AA13CR07

AS (2013) CR 07

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Seventh sitting

Thursday 30 January 2014 at 10.00 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

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

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Urgent debate: the functioning of the democratic institutions in Ukraine

      THE PRESIDENT – The first item of business this morning, as we decided on Monday, is a debate under the urgent procedure on the report entitled “The functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine”, Document 13405, presented by Ms Mailis Reps and Ms Marietta de Pourbaix-Lundin, on the behalf of the Monitoring Committee. Speaking time is limited to three minutes. We will finish this item, including the replies and votes, by 12 noon, so I will interrupt the list of speakers at about 11.00 a.m.

      I call Ms Reps. You and your co-rapporteur have 13 minutes in total to present the report and to reply to the debate.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – Colleagues of the Assembly, seldom do we have such an urgent debate. The task of preparing the report was entrusted to us by the Bureau on Monday morning and it has been drafted, re-drafted and amended many times since. The situation in Ukraine can be considered from many different angles, but we are obliged to make a fair assessment and to support democratic mores in Ukraine. Our most important duty is to observe that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are respected in all Council of Europe member States. There are concerns that the situation in Ukraine may turn more violent and that the death toll will rise. We called for this urgent debate because we want to offer our assessment and some friendly advice. It is important to understand that the Council of Europe is not here to evaluate the geopolitical choices that Ukraine needs to make. Should it move towards the European Union or choose a different route? That is up to the Ukrainian public to decide through the country’s democratic processes.

      The report emphasises, however, that if promises are made to the public over the course of four elections, if a commitment is made during a presidential election, if it was explained a few days before the Vilnius Summit that Europe is the way forward and if there is then a sudden U-turn, it is understandable that people were surprised and frustrated and wanted to express their opinions. What followed on 30 November and 1 and 2 December was an attempt to violently suppress the protests, which led to more people joining in. We are discussing that violation of human rights and not the choices that Ukraine is making.

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Ms Poubaix-Lundin, the co-rapporteur.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – On 16 January this year, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted by show of hands a package of anti-protest laws. The new laws not only restricted demonstrations, but severely limit and undermine NGO and media activity. They also gave much more power to the security services. The laws violated freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the freedom of the media. The protestors in Maidan and the international community are reacting to those laws. People can get 15 years in prison for just being in Maidan, and there is the example of a 72-year-old man being arrested for coming to the square with some fish for the protestors. Our televisions show that the violent clashes between the protestors and police escalated when the police tried to break through the barricades in Maidan. At least five protestors and a policeman have been killed so far and many have been wounded. Around 2 000 protestors have been arrested, many of whom are now in pre-trial detention, and some 30 have disappeared. The protests are happening not only in Kiev, but all over Ukraine – the south, the west and the east.

      Negotiations have taken place between those in power and the leaders of the opposition and we hope that they will continue. On 28 January, the Ukrainian Parliament repealed the anti-protest law, and we welcome that. At the same time, there are worrying rumours that that anti-protest law might come back to the Parliament, and we hope that those rumours are not true, because that will cause violence to escalate again. The Prime Minister and his Government have resigned and we have been informed that the riot police, the Berkut, will expand from 5 000 to 30 000, so the alarming situation in Ukraine is not yet over.

      THE PRESIDENT – I thank the co-rapporteurs. You have seven minutes left to answer questions at the end.

      (The speaker continued in French.)

      I call Ms Fiala to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland) – I am very grateful to my colleagues from the ALDE group for giving me the floor. Ukraine is a country in the heart of greater Europe, and violence and violation of the Council of Europe’s values and the constitutional rights of the people are happening there. I am proud that our co-rapporteurs – two brave women – had enough courage to send a strong message to the Ukrainian authorities, and our group supports them in that.

      I have a special mission, and I am honoured to perform it on behalf of young Ukrainian people living across Europe. They want to express solidarity with their homeland. They addressed an open letter to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which was signed by 1 390 people within two days. I will read an extract from that letter: “The recent use of force by the government against the protesters, workers of media, and civil society in general is unprecedented in Ukrainian history. These protesters started by opposing the foreign and internal policy of the government, and their demonstrations were suppressed with violence and acts of selective justice. The adoption of draconian laws on January 16, 2014 violated the constitutional rights of all Ukrainians, as well as freedoms and the international human rights obligations undertaken by Ukraine.

      The numbers of victims of the recent acts of violence are shocking: many are dead or missing, hundreds were injured, tortured and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. All these gross acts of violence were conducted either directly by or with support of agents of police. We request you to make use of all appropriate measures and mechanisms to stop the violence in order to proceed to peaceful regulation of the current dramatic situation in Ukraine.

      We specifically call for the introduction of personalized targeted sanctions, freezing assets and property of government officials, oligarchs and legislators who are related to the large-scale violations of human rights and the rule of law.”

      They also called for monitors and mediators to be sent and for an independent international commission to investigate the crimes against the people.

      I am convinced that the message we send in our resolution should first express our solidarity with these people, who believe in Europe and its values. They do not want to live in a corrupt society; they want to live according to our values. Please do not take it as arrogance when I say that we are the conscience of Europe and should stand up against systems that create corrupt officials and legislators. We should help Ukrainians acquire knowledge of democratic State-building, which they can use to further develop their country. That would help them not to leave Ukraine, but to build real democracy there.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Papadimoulis to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr PAPADIMOULIS (Greece)* – We are meeting at a crucial point in time. Ukraine is a member State of the Council of Europe and is undergoing a deep crisis. There is the threat of civil war and the Council of Europe has a unique role, because our purpose is not to exert influence on the country in the way Russia, the United States and the European Union are trying to. We are opposed to violence and the use of force by the government and by demonstrators. Svoboda’s members on the extreme right are making the most of the opportunity, as we know.

      If we want to make a contribution, we have to be honest brokers. We should call for a political solution to the situation that abides by democracy and the values of the Council of Europe. We have to ensure that people do not have recourse to violence, whether we are talking about the police force or the demonstrators. Whatever the origin of the violence, it is wrong. The Council of Europe would be making a serious mistake if it adopted a unilateral position or a partial stance with the resolution. We need to be part of the solution, not part of the crisis. Yesterday, Mr Jagland, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, said as much. Unfortunately, the resolution is not in tune with the Jagland spirit and is partial and biased. We are voicing criticisms that are 95% on one side and only 5% on the other. The resolution is an unhelpful distortion of the situation and does not offer a way to move forward with democracy.

      I represent a political group that criticises the Yanukovych approach, because it is not democratic and because oligarchs seem to rule the Ukrainian economy. At the same time, there is a democratic deficit, corruption and manipulation. You might remember that there were similar problems with the Orange Revolution. The Council of Europe must step up to the mark and not adopt resolutions that are unilateral and biased. We will not be voting in favour of the resolution.

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

      Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – The Socialist Group thanks the co-rapporteurs for their work, their engagement and their empathy for the people. We agree with their analysis of why the situation became violent and why the use of violence is not appropriate and does not respect our basic values, but we are also uneasy. The report lacks depth in its analysis. For instance, we have to remember that the elections came out of the Parliament, which represents the oligarchs better than the people. That is why the will of THE PRESIDENT to go European was not realised, and we must better understand how that happened to make good proposals. We also lack self-criticism on how the European Union cornered the Ukrainian Government and the authorities with its policy, stopping the authorities acting in the interests of the whole country. You cannot corner a country on one side when its traditions are rooted in both the old European traditions of East and West. There was a general will to go the European Union way, but that does not mean that immediately, everybody – especially in the East – can do so.

      I turn to the third and perhaps most important element that is lacking. The monitoring report does not just comment on what happens; it also offers proposals on how to do better, on how to overcome this alarming situation. We must propose policies that allow the country to integrate, but which also allow it to overcome the state crisis and the social crisis.

      I have two suggestions that we should think about. First, on the economy, the country should be allowed to make good business with the east and with the west, rather than being in opposition to either.

There needs to be two agreements – one with the West and one with the East – that are compatible with each other. That is possible.

      Secondly, integrative political proposals must be made. For example, on the security environment, it is important to stop speaking about NATO and to think instead about neutrality. Neutrality has a tradition in Europe. In the 19th century, it was possible to make some countries in central Europe neutral in the interest of those countries, and of all. In the 20th century, too, there was the example of Austria.

      We must come up with such ideas. It is a question not just of commenting, but of making responsible proposals.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Agramunt to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – First and foremost, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their excellent work, and without further ado to condemn the intolerable escalation of violence in Ukraine in the past week. We have seen bloodshed in a terrible conflict that has been devastating the country for two months now.

      Mr Yanukovych has made concessions: the Prime Minister’s resignation, inter alia, and the derogation of some laws which should never have been adopted in the first place. Unfortunately, however, this is too little, too late. The use of force and recourse to aggression is simply not an adequate answer to a political crisis. It will only galvanise the resistance and it discredits the Government, so I am afraid the measures adopted on Tuesday will not help to mollify the demonstrators.

      Freedom of assembly, and of expression and information, are basic rights in our democracy. They should never be breached, and I am therefore very worried about the attacks that have been perpetrated against journalists, and about reports of missing persons. This week, I had the opportunity to listen to various representatives of Ukrainian NGOs. They emphasised the lack of human rights and the failure of the authorities to respect the demonstrators’ human rights. Mr Yanukovych cannot overlook the fact that the judiciary will have to investigate every single case of abuse that has taken place in Ukraine, and the people responsible will have to be called to account.

      The resurgence of tension is the direct consequence of the failure of the government. It did not enter into dialogue with the opposition in time; it did not listen to citizens’ requests. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the past week in particular, radical demonstrators have undermined the efforts of peaceful demonstrators. There are violent groups, “Titushkis”, who either out of conviction or for money decided to intimidate opposition representatives.

      We have had bloodshed; we have had clashes – even outside Kiev – and unfortunately we seemed to have reached the point of no return in the search for a peaceful solution. It therefore seems to me that a number of measures must be taken immediately, and I suggest the following on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. First, it is important to revert immediately to the 2004 constitution, which was amended by President Yanukovych simply to suit his own ends. Secondly, it is very important to refer to the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, who is still in prison after two years. This is unlawful and arbitrary. Thirdly, after two months of repression it is important to take note of the fact that the Ukrainian President is not in a position to govern to the advantage of his people, so it is important for him now to call snap elections and to make sure that we can open the door to some kind of better democratic process. All of this, in the name of peace.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Aligrudić to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – I thank the rapporteurs for their efforts. This report lays out a number of confirmed facts and focuses on some concerns, including the issue of violence against protesters, and the legislative framework. Developments in the past few days in Ukraine show that it is possible to find the way out of the crisis. The rapporteurs have referred to this in the addendum and in several submitted amendments. However, the report is written in such a style that one gets the impression that it is less a report on the human rights situation, than a report on the Ukrainian authorities’ unanticipated decision to suspend the procedure for signing an association agreement.

      While fully taking note of the fact that the authorities are always those most responsible for the violence, little attention is paid in the preliminary report to the responsibility of the other side, their violent destruction of objects, harming of people and seizing of institutions. The report practically justifies the actions of the protestors by stating that the Ukrainian authorities suddenly changed their policy. That is mentioned on several occasions in the report, and one thus has the impression that the main fault of the Ukrainian authorities and the cause of this crisis is the fact that they do not want to move towards the European Union.

      The draft recommendation is worded in such a way that it asks the Committee of Ministers to properly address the underlying causes of the crisis, as set out, inter alia, in the resolution. The report questions the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities’ decisions, but that very legitimacy has been granted to the authorities in the elections. If we question that legitimacy, why do we not propose the dialogue that could provide for a referendum on this issue?

      The report should focus more on human rights violations and whether the actions of the authorities were in accordance with Council of Europe standards, and address the responsibility of both sides. Bearing this in mind, I am pleased to see that the rapporteurs have balanced their approach more with their new amendment to paragraph 6.

      However, the report basically criticises the authorities for changing their policy towards the European Union, thus putting the initial blame for everything that has happened on one side. It explicitly blames Russia for interfering and exerting pressure on Ukraine to change its European Union course. To address one member State in such a way is without precedent. Even if it were true, Russia surely would not be the only one. Russia is not forcing the Ukrainian police to use excessive force. Russia is not inciting protestors to seize and demolish institutions and attack each other.

      We should do the things we are here to do, and leave the grand geopolitical theories aside.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I welcome our guests and assistants who are here today, but I remind you that applauding speakers is not allowed.

      The rapporteurs want to reply later, so we will now start the general debate. I call Mr Sudarenkov.

      Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – If you remove the last letter of my name, I have a Ukrainian surname: “Sudarenko”. If you then replace it, I have a Russian surname. So I can be either Russian or Ukrainian, and so far as I am concerned, whether you consider me as speaking as a Ukrainian or a Russian, there is no difference whatsoever.

      I noted what the rapporteur said about our having to be reasonable in our approach, and I commend that. Perhaps what I am going to say does not entirely chime with what is said in the report, but I would like to make a number of points. We are told in the report that some kind of pressure has been exerted by Russia, but what sort of pressure are we talking about? Giving a loan of $15 billion dollars – is that pressure? Slashing gas prices, bringing them down to US$268.5 per cubic metre – is that pressure? If you think of the cost of running even a tram in Ukraine, you see how invaluable getting gas at the kind of prices being offered today is a marvellous thing. I really do not think you can call that pressure.

      Ladies and gentlemen, look at this issue slightly differently: think about it from the point of view of the Ukrainian economy. I myself have been to the Ukrainian Parliament and have heard what people have said there. What is going on in the country is not at all what is indicated in this report. I have never heard in any debates in the Ukrainian Parliament the kind of thing we are talking about. I am not deaf; I listen to what is going on. We have to focus on the future of the economy. Why was it never stated clearly that what the European Union was offering to Ukraine was not in its interest – not on favourable terms? Things have got a bit lost in recent times, and people seem to be putting forward a rather fantastical view of events.

      As for the change that was made to legislation on 16 January, of course there is no question that the decision taken was not the best one that could have been taken. A number of radical amendments could not be secured at a very difficult time and were then hastily repealed, and that was clearly not a wonderful way of proceeding.

      In conclusion, I call on you to reject the resolution as submitted here today.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – I thank the rapporteurs, members of the Assembly and the Monitoring Committee for doing all this work for Ukraine. The amendments to the report are very balanced.

      The tragic events in Ukraine have seen an escalation of the situation whereby peaceful protest has led to the seizure of official buildings, not only in the capital but in the regions. This has led to hundreds of people being wounded and the first fatalities on both sides. The country is now on the brink of the most serious civil conflict since Ukrainian independence came about. I very much regret the fact that anyone has died. I would also say how much alarm I now have for the future of Ukrainians and people of any other nationalities in Ukraine. No political ambitions or threats should endanger the lives of peaceful people. Ukraine has an open dialogue and we are trying to look at political ways forward to emerge from the crisis and return to a peaceful solution.

      We should remember how this has spread from Kiev to the regions. On 25 January, there was some hope that we would renew negotiations and be able to seek a common solution to the crisis. The Parliament of Ukraine started to look at proposals on a joint understanding for the future of the country, and those are being discussed in the negotiations between the President and the leaders of the opposition. In particular, the leaders of the opposition have been offered the prime ministership and various ministries. Azarov, the prime minister, resigned, but the opposition is currently refusing to take up his job. The Speaker had already signed the agreement that the President then withdrew. This is a very complex situation.

      The prospect of losing our voting rights here is counter-productive because we need a forum, particularly an international forum, where we can find some way out of this crisis, and the Council of Europe – our Assembly – has on several occasions shown how effective it can be. The main responsibility for emerging from the crisis lies with Ukrainian politicians, but a lot depends on you today as well. You must extend a helping hand to everyone in Ukraine. I appeal to all of you to talk to various people there and turn to a peaceful settlement of this conflict. The time has come not to point the finger and say who is guilty – we are all guilty – but to remember that if you keep pointing the finger at us, that means that we are worse than you. Everybody needs to pull together on this; it is almost too late now. I appeal to everybody to use every instrument we have here in order to return to peace for all of us.

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

      Mr FOURNIER (France)* – The decision taken by the Ukrainian President on 21 November last year to break off negotiations with a view to signing an association agreement with the European Union at the Vilnius Summit, which was to be held the week after, has led to a great deal of consternation, even, apparently, within the President’s own entourage. In addition, just like what happened with the Orange Revolution in 2004, it led to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians descending on to the streets. Since then, these demonstrations have degenerated and are threatening the stability of Ukraine.

      I would like to return to the source of the dramatic events that we are witnessing. The breaking off of negotiations with the European Union is, it appears, a result of strong pressure exercised by Moscow, which had stepped up customs inspections and blockaded certain imports, and there was an embargo on Ukrainian chocolate, and so on. A stick-and-carrot situation is going on. Russia undertook certain measures that will help Ukraine to overcome some of its economic problems – for instance, by signing bilateral agreements that will give the country access to $15 billion. In addition, there has been a manipulation of the price of gas, which is helpful. Having said that, the jury is still out, because Moscow’s motivations are of course geopolitical in nature. the President, Mr Putin, would like to create a Eurasian union involving, inter alia, a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan – there are democratic issues there, as I am sure you know – and this would be the first step, because without Ukraine the whole set-up would be lopsided. Can a large country such as Ukraine really be considered as a sovereign State given that such crucial choices are being made under the watchful eye of a neighbouring country? Furthermore, the fact that President Yanukovych could take such momentous decisions leads us to question the Ukrainian institutions’ ability really to act in the country’s best interests.

      The Ukrainian economic situation is very poor indeed. There is endemic corruption. There is also a parallel economy that accounts for a major part of the national wealth. Why would Ukrainian leaders opt for reforms that call their interests into question? Is not the status quo preferable compared with the changes that they would have to enact as part of the rapprochement vis-a-vis the European Union? The Ukrainian president is mostly interested in running for office again in 2015, but he has therefore taken his country into the spiral of violence that we are now witnessing. I very much hope that the Ukrainian authorities will hear the calls for dialogue that are being made by all and sundry, because that is the only way of emerging from the impasse that we are witnessing.

      Lord ANDERSON (United Kingdom) – This report is about a major country, the stability of which is of interest to all of us, and it deals with a rapidly evolving situation. Clearly, the current crisis was provoked by the sharp change in policy by President Yanukovych, which highlighted major divisions within Ukraine that have existed for a long time.

      The question for us is that posed by Mr Popescu: how do we, as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, extend a helping hand to the people of Ukraine to draw them back from the brink? What is our role in this crisis? Clearly, our way is the parliamentary way, the way of seeking accommodation, of seeking consensus and of upholding human rights and the rule of law. Clearly, we should stand against the authoritarian tendencies of the government and it is right that those draconian laws were revoked. We need to buy time – time for reflection. We need to consider whether there is such a stark choice between East and West for the people of Ukraine, which is geographically between the two. Is it just the Polish model or the Russian – or indeed the Belarusian – model? Is there a case, for example, for moving towards a degree of neutrality? This has implications, as Andy Gross has said, for military neutrality. We should certainly give assurances to President Yanukovych that he will not be treated as he treated Yulia Tymoshenko by putting her in prison for political reasons. We should also urge him to provide an amnesty for the protesters and ensure that those who have disappeared are either brought back from prison or their fate made known.

      The Council of Europe should offer all its experience of reconciliation and all its tools of consensus-building. The door to co-operation must be kept open. If it is a question of revising the constitution, either going back to the 2004 constitution or providing a greater degree of decentralisation to reflect the two tendencies within the country, the Venice Commission should be able to help. We should be able to act as a bridge between East and West, recognising the way in which the country has a divided identity, historically and geographically. We should press for free elections and be ready to monitor them if called upon. We should be ready to offer our experience and our tools but also to urge everyone to step back from the brink, and to help set the conditions for free elections so that the Ukrainian people can set out on a path that they choose, not that we choose for them.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – Thank you very much, co-rapporteurs, for your honest report. I think it is the best way to solve the situation in Ukraine. Please remember our previous reports and recommendations. These were: first, that we welcome the choice of the majority opposition in Ukraine for Europe, and please make reforms; and, secondly, free Tymoshenko and other political prisoners. What do we have now? There are 3 500 people in hospital, although they are afraid to go to hospital because they will be arrested; 126 journalists have been severely beaten by the police, including Russian, Ukrainian and European Union journalists; 29 people have been kidnapped, two of whom were found in the forest near Kiev, having been severely tortured; there are now 2 000 people in jail; and 45 million people, the population of Ukraine, are hostages of the Yanukovych regime.

      What are the pluses of our situation? First, we have rejected the government. But yesterday the government proposed that weapons should be used against demonstrators not by special forces but by common policemen. Nine laws were dismissed but they have not been signed by the President. Previously, laws were signed the next day. These laws are still not signed but thousands of people are in jail according to these laws. Yesterday evening the majority opposition decided to vote for an amnesty law without any precondition. Within an hour, the President was in parliament. He gathered his faction and declared, “If you vote for this, I will declare new parliamentary elections”. It is the answer of the President to these circumstances.

      We need concrete actions against the Yanukovych dictatorship. It is not only the violation of the main rules of the Council of Europe; the main thing is the corruption of this regime, where Yanukovych, Azarov and others have accounts in the banks of the European Union, which they gathered on the blood of the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian pensioners. The proposition to have sanctions, if there is a military regime or a violation of our rights, is very important. Two of our colleagues who are now in this Chamber also voted yesterday – how could they vote? They announced that they did not vote for this decision about the amnesty. It is a good illustration of the violation of all the rules in Ukraine.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – Two months after the announcement on 21 November that Ukraine had refused to sign the association agreement with the European Union, the protest movement was relaunched in a very emphatic way after the adoption of a series of laws reducing the freedom of movement and demonstration. Far from the initial popular disappointment, the movement became more radical. Demonstrators have died. Our colleagues from Ukraine have explained all that has happened.

      As a member of the electoral observation mission in October 2012, I followed the way in which the parliamentary elections unfolded and was witness to the numerous positive aspects, in particular of the plurality of the vote. The way in which the elections were held did not lead to serious irregularities and the principles of free and fair elections were broadly applied. What is more, I have the feeling that the reporting on these elections by the western European media was distorted and coloured by prejudice. Having experienced these things for a long time now, let us not overlook the great efforts that have been made. It seems that the general public are more and more interested in the democratic process. We are aware of what has gone on there. These things are not acceptable in a country that wishes to be part of this Assembly.

      I also draw your attention to the absence of a policy between the European Union and Russia – this complete failure to understand one another. There is no policy worthy of the name. There is a French policy towards Russia, a German policy, an Italian policy and a British policy but there is no effective European Union policy or strategy towards Russia that is between these two independent bodies. Every six months there are meetings between the two bodies – there was one yesterday in Brussels – yet they seem to skate around. The communiqué from Mr Barroso yesterday at the closure of the meeting said that there was a spirit of co-operation between the two. This seems to be a pious wish. It is important that these two bodies, which have to live together, given their history and the need to live side by side in the future, need to have more positive relations. We must avoid adding fuel to the fire. We need to apply pressure where necessary because Ukraine is moving towards democracy. Let us help it to overcome the problems it is currently encountering.

      Mr MOROZOV (Russian Federation)* – Our august Assembly is supposed to help us to overcome the dividing lines that still exist within the age-old continent of Europe. I cannot support a resolution that actually increases the dividing lines that still exist, for different reasons, between our countries. We welcome the development of the European Union; we think it a good model for the current world situation. However, Russia and other non-European Union countries also have the right to create their kind of customs union, to give a powerful impetus to our economic development. Our customs union has been operating successfully for the past three years, so we are on the right path. The next step would be to create a common economic area, following the sort of principles upheld by the World Trade Organization.

      The economic standards enshrined within the European Union are a kind of model for us and can inspire us, but we do not understand why we are not talking about the Ukraine crisis in the right way today; the discussion is being used to criticise Russia, Belarus and many other countries at an important stage of their development. We cannot agree with how the issue is being manipulated. We need to co-operate within the bodies that already exist. Russia is not culpable as seems to be suggested by the resolution. Russia recognises that, at the current stage of development, a country cannot be in two customs unions at once. We recognise that the European Union is at a different level of development from that of our Eurasian customs union. Only three days ago, President Putin said that we should find a new format and consider that in November last year Ukraine was offered a way out of the economic dead end it was heading towards. Today we must try to find new ways of resolving the crisis.

      My wife is Ukrainian; I go frequently to the country and know what is going on there. I was in Ukraine on 30 November and 1 December last year and saw how the conflict was provoked and its escalation was manipulated. I call on the Assembly to adopt a resolution that will bring us into a future of peace and harmony for all.

      THE PRESIDENT* - I do not see Mr Pylypenko, so I give the floor to Mr Zourabian.

      Mr ZOURABIAN (Armenia) – When dealing with the current crisis in Ukraine, the Council of Europe should react in a way that helps to strengthen democracy and respect for human rights, rather than further exacerbating the confrontation. We need first to make clear that we do not side with any of the parties involved in terms of supporting their position on the choice of geopolitical orientation. Both parties have valid arguments to support their cause; as long as the political discussion develops within the framework of the Ukrainian constitution, there are no grounds for any foreign interference, including from the Council of Europe.

      Such fateful choices can be made only by the Ukrainian nation and its elected authorities, whose decisions should be based on transparent discussion and broad consensus within the society. Ukraine, the European Union and the Russian Federation should work together to ensure that Ukraine becomes not a battlefield for geopolitical competition between the West and Russia, but a place where they can harmonise their interests and co-operate. Doing otherwise will have disastrous consequences, both for Ukraine and the already-strained relations between the European Union and Russia. However, the Council of Europe should decisively step in when human rights and democratic values are violated. Attacks on the freedom of assembly and speech, disproportionate use of force against protesters, torture and the adoption of oppressive laws cannot be tolerated and I fully support the proposed resolution in that respect.

      I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Assembly to the facts about the use of lethal weapons against protesters. Killing protesters is a grave encroachment on the basic rights to life and freedom of assembly. Bloodshed produces irreconcilable divisions within a society, unless it is remedied by bringing those who committed, perpetrated or organised the crime to justice. On 1 March 2008, 10 people were killed and 200 were wounded when the authorities resorted to the use of lethal weapons in Armenia. Since then nobody has been brought to justice and the authorities have made every effort to cover up the crime. If the Council of Europe were more consistent and decisive in its efforts to pressurise the Armenian authorities into solving the killings and punishing the culprits, we would now be living in a different Europe – one that is more immune to governments willing to shoot at their own people.

      We can still act; I propose that the Monitoring Committee appoint a rapporteur to prepare a report studying the cases of the use of lethal force against protesters in Armenia and Ukraine, develop effective mechanisms of international independent investigation into such cases and propose legislative safeguards to prevent such a use of lethal force in the future.

      Mr ROMANOVICH (Russian Federation)* – I congratulate the new leaders of the Parliamentary Assembly on their election and I wish them every success. I want to speak in French; I hope that members will make allowances for the odd mistake. I could speak Russian – I could also speak Ukrainian, but there would be no interpretation from that language.

      I support the words of our Greek colleague who said that the resolution is one-sided, as it reflects only one part of the Ukrainian conflict. That conflict is like a fire. I am sorry to have to make the comparison, but the Council of Europe is one of the teams of firemen who can help, so it should not pour fuel on the fire. The United States, Russia, the European Union and the Council of Europe should be putting the fire out rather than attacking each other. We cannot save people or property by doing that – instead, we will kill them.

      We should delete paragraph 4 of the resolution, which would try to make Russia do certain things. It is a bit much for the Parliamentary Assembly to try to exert pressure on Russia twice in one week. That will not help put out the fire in Ukraine. I hope that the Ukrainian people will be able to emerge from this crisis and I assure members that Russians and Ukrainians living in Russia will do everything they can to help them do so.

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – This is a special day for the Parliamentary Assembly. We have to be clear about our stance on the report and resolution. What is before us is a clear example of double standards. Mr Gross rightly said that their distinguishing feature is not their depth; it is their bias and the fact that they have no positive suggestion on how to emerge from the current crisis in Ukraine. Starting from the Vilnius Summit and going on from then, western politicians blatantly intervened in the internal affairs of Ukraine, and, against all international practice, went to Maidan square and called for specific things to happen that would hinder Ukraine’s further development.

      The Ukrainian authorities have been legitimately elected by the Ukrainian people. We must recognise and respect that. We are talking about throwing thousands of people out of work; that is what would happen under the provisions proposed by the European Union today. They would damage the Ukrainian economy.

      We have not heard of anyone going to the Verkhovna Rada or doing anything that would really help the people of Ukraine. We who live on the Russian side of Ukraine have not gone to give people food. We do not buy people. We do not go and give them hot pies when they are standing there, to try to get them on our side. We stand for what we stand for: for values and behaving in an even-handed way with everyone. Regardless of the Government, we respect sovereignty and legitimately elected authorities in all cases. We do not try unduly to influence events.

      Today we see western politicians who are simply ignoring the interests of the Ukrainian economy and people. They are now trying to block what would be appropriate for Ukraine: for it to become part of the Eurasian customs union.

      We have to make a choice here today. In paragraph 4 of the resolution, if we take out “Russia” and put in the names of certain western politicians, it might be more accurate. It might then be a properly drafted paragraph.

      We cannot go along with the arguments of those who today are trying to establish a unipolar world, without any regard for the fate and destiny of the Ukrainian people. The people of Ukraine must decide their own fate.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I say to those in the gallery that they must not applaud or make any noise.

      I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given in typescript to the Table Office for publication in the official report.

      I call Ms REPS, rapporteur, to reply. The rapporteurs have seven minutes remaining.

      Ms REPS (Estonia.) – I thank everybody who has participated in the debate, and I am sorry that our time limit means the majority of those on the speakers list were not able to deliver their speeches.

      We are not discussing today the four years of negotiations between the European Union and Ukraine, nor are we discussing whether the Eurasian customs union would, or would not, be better for Ukraine, as the last speaker said we were. Instead, we are speaking about finding a way out. We are speaking about human rights. We are speaking about people disappearing overnight. We are speaking about the unfortunate case of police officers being wounded and numerous cases of people being tortured – people left in -20 degrees, naked, in a forest. These are allegations and cases that need to be investigated.

      First and foremost we, as an Assembly, need firmly to say we demand an end to impunity and we demand that there are fair investigations. We would like the example Secretary General Jagland gave to Ukraine to be followed: international monitoring mechanisms for investigations, whose conclusions all sides can trust. Unfortunately, however, that has not been followed.

      Everybody who is responsible for any inhumane treatment, torture, killing or anything against what Ukraine has signed up to and what we have all agreed – the principles of human rights, democracy and the rule of law – must be punished. That is what we debating, and asking for, today.

      The only conclusion made by this report is that we must have clear investigations, with no impunity, and rebuild trust through having negotiations between all sides in order, step by step, to return to a point where people can believe each other. People do not need to see what is behind everything.

      Let us talk about the question of the laws my co-rapporteur just mentioned. Yes, they have been taken down, but unfortunately that has not really been signed. We welcome that reform in the Verkhovna Rada, but there is confusion about what has happened, as the President of Ukraine has just declared that he is sick and cannot sign right now.

      This is the acutely important moment at which we are debating this subject. We clearly cannot discuss a full report now. We have not done the monitoring for a full report, and we cannot discuss whether NATO is the way out or what the security system or the economic policies should be. That is for future debates. Today we are at an acutely important moment and the question is how to stop bloodshed in Ukraine.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden.) – I fully agree with Mr Popescu, the leader of the Ukrainian delegation, when he said the responsibility lies with the politicians in Ukraine. I stress that the majority group and the opposition must work together and find a peaceful agreement to solve this crisis. Those in the Ukrainian Parliament also have a great responsibility to solve this crisis. They have the means to do that, and they should use those instruments.

      Of course Ukraine might need some help from outside. As my colleague mentioned, our Secretary General was there in December and offered to set up an advisory panel to try to solve this crisis. Such a panel is now needed more than ever, and I hope it will be set up.

      The report has been criticised, but we must understand that this is not a full report. We are having an urgent debate. We will come back with a full report on Ukraine. We are working on that, and we are going to Ukraine in mid-February.

      Some people say the Ukrainians should change the constitution. They have been working to do that for many years. They have a working group. They cannot have any constitution, however; they have to talk to the Venice Commission. The politicians must agree and reach a consensus, and also consult the people before they change the constitution. That is very important.

      Some people say we should not mention any sanctions in our resolution. Everybody knows that the situation in Ukraine changes every second hour; we have just learned that the President cannot sign laws passed in the Verkhovna Rada because he is on sick leave now. When we started to write the resolution at the beginning of the week, things happened, so we changed it. At first we thought about tough sanctions for the Ukrainian delegation here, but we will not consider suspending their voting rights now. We say that such sanctions could be considered during the April part-session, however, “if grave Human Rights violations continue or if the Maidan protest were to be broken up by force.” It is in the hands of the Ukrainians to handle the situation without violence and in accordance with all the obligations Ukraine signed up to when it joined the Council of Europe.

      We cannot accept Ukraine having laws that try to stop freedom of speech and assembly and a free media. That is what the main reaction has been on Maidan. If parliament, the authorities and the opposition take responsibility together, we hope that the situation will be resolved quickly.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Does the Chair of the Monitoring Committee wish to speak?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – First, as the new Chair of the Monitoring Committee, I commend both rapporteurs for their excellent report. I am most impressed; it was a difficult piece of work. We burned the midnight oil and made phone calls in the night to ensure that the most recent developments were incorporated into the report. I congratulate both rapporteurs.

      I would like to apologise to the Assembly as a whole regarding the draft resolution, the draft recommendation and the way in which the vote took place in the committee. You must remember that, over the past three days, we wanted to ensure that all members were present in both the committee and the Chamber.

      I agree with Mr Popescu. This is an important moment for the Council of Europe. There is, of course, the European Union and Russia, but we are not like them, because here we are talking about one of our own member States, Ukraine. We cannot afford to have a kind of East-West conflict within one of our member States; that is simply not acceptable. It is not acceptable to have an East-West conflict in the territory of Ukraine.

      We have had various discussions today. It is important to ensure that we are neutral and that we remain equidistant from both sides. This role is for the Council of Europe to play. We must play it, because Ukraine is one of our member States. I come from a neutral country, as you may be aware. We had a certain relationship with Russia, and as you know, we remained neutral.

      My final appeal to all of you – even those who spoke critically about the report – is: please support the draft resolution and draft recommendation. Please at least give it a chance.

      Mr Papadimoulis, I know that you have certain criticisms of the text, but perhaps you could abstain on behalf of your group. That might be a constructive approach, because the two documents are important. Our two rapporteurs have done extremely good work, and they deserve our majority support.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The debate is closed.

      The Monitoring Committee has presented a draft resolution and draft recommendation. We will move now to consider the draft resolution to which 24 amendments have been tabled. We will then consider the draft recommendation to which two amendments have been tabled.

      The amendments will be taken in the order in which they appear in the compendium and the Organisation of Debates. I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I understand that the Chair of the Monitoring Committee wishes to propose to the Assembly that Amendments 8, 25 and 9 to the draft resolution, which were unanimously approved by the committee, should be declared as agreed by the Assembly. I understand that Amendment 24 was also unanimously approved by the committee, but it does not meet the rules for unanimous approval because of its interplay with another amendment.

      Is that so, Mr Schennach?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – Yes.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone object?

      As there is no objection, I declare that Amendments 8, 25 and 9 to the draft resolution have been agreed.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 8, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 10, second sentence, delete the following words:

“, the immediate repeal of the so-called anti-protest laws”.

      Amendment 25, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Čigāne, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 10, insert the following paragraph:

“The repeal of the anti-protest laws and the resignation or the government are a first step towards a peaceful solution of the political crisis. These actions, as well as indications that both authorities and opposition have stepped up their efforts to find a negotiated solution for the stand-off, are welcomed by the Assembly. They offer an important window of opportunity that should now be followed up by both sides with further concrete steps to resolve the crisis peacefully and democratically.”

      Amendment 9, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 11, second sentence, after the words “the authorities”, insert the following words:

“and the opposition”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 11, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, first sentence, delete the word “surprise”.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 11. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – Constantly repeating words such as “surprise” gives the impression that we are concerned about changing the course of the country. That should not be the case. We should be worried about the breach of human rights and legal developments in Ukraine. As that has already been explained in other paragraphs in the text, we do not need the word “surprise”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I am against the amendment because the decision was a surprise. During the Presidential election campaign, the winning candidate stated clearly that he aimed to sign the agreement. He also talked about it after the election, and everyone knew that that was the direction of travel.

      In last October’s part-session of the Assembly, a paper was circulated, which our colleagues all signed. They wanted us to support the signing of the agreement with the European Union. Therefore, it was a surprise when the government changed its mind.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 11 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 21, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Čigāne, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 1, last sentence, before the word “fatalities” replace the word “three” with the word “five”.

      I call Ms Reps to support Amendment 21. You have 30 seconds.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The amendment is about a fact. It was officially declared today that, instead of three fatalities, there are five.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 12, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 2, last sentence, after the words “made on the basis of”, insert the words “a referendum or”.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 12. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – I am not suggesting that a referendum is the only way to solve the crisis, but I would like to include the possibility of a referendum as the outcome of any possible agreement. We should not reject such a possibility.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pozzo di Borgo.

      Mr POZZO DI BORGO (France)* – The outcome of any referendum depends on the question you ask. The question will be determined by a parliamentary majority, which is, of course, headed by President Yanukovych.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 12 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come now to Amendment 13, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the second and third sentences and insert the following words at the beginning of the fourth sentence:

      “Taking into account the sudden change of priority,”If

      If this amendment is adopted, Amendment 2 falls.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 13. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – The paragraph refers to the legitimacy of Ukraine’s decisions. I repeat what I have said: the legitimacy of the decisions is grounded on the fact that the Ukrainian authorities won an election. We cannot keep questioning their legitimacy. I would therefore shorten the paragraph and replace the wording with, “Taking into account in the sudden change of priority”, without going into detail on what it was about. I think that wording is better.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – The amendment would delete a lot from the paragraph, taking away its essential part. We are therefore completely against it.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee on the amendment?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 13 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 3, delete the third sentence.

      I call Mr Popescu to support Amendment 2. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – The decisions taken by elected governments are legitimate, so I want colleagues to support the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the co-rapporteur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:

      In Amendment 2 to delete the words “delete the third sentence” and insert after the words “democratic legitimacy” the words “in the eyes of the Ukrainian public”.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment meets the criteria of our rules, but it will not be taken into account if at least 10 members oppose it. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call the co-rapporteur to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The committee debated the meaning of legitimacy and we want to make it clear that in this case it means democratic legitimacy in the eyes of the Ukrainian public.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Legitimacy is determined not by the general public, but by the electoral process. An election was held in the Ukraine, and the European Union and the Council of Europe recognised that the process was appropriate.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 2 on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – We agree with the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the view of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now consider Amendment 2, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 2, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the Monitoring Committee on Amendment 2, as amended?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I shall now put Amendment 2, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 18, tabled by Mr Slutsky, Mr Hancock, Mr Shlegel, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Makhmutov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, replace paragraph 4 with the following paragraph:

“The Assembly denounces the political pressure exerted on the Ukrainian authorities both on the eve and in the course of the standoff in Kiev, and calls upon the Council of Europe member states to refrain from such interference.”

      I remind colleagues that if the amendment is carried, Amendments 13 and 14 will fall. I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendment 18.

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – When I spoke earlier, I referred to the fact that Russia did not exert any pressure for any decision to be taken. The decision was taken by the Ukrainian Government, in the interests of the Ukrainian people and of further developing the national Ukrainian economy. We therefore propose that paragraph 4 be replaced by a paragraph that is accurate and that makes it clear that the denunciation of political pressure applies to all countries of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – Paragraph 4 states that we take note “of public statements by the Ukrainian leadership”, who say that they were “heavily influenced by pressure from the Russian Federation, and especially the threat by Russia to close its borders to goods coming from Ukraine” if Ukraine signed the agreement with the European Union. The situation is clear and we are very much against the amendment.

      MR PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 18 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 14, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Hancock, Mr Slutsky and Mr Hajiyev, which is, in the draft resolution, delete paragraph 4.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support he amendment.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – The Ukrainian authorities claim that they were pressurised by Russia, but Ukraine should not be excused for beating the protesters, and nor should the protesters for going into institutions and attacking each other. There have been casualties. This place should not accuse a country of interfering in the internal business of Ukraine, so please leave it out of the text.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I remind colleagues that if Amendment 14 is carried, Amendment 3 will fall. Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 14?

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – As I said in response to the previous amendment, the Ukrainian leadership have clearly stated that they were pressurised by Russia, so we cannot remove the paragraph: it reflects the reality. However, we will support the next amendment, if our minor sub-amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 14 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, replace the second sentence with the following sentence:

“The threat of economic sanctions in order to influence political decisions in another country is in contradiction to generally received diplomatic and democratic norms and is inadmissible.”

      I call Mr Vecherko to support Amendment 3.

      Mr VECHERKO (Ukraine)* – The amendment would replace the paragraph’s second sentence and thereby remove the implication that there has been blackmail on the part of Russia. We should be democratic and look for compromises.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the co-rapporteur wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, as follows:

      In Amendment 3 after the word “economic” add the words “or political” and replace the word “received” with the word “accepted”.

      In my opinion the oral sub-amendment is admissible, in accordance with our rules, but it will not be taken into account if at least 10 full or substitute members oppose it. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated?

      That is not the case. I therefore call the co-rapporteur to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The wording conforms to proposals made by numerous members of the Assembly to widen the paragraph’s scope. We are talking about not only economic pressure, but political pressure.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 3 on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr VECHERKO (Ukraine)* – We agree with the amendment and call for members to support it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      MR PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 3, as amended? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 15, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 5, delete the first sentence.

      I call Mr Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 15.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – Our amendment is a reaction to the unnecessary assertion in the first sentence of paragraph 5. We just need to remind the Ukrainian authorities of their responsibilities in line with the rules and standards of the Council of Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment. I call Ms Reps.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – We are just dealing here with a fact that was repeatedly told to us when we were in Ukraine just before Christmas, and it is also said in press releases of various ministers, including those dealing with foreign affairs.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT –The vote is open.

      Amendment 15 is rejected.

      We come to Amendment 19, tabled by Mr Slutsky, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Hancock, Mr Shlegel, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Makhmutov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, first sentence, replace the words "against protesters" with the words "and by some protesters".

      I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendment 19.

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – The amendment seeks to clarify the text, as we must refer to the fact that the police acted against only some protesters. We must make this change in the interests of accuracy.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Reps.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – We would like to say that only a few protesters suffered, but weapons such as rubber bullets and water cannons were being used. Therefore, this Assembly cannot confirm that only a few were targeted, because clearly this was aimed at all protesters.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 19 is rejected.

We come to Amendment 22, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Čigāne, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Zingeris, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the second sentence, insert the following sentence:

"The Assembly is equally concerned about violent confrontations and provocations instigated by radical right wing protesters."

      I call Ms Reps to support Amendment 22.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The amendment states a fact, and we need to include it.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 22, which was tabled by Mr Stoilov, which is, in Amendment 22, replace the word “radical” with the word “extreme”.

      The oral-sub-amendment is admissible, provided there are no objections. If anyone thinks that it should not be considered, please indicate that by standing. Ten full members or substitutes would have to object to the oral sub-amendment. That is not the case.

      I call Mr Stoilov to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Mr STOILOV (Bulgaria) – The term “radical” has different meanings; we live in a time that requires radical, but not extreme, answers and action.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Stoilov. Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 22 on the oral sub-amendment?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – I am in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 22, as amended?

      I call Mr SOBOLEV.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – We are dealing with a problem that is not just about right-wing or left-wing extremists. We face a different problem. After the extremists provoked activities in Maidan square, they hid among the police. So we had to investigate all the facts. That is our main purpose, rather than stressing whether protesters are left-wing or right-wing. We have various extremists, including extremists from the police and secret services.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Sobolov.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Vecherko, Mr Popescu, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Rzayev, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Vukčević, Mr Jakavonis, Mr Sakovskis and Mr Cilevičs, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, third sentence, after the words "fully respected" insert the following words:

"but actions of protestors should not contradict the Assembly's Resolution 1344 (2003)".

      I call Mr Vecherko to support Amendment 1,

      Mr VECHERKO (Ukraine) – The amendment makes the text more balanced and brings it into line with Parliamentary Assembly standards. It refers to an earlier resolution, and what has been passed earlier should be adhered to.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to the oral sub-amendment to Amendment 1, which was tabled by the co-rapporteurs, which is, in amendment no. 1 replace the words “the Assembly’s Resolution 1344 (2003).” with the words “generally accepted democratic norms”.

      The oral-sub-amendment is admissible, provided there are no objections. If anyone thinks that it should not be considered, please indicate that by standing. Ten full members or substitutes would have to object to the oral sub-amendment. That is not the case.

      I call Ms Reps to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The Assembly’s Resolution 1344 talks about extremist movements and extremist parties, and there is no clear wording on extremism. As the problem with the violence on the street is a bit wider, we propose the wording in the oral sub-amendment, which would cover any type of violence, be it extremist or not.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

What is the opinion of the mover of Amendment 1 on the oral sub-amendment?

      Mr VECHERKO (Ukraine) – I am in favour of the oral sub-amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

       The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      Does anyone wish to speak against Amendment 1, as amended? That is not the case.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

       Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1, as amended, adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT – We come to Amendment 4, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 6, after the third sentence, insert the following sentence:

      “The Assembly expresses its concern in relation to the fact that some protesters resorted to violence and to the seizure of administrative buildings.”I

      I call Mr Vercherko to support Amendment 4.

      Mr VERCHERKO (Ukraine)* – The amendment reflects what actually happened and makes the text more balanced and fairer.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I am against the amendment because Amendment 23 covers the matter excellently.

      THE PRESIDENT – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open

      Amendment 4 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 5, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 7, replace the first sentence with the following sentence:

      “The Assembly is especially concerned about credible reports of torture and maltreatment from both sides.”I

      I call Mr Vercherko to support Amendment 5.

      Mr VERCHERKO (Ukraine)* – I want do not wish to press Amendment 5, because we want to support Amendment 23.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Amendment 5 is not moved.

      We come to Amendment 23, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Čigāne, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7, insert the following sentences:

      “In addition it is concerned about reports that three policemen have been stabbed, one of them fatally, by protesters. It considers that such acts of violence against service men are unacceptable in a democratic society.”I

      I call Ms Reps to support Amendment 23.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The amendment refers to the unfortunate case of three policemen being attacked. This Assembly is clearly against any violence towards servicemen.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I have been informed that the co-rapporteurs wish to propose an oral sub-amendment, which is, in Amendment 23, at the end, add the words “and should be fully investigated”.

      THE PRESIDENT may accept an oral sub-amendment, but it must not be opposed by 10 or more members. Is there any opposition to the amendment being debated? That is not the case.

      I call the Ms Reps to support the oral sub-amendment.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – Amendment 23 demands investigations into the violence towards the policemen and it is important that the matter is investigated fully.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment? That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now consider Amendment 23, as amended. Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended? I call Mr Schlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation) – The amendment is acceptable, but why is there no mention of the seizure of buildings? Amendment 4 was rejected because it was said that Amendment 23 covers the matter, but Amendment 4 refers to violence and not the seizure of official buildings, which is harming state infrastructure.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is in favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 6, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, at the end of paragraph 7, add the following sentence:

      “Grave crimes should be objectively investigated and persons found responsible for those actions from the one as well as from the other side should be brought to responsibility in accordance with national legislation.”I

      I call Mr Popescu to support Amendment 6.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – Grave crimes should never go unpunished, but we need to follow national legislation.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – The matter is surely covered by Amendment 23, particularly given that we amended it, so we do not need to repeat ourselves.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 6 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 7, tabled by Mr Popescu, Mr Vecherko, Mr Stoilov, Mr Jablianov, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Seyidov, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Sakovskis and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, replace the second, third and fourth sentences with the following sentence:

      “The Assembly welcomes the achievement on 28 January 2014 of the compromise between the different political forces in the Ukrainian parliament and the repeal of those laws.”I

      I call Mr Popescu to support Amendment 7.

      Mr POPESCU (Ukraine)* – The amendment is along the same lines as Amendment 24, but ours is more accurate.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Ariev.

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine) – After the vote in the Ukrainian Parliament on Tuesday, in which I took part, THE PRESIDENT did not sign the legislative acts, so a dictatorship still exists in Ukraine. The amendment is therefore premature.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – The committee is against the amendment.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 7 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 24, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Čigāne, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9, replace the last sentence with the following sentence:

      “The Assembly therefore welcomes the decision by the Verkhovna Rada, on 28 January 2014, to repeal the anti-protest laws.”I

      I call Ms Reps to support Amendment 24.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – It is important that the Assembly welcomes the decision of the Verkhovna Rada to repeal the anti-protest laws. We cannot add anything about THE PRESIDENT not signing them, but it is our duty to say that at least the Verkhovna Rada side is making an effort.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Shlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Unlike previous amendments, Amendment 24 does not commend the achievement of compromise at the beginning of political dialogue. Amendment 7 was much more up-to-date and relevant. We should recognise that we want to promote political dialogue.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The committee is obviously in favour. The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 26, tabled by Ms Reps, Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, Ms Taktakishvili, Ms Čigāne, Mr Kandelaki and Mr Zingeris, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 12, replace the last sentence with the following sentences:

      “The Assembly therefore sees the repeal of the anti-protest laws as a clear indication that the Verkhovna Rada intends to play such a role. It therefore does not wish to consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the Ukrainian delegation to the Assembly at this moment. However, it could consider such sanctions at its part-Session in April if grave Human Rights violations continue or if the Maidan protest were to be broken up by force.”I

      I call Ms Reps to support Amendment 26.

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – As the previous intervention emphasised, we have to put something into the resolution about the political compromise. That is why we are adding that the Assembly sees the repeal of anti-protest laws as a clear indication that the Verkhovna Rada intends to play a role in reaching a peaceful negotiated solution.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Shlegel.

      Mr SHLEGEL (Russian Federation)* – Colleagues, the last thing we should do is deprive anyone of voting rights. On the contrary, we should support freedom of expression and freedom and democracy. The amendment is completely unacceptable and we should not pass it under any circumstances. We are trying to strip Ukraine of its right to speak, and that is completely undemocratic.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – In favour.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 20, tabled by Mr Slutsky, Mr Hajiyev, Mr Iwiński, Mr Hancock, Mr Shlegel, Ms Kazakova, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Makhmutov and Mr Sidyakin, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 13, after the words "the situation in Ukraine" delete the rest of the sentence.

      I call Mr Slutsky to support Amendment 20.

      Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation)* – We are talking about the Monitoring Committee, and its mandate is to monitor compliance with the official obligations of member states of the Council of Europe. It seems that we are seeking to use NGOs, the media and all kinds of information channels to do that, and it would be appropriate to cut the sentence after the word “Ukraine”.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – It is the obligation of the Monitoring Committee to do what is under paragraph 13, so we cannot take it out. As I said before, we are meeting the Monitoring Committee in February, and we will follow the situation and inform the Monitoring Committee about the developing situation in Ukraine.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 20 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to the vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13405, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The Monitoring Committee has also presented a draft recommendation, to which two amendments have been tabled.

      We come to Amendment 17, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan and Mr Seyidov, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 3.2.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 17. I remind colleagues that speaking time is limited to 30 seconds.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – We are capable of following monitoring procedure ourselves as a Parliamentary Assembly. We do not need to urge the Committee of Ministers to do our job. It is a matter of principle. Are we here to follow the situation in Ukraine, or are we here to recommend to our Ukrainian colleagues what should be done in accordance with our standards? That is our role.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment?

      Ms REPS (Estonia) – The Committee of Ministers already has a partial monitoring mechanism. That mechanism is at its disposal for special occasions. When we look at Ukraine today, it is clear that we need to deal with the crisis. It is proper to ask the Committee of Ministers to look into the issue.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 17 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We come to Amendment 16, tabled by Mr Aligrudić, Mr Makhmutov, Mr Sidyakin, Mr Shlegel, Ms Gerasimova, Ms Kazakova, Ms Borzova, Mr Timchenko, Mr Harutyunyan, Mr Seyidov and Mr Hancock, which is, in the draft recommendation, delete paragraph 3.3.

      I call Mr Aligrudić to support Amendment 16.

      Mr ALIGRUDIĆ (Serbia) – The problem with paragraph 3.3 is that it calls on the Committee of Ministers to consider the causes of the crisis in the way they are described in the resolution’s text, which I am against. The resolution says that the crisis was caused by the changing course of Ukraine, which is absurd. Please delete paragraph 3.3. We should not talk like that.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Pourbaix-Lundin.

      Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – If we spend a lot of money on a co-operation programme in Ukraine and there is a crisis, of course we should consider whether we are using the money in the right way or whether we should distribute it differently. It is not about withdrawing money, but about using it more efficiently.

      THE PRESIDENT* – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 16 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 13405. Please remember that a two-thirds majority is required, and only affirmative and negative votes will be counted.

      The vote is open.

(Ms Brasseur, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gozi.)

2. Address by Mr Werner Faymann, Federal Chancellor of Austria

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now welcome Mr Werner Faymann, Federal Chancellor of Austria. The Federal Chancellor has agreed to respond after his address to questions posed by members of this Assembly, and I thank him for that.

      Federal Chancellor, welcome to Strasbourg and to this, our house of democracy and human rights. Your visit is one that we greatly appreciate, and it is very meaningful because it testifies to your commitment to the values of the Council of Europe and demonstrates your commitment to taking forward the work begun by your predecessors, Andorra and Armenia.

      At the last meeting of our Standing Committee in Vienna, we had an initial exchange of views with the Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr Spindelegger, at the time when my predecessor, Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, was President of this Assembly. Earlier this week, we were able to welcome the new Foreign Affairs Minister, who was also kind enough to respond to questions.

      Federal Chancellor, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you most warmly for your commitment, and to thank the Austrians for the excellent work they are doing in connection with this chairmanship, which is taking place at a difficult moment in time. It is not easy for any of us. All our member States have great problems to deal with at the moment. Therefore, from my position as President of the Assembly, I would like also to thank Mr Lennkh, your ambassador, who is currently Chairman of the Ministers’ Deputies. He is doing an excellent job and I am delighted that this co-operation should be so fruitful, so thank you, too, sir. The Austrians can be really proud of their parliamentary representation here at the Council of Europe. Members of your Parliament make an excellent contribution to our work here; thank you for that.

      Federal Chancellor, we are here today eager to listen to what you have to say, so without further ado, it is a great pleasure for me to give you the floor, sir.

      Mr FAYMANN (Federal Chancellor of Austria)* – Madam President, honourable members of the Assembly and the Bureau, may I first express my gratitude for having the opportunity to speak here before the Parliamentary Assembly? To come back to something Madam President mentioned in her kind words of introduction, the role of the Council of Europe, its tasks and challenges, in these times which are anything but easy, are particularly important. Precisely against the background of the history of the 20th century, Austria, as the Chair of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, feels particularly committed to playing an active part in building peace in Europe. The function of the Council of Europe is of paramount importance.

      As Chancellor of Austria, I am very proud that the highest functions within the Council of Europe have been held with great commitment by fellow Austrians such as Peter Schieder, who was President of the Parliamentary Assembly. So there is an Austrian tradition, I feel, and this chairmanship is part of it.

      In many respects, 2014 will be a year in Europe and throughout the world of historical reflection. The year 1914 marked the beginning of an age of wars and of mass murder, an age of injustice and dictatorship. Seventy-five years ago, Hitler’s war of aggression against Poland signalled the beginning of the Second World War. This war, and the Holocaust, were the greatest human catastrophe the world has ever witnessed. One cannot commend enough the generation of that world war, because after 1945 it held out its hand and made it its paramount goal to achieve peace on this continent. Anyone who accepts the lessons of the 20th century cannot allow the economic crisis to lead, as it did in the 1930s, to mass unemployment – to a complete lack of prospects, to poverty or to incitement of national hatred. We cannot allow anything of this kind to be repeated.

      Europe has invested a lot of time and money during the current crisis, but in the European Union we have also invested a lot with those who are not members of the European Union, because we see Europe as a common family. We have devoted a lot of resources to taking the first step towards doing what is perhaps most pressing – rescuing banks and stabilising monetary flows, and thus, through our energy, time and money, supporting economies. It is right that since 2008, step by step, we have taken these steps in our united Europe, but I am equally convinced that we have not yet done enough. Banks believe that they have returned to stability, but we still see very high levels of unemployment – above all, youth unemployment – around our continent. That means that the crisis is not over, and therefore the political challenges cannot be considered to have been won.

      We must not allow ourselves to become accustomed to these levels of unemployment. In this time of rapid change, we cannot grow complacent and become used to seeing these things time and again. Such complacency must not take hold when we know how many people live close to the poverty threshold and how few of them manage to find new jobs. We know how high youth unemployment is, and that sounds an alarm call to us all about how many young people do not have an opportunity to make their own contribution to being part of our community. They are prepared to join the labour market but they do not find an opportunity to do so in the globalised economy. The crisis since 2008 has shown us that today there are fewer and fewer solutions at national level to our global problems. Those who want to lead us astray will say that the time has come to concentrate on our national and domestic problems and that national injustices should be seen as justification to turn our backs on the international community.

      Let us not let up when it comes to the repair costs after the crisis. Together with many other countries – many of their representatives are here – we have had the idea of a financial transaction tax, but that will not solve unemployment in Europe. It would be too easy just to come forward with one simple solution. Someone who does that is, to my eyes, suspect in principle. This is part of an overall puzzle. We need to ensure that those who caused some of the crisis should at least make a contribution to remedying it. We need to think about the huge resources that will be involved if a form of co-funding is required. Speculation based on wagers on the collapse of whole economies must be constrained. We must have some kind of guarantee of employment for young people and do our level best to generate more employment, because without the necessary sustainable and high-quality growth we will be living at the expense of the next generation. We need that growth to create the necessary foundations for new employment and prosperity in Europe.

      We must not allow the wrong people – that is, young people – to pay the highest price for the crisis. It is our sincere wish that a whole new generation will commit itself with conviction to our principles – democratic development and the rule of law – but to that end society must be strong and these young people must find their place in the community. To give you just one of the worrying figures from our united Europe, since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2008 the number of unemployed young people in the European Union has risen by more than 2 million from 3.5 million to 5.7 million. It is therefore particularly important in Europe to continue to combat youth unemployment. We are pleased that perhaps the situation in our country is slightly better, but we are also concerned about every single unemployed individual, so we need to take up this challenge and overcome it – to take up the gauntlet to create employment and find common solutions.

      Solidarity does not end at the borders of nation States, so we must not remain indifferent if half of all young people in the countries of southern Europe have no job, although not everyone sees it that way. What people call the rationale of the market in the globalised economy pays no attention to whether the prosperity of some is achieved at the cost of the misery of others. We must halt the advance of chronically insecure employment contracts. It is clear that no European country can manage this on its own, so it is self-evident that we need to think and to act beyond national borders. Incitement to hatred, to which some have now devoted themselves, is a very irresponsible way of proceeding, and we need to combat it. It is important to remember our historical duty to counter with determination the enemies of democracy. We must take up these important challenges. Prosperity is inconceivable without peace and social justice, without freedom, and without the rule of law – that is, without our common values. Closer co-operation still between the Council of Europe and the European Union is possible, and it can make a great contribution if we think about our specific strengths, so we need to concentrate on those. For decades, the Council of Europe was at the vanguard of human rights and democratic policies, and I am sure that it will continue in this way, because that has huge importance.

      Discrimination against homosexuals in some member countries of the Council of Europe has gained significant attention. Such legal and de facto discriminations are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is important for me to emphasise that from my point of view a boycott of an international sporting event is not a suitable means of supporting the justified concerns of human rights activists. That would result in damage to international sport. But the discrimination that used to exist in the world of sport has been overcome. The measures taken in recent years need to be reconsidered and perhaps we need to continue our efforts to undertake international reorganisation, to bolster our work against discrimination.

      Austria will continue to play its part constructively to support the work of the Council of Europe. What unites all of us here is our common commitment to human rights, social justice, democracy, freedom and peace. I wish us all the best for our common work. Thank you very much.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Chancellor. Our members now have the opportunity to put questions to you. Questions must be limited to 30 seconds. The first speaker is Mr Iwiński, from Poland, on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Chancellor, you are one of the political fathers who supported the idea of introducing a financial transaction tax, which you just mentioned. Eleven European Union member States, including Germany and France – but unfortunately not my country, Poland – decided to share that point of view. Italy has already implemented the solution. How do you see the future of the FTT and when will Austria follow Italy in implementing it?

      Mr FAYMANN* – The financial transaction tax could be very valuable in supporting measures that help us achieve better education and create more employment for young people, because educational institutions cost money. Therefore, this financial transaction tax seems a very good example of where we in Europe can take action and ensure that the financial sector plays its part. As you know, a number of countries both inside and outside the European Union do not share this conviction because in their opinion it could lead to competitive disadvantages.

      In questions of democracy, the rule of law and freedom, when it comes to our environmental policy – when it comes to our values – we in Europe cannot simply take our cue from competition and what might hinder competition. It is more than just a question of that. It is important that we stand up for our values. A financial transaction tax could indeed make the right contribution and it should be introduced in as many European countries as possible in order to support this funding. Many legal concerns have been expressed, most of which the European Commission has dispelled. If we want this approach – if it is important to us because we think it makes a contribution to overcoming the crisis – it should be introduced at least in the 11 countries that are interested, to serve as a model in this common Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Agramunt from Spain, on behalf of the European People’s Party.

      Mr AGRAMUNT (Spain)* – Chancellor, asylum is one of the issues that concerns the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and indeed the Council of Europe as a whole. When it comes to asylum, I know that Austria has already done a lot to help. Do you envisage a new policy in this area? Bearing in mind the war in Syria, what are the criteria being applied by your country to help refugees coming from Syria?

      Mr FAYMANN* – Austria is not the only country that is seeing an increase in the numbers concerned, but Austria is one of the countries that receive a lot of applications, which it has to administer. If people are entitled to asylum, their asylum rights will be safeguarded. As a general answer to your question, we need to look towards the European Union because the European Union has a responsibility as well. We need to ensure that there is a distribution of quotas when it comes to asylum seekers. It is important that we remember the plight of individual countries – I am not referring to Germany or Austria per se but countries such as Malta or other countries in the southern parts of Europe – and ensure that we have a common responsibility in Europe. It is true that some have done less in the past and we need to ask those stakeholders to show solidarity and move forward on that basis.

      You know as well as I do that the right to asylum is intricately linked to the issue of human rights and, therefore, to the whole issue of humanity and the kind of contribution that we can make. The best policy would be to ensure that people are not forced to flee, to become refugees – I think we agree on that. Having said that, unfortunately we cannot promise a world such as that for tomorrow – a perfect, fair world where everything would be absolutely all right, so that people did not have to flee their home countries. We cannot promise that so therefore we must look at our asylum procedures and the way in which we handle this issue, and come up with common European solutions.

      Turning to the specific question of asylum procedures for Syrian refugees, at the end of August 2013 Austria said that we would be prepared to accept 500 Syrian refugees, in addition to previous numbers, because of the crisis in the country. We would also be helping out the neighbouring countries of Syria and giving them permanent protection. We are talking about 250 people. With family reunion, 170 have already arrived in Austria, and we intend to complete that procedure within the next few weeks: 250 for humanitarian assistance programmes, together with the UNHCR. All this is being implemented. Since the beginning of this month especially, we have been pulling out all the stops to ensure that the process can be completed over the next few months. I am convinced that this is a common task for us, which we should all take seriously.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next question is from Mr Pushkov from the Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Mr PUSHKOV (Russian Federation)* – We are extremely frustrated to see that Ukraine seems to be becoming a battlefield between Russia and the European Union. There have been accusations that undue pressure is being exerted on Ukraine by Russia, despite the fact that we know that the European Union has been very active in Kiev and we have seen many representatives of the European Union there. Do you believe that Russia and the European Union should fight one another on the Ukrainian battlefield or should a different and more constructive approach be found?

      Mr FAYMANN* – Austria and the European Union call on both sides in Ukraine to stop the violence; we are convinced that solutions can come only through dialogue. At the same time, we – the international community in Europe – should clearly signal that we support those who uphold human rights and want the rule of law and democracy in Ukraine. I do not think that the situation is mutually exclusive. The European Union could intervene in a positive rather than a negative way and show Ukrainians that the values in our countries support those in other countries who want to implement them. I welcome all the efforts of the Council of Europe and the Secretary General, who, in playing a go-between role, has made an important contribution. Support for dialogue, even for those who want a rapprochement with the European Union, is the right way forward and fully justified. Many in Ukraine are looking closely at the situation and trusting that Europe, with its humanitarian values, will support them.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. The next question comes from Mr Xuclà, on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain)* – Greetings from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Chancellor. I have read the interesting address that you gave in the Burgenland on 20 January. You said that we had to take measures against policies of hatred and anti-Semitism. Today we remember the Holocaust and say plainly, “Never again.” What are your proposals to combat xenophobia, anti-Semitism and policies of hatred?

      Mr FAYMANN* – Our common fight for human rights, common approach to freedom of expression and common efforts to combat discrimination are the strongest arguments against all forms of incitement to hatred. Certain economic preconditions exist and I should emphasise that people who incite such hatred can best be dissuaded by being attracted away with decent employment and living conditions. We need certain social standards and employment, which helps remove what would otherwise give rise to such attitudes. It is important that hatred should not determine political discourse or the outcome of an election; the opposite should be the case. We should ensure a basic consensus about our values in an election, and that can come only if we link social and other standards. That linkage is so important because in many European countries young people are disappointed by society. They become easy prey to the false images of “others”, as they see no place for themselves in society.

      In the past, we talked about the reconciliation of opposites, but now there are economic pressures, which are important, as are social standards in this common approach. The answer lies in trying to reconcile the two in the fight against racism and those who try to achieve political change out of hatred.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The next question comes from Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Bundeskanzler, you said that saving banks was not enough and that first and foremost we in Europe should save citizens from unemployment, poverty, exclusion and hopelessness. What do you think of the idea that all member States of the Council of Europe should accede to the European Social Charter of this great Organisation? Should the European Union, after acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights, start to investigate whether it could also accede to the European Social Charter?

      Mr FAYMANN* – We have always taken the European Social Charter very seriously. Social standards have always been at the forefront of our international and domestic policies. We are calling and hoping for that accession. I have talked to the President about the possibility of moving closer together on these matters, involving both the European Union and the Council of Europe. That is one of our primary concerns. We have to face social issues together for the future.

      THE PRESIDENT* - Thank you. I propose that we now start clustering questions three at a time. If you agree, Federal Chancellor, you can then respond to the questions together.

      Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain)* – I liked your speech very much, Chancellor. You were calling on us to build hope and the future together, but there can be neither without young people, whom we have to get on board. Young people, however, are disillusioned with politics and parliamentarianism. We heard your Minister talk about greater transparency and greater direct democracy. Do you have any suggestions about how we can move forward and how the most skilled people can take decisions according to their abilities, rather than having things handed down from above?

      Mr GOZI (Italy)* – Chancellor, I heard you say that there should be a more shared approach to the right of asylum in Europe, which is important. Since Lampedusa, it is as if the rest of Europe does not exist. It is not enough to share the load of asylum; we need a general shared approach on immigration, both regular and irregular. What should Europe be doing to develop a common approach to immigration in the Mediterranean and to see Lampedusa as a part of Europe, rather than a far-flung part of Italy?

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – Chancellor, you will know that earlier the Assembly discussed Ukraine. There are Ukrainian officials, including the former Prime Minister, who do a lot of business in your country with the proceeds of corruption. What do you think about personal sanctions being taken against those who have been involved in corruption and are also guilty of violations of human rights?

      MR FAYMANN* – As I have said, I am convinced that Ukraine, the European Union and the European Council can all make a considerable contribution to finding a solution without any violence. The country should decide for itself which direction it wishes to go in, to whom it wishes to grow closer, and what types of relations it wants to have with the European Union. These decisions should be taken exclusively by the country concerned. Everyone should be entitled to autonomy when taking these decisions. That is part of the values we advocate. It is part of the rule of law and the way a country deals with those who think differently. We must be more active on that.

      As to whether we should impose sanctions, that too is a matter for common policy. It is also a matter for the rule of law. It would be strange if we were to advocate sanctions against one country at this stage. I therefore prefer the way we have progressed so far, which is through negotiations and discussions. We can only find solutions by talking together, while always advocating respect for the rule of law and the independence of countries.

      The question of asylum was raised. I thank Mr Gozi for asking about it. I could mention Malta, Lampedusa or other examples of places to which people have fled because they were persecuted for political reasons or lived in apprehension of not having enough to survive on. Many of them come to places such as those on the sea, perhaps. The European Union and our continent as a community must understand that we need to protect them. We must protect not only our external borders but individuals, their human rights and our common values.

      I mentioned the issue of quotas. One cannot expect the countries of immediate reception to bear this burden alone. That applies to Lampedusa, Malta and other places. We need to continue to discuss these things in the Council. I know your Prime Minister is rightly committed to this and sees it as a European task. You Italian politicians are right. I can tell you that Austria is also concerned that asylum matters must not be left to individual countries to deal with as best they can. We need to strive for common directives and common solidarity. There is an urgent need for that.

      Political acceptance and participation and direct democracy have a lot to do with economic and social conditions. Those who are particularly irritated by unjust speculation on the price of food or many other areas, which is to the disadvantage of our citizens and to the benefit of a tiny minority, or those who are irritated by tax fraud or other forms of criminal behaviour, often think that the government is responsible and we who govern bear the responsibility. We have to be honest and say that we can only solve many of these problems by taking joint action and adopting joint social standards in combating fraud together. It is difficult to explain to young people today why some people in society earned splendidly before, during and after the economic crisis and why there are still not sufficiently tight rules to end speculation. We need to continue to do everything we can to show that democracy is working and that elected representatives are taking their duties seriously. That is an important contribution to ensuring the acceptance of established democracy. We can never talk too much about acceptance of democracy. Too many people have taken the crisis as an opportunity to criticise the system. We must understand that, and counter the disappointment by redoubling our efforts and ensuring we co-operate.

      THE PRESIDENT* –The next speaker on the list is Mr Ghiletchi, but I cannot see him in the Assembly so I call Mr Shai, an Observer from Israel.

      Mr GAUDI NAGY (Hungary)* – Madam President–

      THE PRESIDENT* – I remind you that in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and the code of conduct for members of this Assembly debate must be held in a civilised and disciplined fashion and members must refrain from anything that would disrupt the sitting.

      Mr Gaudi Nagy, I am obliged to reprimand you officially and call you to order, and in accordance with Rule 21.2 of our Rules of Procedure that will be explicitly recorded in the minutes of this sitting.

      If you are not prepared to comply with that rule, I will be obliged to penalise you further and prevent you from taking the floor at this part-session.

      Let us return to our list of speakers. I call Mr Shai from Israel.

      MR SHAI (Observer from Israel.) – Thank you, Chancellor, for your important speech here today. The Assembly will soon commemorate the Holocaust Memorial Day, and that has a lot to do with my question. As you fully support human rights, what is your position on Iran continuing to carry out a huge number of executions and violating human rights in the country? It shows a beautiful image to the outside world, but we know what is going on inside Iran: the violation of human rights and executions.

      Mr DENEMEÇ (Turkey.) – One of the priorities of the Austrian chairmanship is to ensure quality education. Education experts agree that pre-school education is greatly beneficial for improving language skills, especially for children from migrant backgrounds. Experts also said migrant children who have a good command of their mother tongue have a better foundation from which to learn the language of the host country. Does Austria have any plans to introduce the languages of the main migrant communities, without exception, into the school curriculum, even as an elective course?

      Mr ARIEV (Ukraine)* – Some members of the Ukrainian authorities who have been involved in brutal violations of human rights against peaceful protestors in Maidan in Kiev have property and bank accounts in Austria. Federal Chancellor, you talked about the legal basis for sanctions. Will your government use the rules on politically engaged persons to investigate the source of capital as a first step?

      Mr FAYMANN* – Let me first say something about Ukraine and clarify my points with reference to sanctions, common decisions and the rule of law.

      Sanctions are not things that one politician can impose; they involve questions about due process and the rule of law. The political co-operation of all European countries – not just member States of the European Union – to support constructive and peaceful solutions in Ukraine should lead to the exploration of every avenue that is felt to be appropriate by the whole European community. You cannot just have maverick or independent solutions, or someone thinking that they have the panacea to the issue. The process must involve a pooling of efforts. When we talk about sanctions, there has to be due process, and the rule of law must apply.

      Regarding Iran, particularly its human rights violations, I want to make certain things clear. I welcome any progress coming out of talks, and many States have committed themselves to achieving progress through negotiation. All those parties know that we are far from the end of our efforts. Particularly when we talk about the prevention of nuclear proliferation, it is necessary for the international community to come out with a clear voice in favour of human rights and against the death penalty. We welcome such efforts, but it is important that we do not overestimate them. I believe that we have a common line on that.

      On the quality of education and language skills, migrant integration must take into account the needs of children growing up in the host country to ensure that they have the necessary language skills. There are different ways of achieving that and of ensuring good-quality language education in schools.

      Austria is investing a great deal in that. Our foreign ministry used to cover that area, and it was active in ensuring that people could participate in a society. Language skills are particularly important. They require policies not just in schools but in further education. We must not underestimate the need for language skills and must do everything we can to enhance them.

      Mr BENEYTO (Spain)* – Federal Chancellor, I, too, would like to congratulate you on your work during the Austrian chairmanship.

      I am aware of Austria’s great tradition as a mediator. Could the Council of Europe and the Assembly not be a bit more ambitious and take a quantum leap as mediator, and try to help mediate in regional and other conflicts? That is one task we could undertake. We have witnessed the need for that in Ukraine, Egypt and other regional conflicts. Why can we not go further than the European Union?

      Mr DİŞLİ (Turkey) – My question about the number of refugees Austria has received was asked by Mr Agramunt, so I will ask a different question.

      The international community collaborated on the issue of chemical weapons in Syria. Do you have any hope of seeing a similar approach from the international community to achieve a ceasefire or to establish a safe corridor for human rights organisations to reach and help displaced people in Syria?

      Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – A few years ago, Austria received a European arrest warrant against a Russian citizen, Golovatov, who was accused of serious crimes. He was then released. Given what happened in that case, my question is: in your country, do you have dual legal standards?

      Mr FAYMANN* – As I am sure you are aware, we have just one standard, which is to be applied in the same way each and every time. I am sure that many issues were clarified in the talks that took place between Lithuania and Austria. We had a common ministerial statement on 23 September 2011, which was an opportunity to clear up any differences that may have existed regarding the matter.

      Syria has been mentioned many times. I do not need to say to you how hard it has been for the European Union to try to defend its stance. We are talking about terrible social and human conditions, about human beings, and about children in Syria being affected. Many organisations have drawn our attention to the plight in Syria. In the circumstances, how can we make more of a contribution? A lot of help has already been provided; I will not draw up a list of what has been done – for how many refugees, by whom, how much money the European Union has spent; and how much it has yet to spend. I do not want to talk about statistics and overwhelm you with them. I would simply say that I share your concerns.

      The talks, whose purpose is to find a peaceful solution in Syria, are unfortunately stalling; they are going forward, but very slowly. As far as I am concerned, the only answer I can provide is this: the Council of Europe and the European Union need to get on board the process and do their part. Such efforts are necessary because we need to reduce human suffering.

      We can also act as mediators. Mr Beneyto talked about Austria’s role and asked whether we could play a more active role. I thank him for mentioning that, because Bruno Kreisky played an important role in the Near East when he was in power. However, it was done with the international community of States.

      Developing closer relations within Europe is important, particularly involving institutions such as the Council of Europe and the European Union. That rapprochement, which we have witnessed not only the past few years but over the past few decades, is a solid basis from which we could help out in Syria, the Near East or other conflict areas, and we can act together.

      A common external policy would be quite a challenge. It must be acknowledged that even in the European Union, we do not have a strong common foreign policy to date. However, I believe that that is the direction, and there have been positive steps in that direction. As Federal Chancellor of Austria, I fully support that. Thank you, Madam President, for your positive comments, which I fully support, vis-á-vis our ambassador in Strasbourg.

      THE PRESIDENT – I have two more speakers on my list. Even though it is 12.59 p.m. I think we should allow them to ask their questions. I call Ms Oehri and Mr Moreno Palanques.

      Ms OEHRI (Liechtenstein)* – Thank you so much, Federal Chancellor, for your interesting statement. Liechtenstein is a neighbour of Austria and of Vorarlberg in particular. There has been a lot of criticism lately of the way in which fracking technology might be deployed in the Bodensee region. Unfortunately, it could result in negative ramifications for the environment. What do you think are the prospects of fracking in Austria and its neighbouring countries?

      Mr MORENO PALANQUES (Spain)* – We all know that the European Union cannot take a backward step, so we have to act much faster, not just in purely economic terms, but in terms of economic and social union. I think the European Union wants more Europe, but I sometimes get the impression that it is not particularly aware of its responsibility to build Europe. How would you, Federal Chancellor, raise awareness among the citizens of Europe so that, after the elections, we can overcome a potential paradox whereby the most powerful parliament ever turns out to be the weakest ever because of the great number of Eurosceptics among its ranks?

      Mr FAYMANN* – Thank you for that question. It was important for me to emphasise in my statement that Eurosceptics and their criticisms appear all the stronger when we are unable to come up with common solutions. It is easier simply to turn something down and reject it. When the community of nations or the European Union fail to solve a problem, they generate problems for themselves, which is not very constructive. If it is worthwhile to build Europe and if we wish to continue that positive process, we must ensure, regardless of which ideological direction we come from, that the banking union, which is so important, the rulings on the financial market and the rescue plans we have created are not the end of the story. We must go much further and solve many other problems of a social nature.

It was so important to emphasise that, because in an address of 15 or 20 minutes not all the issues can be touched on, but it was important for me to focus on those few aspects, because I am convinced that it is important to the people of Europe that we show the link between our current economic and social solutions. We must concentrate on those and not simply stop at our supervisory mechanisms on banks and the financial sector. We need to develop the social aspect of Europe. As was shown in the 1930s, it is not enough simply to protect certain things, for example, by ensuring that a bank which might be relevant to a whole sector does not collapse. We need to go beyond such action. We must show that we need to tackle seriously this massive youth unemployment, the average length of which increases every year.

      As for Liechtenstein and shale gas, in our discussions in Austria we are sceptical about the extraction of shale gas. We say that we have to assess the suitability of the location, and that the technological prerequisites and other aspects have yet to be fulfilled. We need to think about the potential effects on the water table, and the technology is not yet right. As is so often the case when dealing with technology, two potential approaches are available. Some say that the preconditions will never exist, whereas others say that it is a question of how much we invest in research and development to ensure that the economic prerequisites are met. Europe is in an awkward situation on energy policy, because we need to maintain Europe as an attractive place in which to manufacture and energy plays a key role in that. That raises the important question of whether we will be able to exploit shale gas – whether we can use it – in an environmentally friendly way. At the moment, at least in the locations we have looked into, our immediate answer is that we cannot; this technology is not yet ready and the time is not yet ripe. There is a pressing need to find alternative, affordable sources of energy, but we also need to think about the technology we will be using and the technology for shale gas is not yet ready.

      I should like to thank all those who put questions to me and the Bureau. I also thank you, Madam President, for this very constructive discussion and for having the opportunity to address you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – I thank you, Mr Faymann, most warmly on behalf of all of us. I thank you for your address and for your firm commitment to social issues, which is certainly what we noted from what you said. We are delighted to look to the future and to continuing our fruitful co-operation with the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and through other channels. You may rest assured that we are very much looking forward to meeting you again in Vienna.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT* – The next sitting of the Assembly will be a little later than usual to accommodate the meeting of the Joint Committee. Therefore, the next public sitting will be at 4.30 p.m. in accordance with the agenda which was approved on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.10 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Urgent debate: the functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine

Presentation by Ms Reps and Ms de Pourbaix-Lundin of the report of the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe Monitoring Committee, Document 13405

Speakers:Ms Fiala, Mr Papadimoulis, Mr Gross, Mr Agramunt, Mr Aligrudić, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Popescu, Mr Fournier, Lord Anderson, Mr Sobolev, Mr Pozzo di Borgo, Mr Morozov, Mr Zourabian, Mr Romanovich, Mr Slutsky

Amendments 8, 2, 5, 9, 21, 2, as amended, 3, as amended, 23, as amended, 24 and 26 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13405, as amended, adopted

Draft recommendation in Document 13405 adopted

2. Address by Mr Werner Faymann, Federal Chancellor of Austria

Questions: Mr Iwiński, Mr Agramunt, Mr Pushkov, Mr Xuclà Mr Kox, Mr Díaz Tejera, Mr Gozi, Ms Gerashchenko, Mr Ghiletchi, Mr Shai, Mr Denemeç, Mr Ariev, Mr Beneyto, Mr Dişli, Mr Jakavonis, Ms Oehri, Mr Moreno Palanques

3. Next public business

Appendix

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

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV/Anton Belyakov

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA*

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON

Paride ANDREOLI

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS

David BAKRADZE/Giorgi Kandelaki

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT*

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Gabriela Pecková

José María BENEYTO

Levan BERDZENISHVILI

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI/Claudio Fazzone

Teresa BERTUZZI

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ/Snežana Jonica

Olga BORZOVA/Evgeny Tarlo

Mladen BOSIĆ/Ismeta Dervoz

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON

Natalia BURYKINA

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS*

Henryk CIOCH/Zbigniew Girzyński

James CLAPPISON

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER/Fatma Pehlivan

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Peter van DIJK

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß/Josip Juratovic

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE

Josette DURRIEU*

Mikuláš DZURINDA/József Nagy

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS*

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU

Vyacheslav FETISOV*

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO

Bernard FOURNIER

Hans FRANKEN

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO

Karl GARÐARSSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/Alexander Romanovich

Sandro GOZI

Fred de GRAAF/Tineke Strik

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ/Pedro Azpiazu

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV

Andrzej HALICKI/Elżbieta Radziszewska

Hamid HAMID

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN*

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL/Ester Tuiksoo

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH

Adam HOFMAN

Jim HOOD/David Crausby

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Olga Kazakova

Vladimir ILIĆ

Florin IORDACHE/Daniel Florea

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT*

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE/Tinatin Khidasheli

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI/Jean-Pierre Michel

Ulrika KARLSSON/Tina Acketoft

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH/Marek Borowski

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/Ivana Dobešová

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR/Brynjar Níelsson

Attila KORODI/Corneliu Mugurel Cozmanciuc

Alev KORUN/Christine Muttonen

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO

Dmitry KRYVITSKY/Anvar Makhmutov

Athina KYRIAKIDOU

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT*

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ

Terry LEYDEN

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA

Trine Pertou MACH*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA/Jim D'Arcy

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ/Stefana Miladinović

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR/Yves Pozzo Di Borgo

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU/Ana Birchall

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA/Robert Shlegel

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/Jonas Gunnarsson

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS

Ganira PASHAYEVA/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Foteini PIPILI

Stanislav POLČÁK*

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK

Gabino PUCHE/Carmen Quintanilla

Alexey PUSHKOV

Mailis REPS

Eva RICHTROVÁ

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET

Pavlo RYABIKIN/Iryna Gerashchenko

Rovshan RZAYEV

Vincenzo SANTANGELO*

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN/Michael Connarty

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Algis Kašėta

Leonid SLUTSKY

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI

Yanaki STOILOV

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO/Igor Chernyshenko

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE/Florin Costin Pâslaru

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Konstantinos TZAVARAS

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Tamerlan Aguzarov

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ*

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD*

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ/Iva Dimic

Emanuelis ZINGERIS*

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Vassiliy Likhachev

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Levon ZOURABIAN

Vacant Seat, Croatia/Ivan Račan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Spyridon TALIADOUROS

Observers

Stella AMBLER

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

Michel RIVARD

Nachman SHAI

Partners for Democracy

Najat AL-ASTAL

Mohammed AMEUR

Mohammed Mehdi BENSAID

Abdelkebir BERKIA

Omar HEJIRA

Nezha EL OUAFI

Bernard SABELLA