be sent out to Russia in the upcoming days and weeks. We should have a debate, therefore, but it should be a current affairs debate. I think that that will satisfy everybody.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We shall now vote on the request for an urgent procedure debate on “the Russian Federation between the two elections”. The decision requires a two-thirds majority. Those who are in favour of the urgent procedure debate should vote yes, and those who are against holding the debate should vote no.

The vote is open.

The request for urgent procedure is rejected.

I call Mr Loncle to raise a point of order.

Mr LONCLE (France) said that he was delighted at the President’s election. However, he was dismayed to learn that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe could not debate what was happening in Hungary. It was certain that the issue would, as a result, be put on the backburner.

THE PRESIDENT reminded the Assembly that, under the rules, only one current affairs debate per part-session was allowed and this was why the Bureau had decided that there would not be an urgent debate on the political situation in the Russian Federation. Rather, there would be a current affairs debate on this situation and members who had monitored the elections in the Russian Federation had explained to the Bureau why they were in favour of this position. The Monitoring Committee charged with observing the elections would report to the Assembly in June. On the issue of Hungary, the Bureau had decided by majority vote not to propose a debate in this part-session. He asked whether the Assembly endorsed the decision.

He called Ms Brasseur.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) stated that she and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe understood that there could not be two current affairs debates and this was why they were asking for an urgent debate on the situation in Hungary.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Mr Walter, you have the floor to speak against.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Thank you very much indeed, Mr President. There are colleagues who think that because the European Parliament spoke last week with a fairly solid voice on the situation in Hungary, we should follow suit. I think that members of the Assembly should remind themselves that we were ahead of the European Parliament – a year ago we took a position on Hungary, and we referred it to the Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee is preparing a report on the situation in Hungary, which we will have before us in April. I think that we undermine the work of that committee by now having another debate on the situation in Hungary before we see its report. Therefore, I am very much against this proposal.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – There is objection to the Bureau’s recommendation on the request for an urgent procedure debate on “the state of democracy in Hungary”. We must therefore proceed to a vote on the original proposal.

We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. The decision requires a two-third majority. Those who are in favour of the urgent procedure debate should vote yes, those who are against holding the debate should vote no.

The vote is open.

The request for urgent procedure has failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority.

Is the Bureau’s proposal for a current affairs debate on “the Russian Federation between the two elections” agreed?

It is agreed.

9. Adoption of the agenda

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item of business is the adoption of the agenda for the first part of the 2012 Ordinary Session.

The draft agenda submitted for the Assembly’s approval was brought up to date by the Bureau on 12 December and this morning.

I propose that the committee report on the challenge to the credentials be debated on Thursday morning at 11.30 a.m.

Is the draft agenda, as amended, agreed to?

It is agreed.

10. Adoption of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee in Edinburgh on 25 November 2011 have been distributed, Document AS/Per (2011) PV 03.

I invite the Assembly to take note of these minutes.

11. Time limits on speeches

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Changes in the rules agreed in the last part-session have reduced the standard length of speech to four minutes. It is clear already that there will be a large number of speakers and amendments for certain debates. To enable as many members as possible to speak, the Bureau proposes that speaking time be limited as follows: Monday: three minutes all day; Tuesday: three minutes in the afternoon; Wednesday: three minutes in the afternoon; Thursday: three minutes in the afternoon.

Is this agreed?

It is agreed.

I may make further proposals on these matters if changes to the numbers of speakers and amendments for particular debates seems to require it.

12. Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, Document 12830, Part I and Addendum and Part II. With this the Assembly will also consider the reports from the ad hoc committees on the parliamentary elections in Morocco, Document 12832, and in the Russian Federation, Document 12833.

The speakers list closed at 10 a.m. this morning. In view of the length of that list I remind you we have just agreed to limit speaking time to three minutes.

The sitting must conclude at 1 p.m. I therefore propose to interrupt the list of speakers at about 12.55 p.m.

Is this agreed?

It is agreed.

In the debate I call Mr Çavuşoğlu to present the progress report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

Mr Çavuşoğlu, you have the floor.

Mr ÇAVUŞOĞLU (Turkey) – Thank you very much Mr President. Dear colleagues, dear friends, two years ago, I was thanking you for electing me President of this Assembly. Now, as my mandate ends, I wish to thank you once again for your confidence, which you accorded me upon my election and which, I feel very much, you kept during my mandate. For me, these were two extraordinary years of my life, mainly because I was chairing an extraordinary Assembly with extraordinary members. That is why I can now say that together we have achieved a lot.

It has become more and more apparent to me how important the Council of Europe is to so many citizens of Europe, whether it is national governments who sought our help and advice or that single individual who has benefited because of the Court of Human Rights. It does not matter how big the issue is, more and more people have become accustomed to looking towards the Council of Europe for support, guidance and help. During these two years, we have undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of the role, but also of the image, of our Organisation in Europe and in the world.

First, this was mostly due to the fact that we did not avoid difficult or controversial subjects and kept to our principles. Most significantly for me personally, we have put the fight against all forms of intolerance and discrimination high on the list of our priorities. New challenges to the European multi-cultural model are emerging, creating a real potential for instability. The lack of intercultural and interethnic interaction leads to intolerance, extremism and xenophobia and, as we have recently seen in many places in Europe, to terrorism. Our response to these challenges should be a truly intercultural approach, which allows culturally different groups within society to interact. Therefore, the promotion of intercultural dialogue was a key political priority of my mandate.

Secondly, during my mandate, we have rapidly opened our doors to the countries of our neighbourhood which have clearly expressed their willingness to build their future on the basis of Council of Europe principles.

We have seen a transformation in the Arab world and I am delighted and proud to say that we in the Council of Europe have played a small part in offering advice, guidance and sometimes critical advice and guidance to those of emerging democracies which we all now have a true commitment to see flourish. The Assembly was visionary in this respect when we created the status of “Partnership for Democracy” for parliaments of non-member States subscribing to our standards. I paid visits to Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia, and I am really delighted that, during my mandate, the Assembly granted this new status to the two first partners for democracy: the Parliament of the Kingdom of Morocco, and the Palestinian National Council. Furthermore, following my visit to the Kyrgyz Republic, the Kyrgyz Parliament also requested this status, and I hope that Tunisia will soon apply, as well as Algeria and Kazakhstan.

Thirdly, we continue to assist countries under the monitoring process, or engage in post-monitoring dialogue to make progress on their obligations and commitment to the Council of Europe. I have visited all countries under the monitoring or post-monitoring procedure, some of them several times. During every visit and at every meeting, I stressed the need for them to fulfil their commitments not because of their obligations to the Council of Europe, but because this was essential to ensure prosperity and stability for the people of their countries.

Fourthly, through parliamentary diplomacy, we serve as a mediator in countries facing political deadlocks. In order to establish constructive dialogue between different political forces, I visited, together with the Presidential Committee, Albania, and Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all the member States in the Balkans and the Caucasus. We helped to reduce tensions in these countries and have certainly helped to avoid the situation worsening. I also paid especial attention to the issue of frozen conflicts, which I find unacceptable in today’s Europe. During my visits to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Cyprus, I always insisted on the necessity for all sides fully to implement the demands of the Assembly, and in particular to address humanitarian issues affecting the daily lives of the people.

Fifthly, I tried to be active on and supportive of institutional issues. During all my visits, I always sought support for the process of reform of the Council of Europe, and I consider reform of the Assembly one of the major achievements during my mandate. I thank Secretary General Jagland for his vision and initiative in the reform process, and for his political will and strong personal support for my presidency.

My mandate coincided with major upheavals in Europe and the world, and major changes within the Council of Europe. I am glad that the Assembly stayed in touch with these developments by being proactive, ambitious, visionary and a strong defender and guardian of the high principles and values of our Organisation. I did my best to focus my presidency on priorities that I believe are not only important for our Organisation, but equally are linked to the main concerns and aspirations of European citizens. In today’s world, in a state of turmoil, it is vital that our continent be a place where all countries live in peace and understanding, engaging in dialogue, and where all citizens enjoy equal rights, without discrimination or double standards.

I wish to thank all my colleagues and fellow parliamentarians, all Council of Europe institutions and bodies, as well as the staff, for sharing with me these goals and providing me with support throughout my mandate. It has been a real privilege for me to travel to many of the countries represented here in the Assembly, and to see the enthusiasm in which the Council of Europe is received. I would like to stress again how grateful I am for the way in which I was received in my capacity as President.

As I leave the post of President, I do so humble in the knowledge that I have tried to do my best for this Organisation. I have tried to be fair to you, the members of the Assembly, during our debates here. It was not always easy or enjoyable trying to stop Mr Hancock or Mr Iwiński from making their endless speeches, but overall, we worked hard and I really enjoyed this period.

I wish you all the very best for the future and say to my successor as President, Jean-Claude Mignon, that I wish you well and offer congratulations on your election as President of this Assembly. You deserve it. You were my strongest supporter, and I will do my best to be yours. Thank you very much, dear colleagues, for your support.

As an ordinary member of the Assembly, I now turn to our progress report. You can see that the Bureau’s agenda within the reference period has been particularly busy. However, I shall draw your attention only to the few issues I consider most important.

On Assembly reform, last year we adopted a number of measures affecting the Assembly’s organisational structure. In November, the Bureau approved the new arrangements for the part-sessions of the Assembly, most of which have already been scheduled into the agenda of this part-session. Furthermore, the Bureau approved proposals on modifications of the references to committees, the appointment of rapporteurs for the new merged committee, the presentation of reports, and the draft model terms of reference of the Assembly’s general rapporteurs. I count on your approval of all these changes to conclude the Assembly’s reform process.

In June 2012, the Assembly will elect a new Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe. In December, the Bureau agreed to the proposals of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to amend the draft job description/competence framework of the Deputy Secretary General, and to reduce the term of office of the Deputy Secretary General to be elected in 2012 to three years. Meanwhile, the Committee of Ministers proposed further modifications to the draft job description, which the Bureau approved this morning.

During this reference period, the Bureau took decisions concerning seven election missions. I am particularly proud of our commitments to assisting the new Partnership for Democracy countries on their path to democratisation. Acting as an independent referee in elections is one form of assistance we can offer to our new partners.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to probably the most interesting part of this progress report: statistics on the gender breakdown of the Assembly positions. You may remember that the Bureau decided in April 2011 to produce an annual report on progress in achieving gender equality in the functioning of the Assembly. Unfortunately, women remain under-represented in all Assembly positions. I encourage you to look at the appended tables, but I also call on all committees to keep the gender balance in mind when electing their Bureau members as from this afternoon. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you very much, Mr Çavuşoğlu. I now call Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin

Ms DE POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – First, I congratulate you on your election as President. Secondly, I feel that it is unacceptable that we have half an hour to discuss this progress report and to discuss the parliamentary elections in Russia and in Morocco. That seems like an insult to all of us as parliamentarians. Please therefore try to find a way to make more time for this very important discussion and debate.

THE PRESIDENT noted her concern and said the problem had already been raised with him. The business of the Assembly was running a little late. As a result, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Jagland, had agreed to postpone his speech until 3.30 p.m. in order to allow the debate to resume for an additional thirty minutes in the afternoon. All business and planned social events would therefore take place 30 minutes later than scheduled. He asked whether there were any objections and noted there were none. He called Mr Jirsa to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the observation of the parliamentary elections in Morocco.

(Ms Woldseth, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Mignon.)

Mr JIRSA (Czech Republic) – I chaired a delegation that observed the elections to the House of Representatives of Morocco on 25 November 2011. We arrived in Morocco just as the civil war in Libya was finishing and the shooting in Syria was beginning. It could be said that, in comparison with the countries surrounding it, Morocco is an island of stability in an unstable Arab world. I believe that because His Majesty Hassan II – Morocco is of course a kingdom – began democratising reforms some 12 years earlier, the Moroccan population is much better prepared for democratisation than other Arab States, but it is nevertheless difficult to organise elections in a country when an estimated 40% to 60% of its population are illiterate.

Our Ad hoc Committee established 10 teams which visited 171 polling stations on voting day, observing the elections in different towns and regions. The committee concluded that the elections on 25 November had taken place in a calm atmosphere, and that the voters had been able to choose freely between different political parties. I believe that we need to step up co-operation between our Assembly and the newly elected Parliament of Morocco within the framework of our Resolution 1818 of 2011, which requests Partner for Democracy status for Morocco.

I thank all members of the delegation for their active and effective participation in the observation of the elections, and I thank the staff for their excellent work.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Kox to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on the observation of the parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation (4 December 2011).

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Let me give the Assembly a short summary of our observations on the elections to a new State Duma of the Russian Federation, which took place on 4 December. We concluded that they had been prepared for well in technical terms, but, unfortunately, they were marked by a convergence of the State and the governing party, by limited political competition and by a lack of fairness. On election day, voting was well organised overall, but the quality of the process deteriorated considerably during the count, which was characterised by frequent procedural violations and instances of apparent manipulation, including ballot-stuffing.

As the Assembly knows, since the day of the elections, numerous citizens throughout the Russian Federation have expressed great anger about the way in which the elections were organised and, if I may say so, manipulated. Those massive manifestations of distrust and anger have served as a wake-up call for the Russian authorities, parties and institutions, and for society in general. Since then, several suggestions have been made for improvements in the electoral process by the President and the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, the head of the Central Election Commission, political factions and non-governmental organisations.

During our post-election mission to Moscow last week, we observed the widespread call for a change in Russia that would enable it to regain the trust of its citizens. In a statement at the end of our visit, we welcomed that call, but also called for the change to be substantial and sustainable rather than serving merely as a survival mechanism until the presidential elections on 4 March. There is, for instance, a pressing need for an impartial referee to oversee voting in Russia. As we told the Russian and international media, establishing public confidence in the electoral system will require a major overhaul of electoral administration.

The unprecedented anger that was expressed in Russian society prompted an unprecedented, and swift, response from the authorities, which presented proposals for change and improvement in the electoral process. That is the good news from the elections, which contrasts with the bad things that we observed on election day and the days leading up to it. As for whether the change will prove substantial and sustainable, that is – as Shakespeare would say – the question: the question that is at stake in the Russian Federation today.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. We will now proceed with the debate. I call Mr Volontè to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VOLONTÈ (Italy) thanked the former President Mr Çavuşoğlu for the positive impetus of his Presidency, and congratulated Mr Mignon on his election. The reports covered many recent events and were very detailed. Some elements were very positive and both reports showed that work was continuing to achieve the three guiding principles of the Council of Europe: human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Further progress was required in Morocco and especially in the Russian Federation. The Council of Europe had to play an even more active role. Contrary to criticism from certain quarters, its methods were not old-fashioned. Its work was extremely relevant and used by many countries as a reference point. Indeed, a number of countries were keen to join the Council of Europe. He thanked Mr Jirsa and Mr Kox and said he was proud of both the work that had been done and the work that was still to come.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Moriau to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr MORIAU (Belgium) congratulated the President on his election and said that recent events in Hungary and the Russian Federation were of great concern, but there were also worries in Africa and the Middle East. The Arab Spring was becoming a harsh winter. At the same time, technocrats were now in government in Italy, right-wing parties were in power in the United Kingdom and in Belgium, and elsewhere far-right parties were gaining ground. More and more human rights issues were being raised in Europe itself, for example the question of the freedom of the press. These human rights issues were all linked by the economic and financial crisis, which not only affected the daily lives of European citizens but endangered the ideals and values that united the Assembly. While the Council of Europe had worked tirelessly to bring an end to the death penalty and matters such as xenophobia and racism, at present 78% of the population were in favour of the death penalty, and xenophobia and racism were common. It was also important to note that less than 30% of people trusted democracy. The ideals of the Council of Europe were not in harmony with the views of the public.

The only answer to the question, “Was public opinion right?” had to be, “No.” Nevertheless institutions needed to engage in public debate and address their own credibility. Authoritarianism should not be allowed to gain the upper hand. He agreed with the sentiments of Catherine Lalumière when she said the Council of Europe must be the soul of our continent.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Moriau. I remind everyone to stick to the time limits.

I next call Mr Walter, on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr WALTER (United Kingdom) – Madam President, the rapporteur thanked his colleagues; I think it is time to thank him. Mr Çavuşoğlu has been in this Assembly for a number of years as leader of the Turkish delegation and as vice-chairman of my political group between 2009 and 2010. I also remember him as the Turkish delegation leader to the European Security and Defence Assembly of the Western European Union when I was President of that Assembly. Over the years, he has been active in the Turkish Grand National Assembly and in the Justice and Development Party, building the international links of that party in a new era of Turkish foreign policy. His election as President two years ago was significant. The presidency moved from old Europe, recognising that we are a Europe of 47 nations. We say goodbye to him as President of the Assembly, but not goodbye for ever. He has already volunteered to represent my group in the next election observation mission to Russia, and we welcome him back to the EDG.

We also welcome Jean-Claude Mignon to the presidency. As this report of the Bureau demonstrates, this is a challenging time for Europe, for the Council of Europe and for the Parliamentary Assembly. The institutional challenges that face us, the new committees and the Rules of Procedure that we are just coping with, our relationship with the European Union, particularly the accession of the European Union to the Convention and the wider reform agenda, make the Council of Europe more relevant, not least in respect of the reform of the Court, with its backlog of 160 000 cases.

We face political challenges, as we have heard in the report in respect of Syria, Morocco, Egypt and Libya, and there are challenges among our members. We have heard about the elections to the Russian Duma and the forthcoming parliamentary elections, but we also have unresolved conflicts in Georgia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, Cyprus and Kosovo. As always, the progress report is work in progress. This report finishes off the work of one President, but it sets the tone of the new presidential term. On behalf of my group, I would like to wish Jean-Claude Mignon all the best as the new President of the Assembly. We stand ready to help him in his agenda, which he so ably outlined this morning.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Walter. I now call Ms Brasseur, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) noted that the progress report was thorough. She thanked the rapporteurs and also extended her congratulations to the new President. She went on to highlight three particular points of concern.

First, it was important to discuss the situation in the Russian Federation, although an urgent procedure debate would have been preferable. Matters were difficult, given the restrictive conditions, particularly that it was not possible to create new political parties. She regretted that Konstantine Koshev was no longer a member of the Russian delegation, and noted that he was a pleasure to work with, notwithstanding their differences.

Secondly, the situation in Azerbaijan was something that the Assembly should return to, especially given that the rapporteur was refused an entry visa, which was regrettable.

The final issue was that of Hungary, which was not in the current programme for debate.

(The speaker continued in English)

Mr Çavuşoğlu, as you addressed us in English, I shall do the same. On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would like to thank you for all the work you did during the last two years as President – our President – of the Assembly. I want to recall that, despite the fact that your country joined the Council of Europe in August 1949, you were the first Turkish President. You did a great job, too, under the double presidency, which was a very good one. As I had the pleasure of working with you, I know that your working style was characterised by great knowledge and, above all, by great fairness. If you would allow me to say it, another one of your great characteristics is the impatience you showed from time to time, but this, dear colleagues, sometimes helped us to reach conclusions in a reasonable period of time. Let me conclude with the only Turkish words I know, “Teşekkür ederim”.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Brasseur. I now call Mr Petrenco, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Republic of Moldova) – Dear colleagues, first of all, I thank the rapporteurs for the reports. I also congratulate Mr Çavuşoğlu who did an excellent job, with openness and commitment to Council of Europe values and goals, when he was President of our Assembly.

As we are going to have a separate debate on the recent Russian elections, I shall not spend much time now evaluating what happened. However, having been one of the Assembly’s observers at those elections, I recommend that colleagues should not draw any apocalyptic conclusions. It is true that certain elements of the process raised concern. Also, many people were not satisfied with the results and have protested, and there was excessive use of administrative resources in some territories and regions. As the main opposition force in Russia, the communists should probably be more dissatisfied than anyone else. However, we should also recognise that the elections were well organised, especially taking into account the size of the country. It is true that there are problems, but we should refrain from Cold War-style rhetoric. Instead, we should think about how the Council of Europe might assist the Russian Federation to improve the electoral laws and general electoral climate.

The UEL would like to highlight the situation in the Republic of Moldova, where action by the Council of Europe Assembly is needed. The usurpation of State power by the so-called Alliance for European Integration is a proven fact. The leaders of the ruling parties signed a disgraceful agreement to divide between them the general prosecutor’s office, the secret services and even the high court of justice. What kind of democracy and rule of law is that?

The Moldovan Parliament should have been dissolved in December of last year because it had failed to elect a president in over a year, yet it still sits. It continues to take illegal decisions, to mock democracy and to scoff at the country and its people. Representatives of that unconstitutional regime still sit in this Chamber, not even trying to justify their presence here. What must happen in Moldova before the Assembly takes a position? We call on the Council of Europe to hold debates on the situation in Moldova urgently. Thousands of people recently went out on to the streets to protest throughout Moldova. We cannot be silent, and stand on the sidelines accepting the Moldovan authorities doing whatever they want, neglecting the constitution, neglecting laws, neglecting everything.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. The last speaker this morning will be Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France) thanked the President and congratulated the former President, and said that she had taken a close interest in the situation in the Russian Federation. It was a very difficult situation.

In Morocco, the Islamic party might be the major party but it had been elected on a low turnout. There had been work in 2002 and 2007 which had resulted in a positive outcome and, following the referendum in July, things had moved forward.

Morocco remained a parliamentary system and the King remained head of the Council of Ministers and it had Partnership for Democracy status in the Council of Europe.

Returning to the Russian Federation, as an observer at a polling station she had seen irregularities in the vote. Nevertheless, the Putin-Medvedev system had been weakened by the election: new personalities had emerged, including those not in the Duma. While there was not much time before the presidential election on 4 March – there was no doubt Putin would win – the Council of Europe needed to continue to undertake its objective but critical work. She remained hopeful.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Durrieu. I must now interrupt the list of speakers, and we will continue the debate at 3 o’clock. Before we close this morning’s meeting, I remind colleagues that there will now be a transfer of the presidency directly outside the Chamber, which they might like to attend.

13. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. on the agenda approved this morning.

The sitting is closed.

The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m..


1.       Opening of 2012 Ordinary Session

2.       Address by the provisional President

3.       Examination of credentials


Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

4.       Election and address of the President of the Assembly

5.        Voting cards, register of attendance and written declarations

6.       Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly

7.       Appointments of members of committees

8.       Proposals for debates under urgent procedure and on current affairs

9.       Adoption of the agenda

Speakers: Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg), Mr Kox (Netherlands), Mr Loncle (France), Mr Walter (United Kingdom).

10.       Adoption of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee

11.       Time limits on speeches

12.       Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Presentation by Mr Çavuşoğlu of the report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee, Document 12830, Part I and Addendum and part II, by Mr Jirsa of report of the Ad hoc Committee on observation of parliamentary elections in Morocco, and of Mr Kox of the Ad hoc Committee on observation of parliamentary elections in the Russian Federation


Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Mr Volontè (Italy)

Mr Moriau (Belgium)

Mr Walter (United Kingdom)

Ms Brasseur (Luxembourg)

Mr Petrenco (Republic of Moldova)

Ms Durrieu (France)

13.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting


Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk

Francis AGIUS*


Arben AHMETAJ/ Damian Gjiknuri




Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Khadija ARIB


Francisco ASSIS*

Alexander BABAKOV*



Viorel Riceard BADEA*

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN/Hermine Naghdalyan

Pelin Gündeş BAKIR



Meritxell BATET*


Marieluise BECK

Alexander van der BELLEN/Sonja Ablinger









Roland BLUM*

Jean-Marie BOCKEL



Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*


Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO/Giacomo Stucchi

Ankie BROEKERS-KNOL/Tuur Elzinga


Patrizia BUGNANO*


Sylvia CANEL




Vannino CHITI/Anna Maria Carloni

Christopher CHOPE


Desislav CHUKOLOV/ Yuliana Koleva




Deirdre CLUNE


Agustín CONDE


Igor CORMAN/Stella Jantuan



Cristian DAVID*


Giovanna DEBONO*







Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander DUNDEE*



József ÉKES


Lydie ERR

Nikolay FEDOROV*



Doris FIALA*





Stanislav FOŘT

Dario FRANCESCHINI/ Gianni Farina


Jean-Claude FRÉCON

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC*




Roger GALE

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY/Virág Kaufer


Sophia GIANNAKA/ Georges Charalambopoulos


Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ/ Snežana Jonica



Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/ Ingjerd Schou

Andreas GROSS





Carina HÄGG/Kerstin Lundgren






Håkon HAUGLI/Øyvind Vaksdal


Oliver HEALD

Alfred HEER



Adam HOFMAN/Adam Rogacki





Andrej HUNKO





Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami


Igor IVANOVSKI/Sonja Mirakovska



Michael Aastrup JENSEN


Birkir Jón JÓNSSON*

Armand JUNG






Bogdan KLICH

Haluk KOÇ

Konstantin KOSACHEV/Oleg Lebedev

Tiny KOX


Borjana KRIŠTO*



Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA*

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Ertuğrul KÜRKÇÜ


Henrik Sass LARSEN

Jean-Paul LECOQ

Harald LEIBRECHT/Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel





François LONCLE

Jean-Louis LORRAIN




Philippe MAHOUX






Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA/Jouko Skinnari



Michael McNAMARA


Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA/ Imer Aliu






Jean-Claude MIGNON



Krasimir MINCHEV/Petar Petrov




Patrick MORIAU





Philippe NACHBAR

Adrian NĂSTASE/Tudor Panţiru

Gebhard NEGELE

Pasquale NESSA



Tomislav NIKOLIĆ/Nataša Jovanović

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*



Sandra OSBORNE/Michael Connarty



Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Elsa Papadimitriou




Johannes PFLUG*


Lisbeth Bech POULSEN/Nikolaj Villumsen


Cezar Florin PREDA



Gabino PUCHE

Milorad PUPOVAC/Gvozden Srećko Flego

Valeriy PYSARENKO/Volodymyr Pylypenko


Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ/ Zoran Vukčević


Mailis REPS


Gonzalo ROBLES*


Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*





Branko RUŽIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Volodymyr RYBAK/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Rovshan RZAYEV


Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić


Giuseppe SARO*

Kimmo SASI



Urs SCHWALLER/ Gerhard Pfister





Ladislav SKOPAL/Kateřina Konečná






Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER



Björn von SYDOW


Vilmos SZABÓ



Giorgi TARGAMADZÉ/Magdalina Anikashvili

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Natalia Burykina



Latchezar TOSHEV



Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ


Konstantinos TZAVARAS

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Dana Váhalová


Giuseppe VALENTINO/Renato Farina






Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES



Piotr WACH






Gisela WURM



Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/ Sergey Sobko


Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Croatia*

Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*

Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*

Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*

Vacant Seat, Russian Federation*

Vacant Seat, Slovenia*

Vacant Seat, Slovenia*


Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:


Esben Lunde LARSEN


Jean-Pierre MICHEL





Corneliu CHISU


Consiglio DI NINO

Partners for democracy:



Abdelkebir BERKIA

Ali Salem CHAGAF 


M. Hassan OUKACHA 

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community

Ahmet ETI, (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of the Parliamentary Assembly)