AS (2017) CR 01



(First part)


First sitting

Monday 23 January 2017 at 11.30 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.       The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website. Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates

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

5.       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 Durrieu, the doyenne of the Assembly, took the Chair at 11.35 a.m.)

1. Opening of the 2017 ordinary session

      The PRESIDENT* – I declare open the 2017 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      I have to begin with some sad news for all of us, especially those from France. One of our members, Jean-Claude Frécon, passed away on 10 December 2016. Mr Frécon had been a Senator for the Loire since 2001. He became a member of the Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2008 and was President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities from 2014 to 2016; he was also Chair of the Sub-Committee on the Europe Prize. He was a great parliamentarian and a convinced European, as well as a major champion of local and regional democracy in Europe. In our cold, hard political world, he brought so much warmth, uprightness, generosity and kindness. He was an exceptional person, and we have all lost a friend. I request that we all stand to observe a minute’s silence.

      The Assembly observed a minute’s silence.

      May I remind all members, including substitutes, observers and partners for democracy, to register their attendance at the beginning of every sitting by touching their pass on one of the digital terminals outside the doors of the Chamber?

2. Examination of credentials

      The PRESIDENT* – The first item of business is the examination of members’ credentials, submitted pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure.

      The names of the members are in Document 14236. If no credentials are challenged, the credentials will be ratified.

      Are any credentials challenged? I call Ms Centemero.

      Ms CENTEMERO (Italy) – I challenge the credentials of the Slovak delegation on procedural grounds under Rule 7.1. The delegation does not abide by the principle of Rule 6.2.a. which states, “National delegations should include members of the under-represented sex at least in the same percentage as in their parliaments and, at a very minimum, one member of the under-represented sex appointed as a representative.” All five representatives in the Slovak delegation are male. I am aware that the Slovak delegation could not rectify the situation before the opening of the part-session but had intended to do so. I challenge the delegation’s credentials, because I want to bring attention to the need to comply with our rules and to achieve gender equality in the Assembly.

      The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Ms Centemero.

      Ms Centemero has challenged the credentials of the delegation of the Slovak Republic on the basis of Rule 7, which is a challenge on procedural grounds.

      I remind the Assembly that under Rule 7 a challenge must be supported by at least 10 members, from at least five national delegations, present in the Chamber. Would those members supporting this challenge please rise in their places and remain standing while we check whether the requirement is met?

      The challenge has the support required under the Rules of Procedure. Accordingly the credentials of the Slovak Republic’s delegation are referred without debate to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for report to the Assembly, if possible, within 24 hours. They are also referred for an opinion to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination.

      I remind you that, under Rule 10.3, delegations whose credentials are challenged may sit provisionally with the same rights as other Assembly members until the Assembly has reached a decision. However, those members shall not vote in any proceedings relating to the examination of credentials which concern them.

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

      I therefore welcome our new colleagues.

3. Address by the doyenne of the Assembly

      The PRESIDENT* – Colleagues, this is the second time that I have sat in this position, according to established practice, as the doyenne of the Assembly – its longest-serving member. I started here in 1992 and my term will come to an end in September. The links that tie us to this institution are vital. Alongside you, I have been able to experience the history of the Council of Europe – a history forged, done and undone before our very eyes in this crucible in which strong, unshakable European conscience should be developed.

      However, in the face of idealism there is the harsh reality of Europe as it is today. Threats and challenges are emerging, some of which are not being extinguished. Borders are not being respected or are closing, and countries are leaving the European Union – Brexit was a shock. There are disappointed hopes and shared responsibilities in our democracies, which are struggling with populism and demagogy. We therefore need to rediscover the strength of a collective ambition, which is the only guarantor of peace. It is around those universal values of human rights that we must reforge the European identity that is so keenly sought. The mission of the Council of Europe and of the European Court of Human Rights, created in 1959, is imperilled, and we must protect and defend it.

      Some countries wish to leave the European Court of Human Rights, which imperils it. Protectionist and nationalist feelings of an aggravated nature are also threatening it. However, through its judgments the Court has strengthened freedom and justice across the continent. Human rights and justice are therefore more important than ever. Here, first and foremost, in the Council of Europe, we must denounce justice that results in killing – that should never be our justice. We wish to see the universal abolition of the death penalty. One hundred and forty-one States out of 198 have abolished de jure or de facto the death penalty, but in 2015, more than 1 300 people were put to death in 25 countries. And the country we thought the most democratic, the United States of America, has practised the death penalty in several States.

      Let us also denounce all forms of corruption: the deep-seated evil that undermines States, institutions and individuals. More than elsewhere, it is in the Council of Europe that we should be vigilant. Some parliamentarians who are members of our Assembly seem to have been implicated in matters relating to their mission and function. They seem to be implicated in matters that are being dealt with by the courts and which would have involved other parliamentarians, so the circle has expanded. The centre of this vicious circle means that the Council of Europe needs to grapple with the problem.

      These doubts and suspicions are unbearable for the image of the Council of Europe. Our strength is not financial; our strength is not military. We have no army; we have no great wealth. The strength of the Council of Europe is moral. We are the vehicles and the guarantors of universal values. The external pressures being exerted upon us are obscuring these realities, and we in the Parliamentary Assembly wish to see clarity. An independent outside investigation must be launched and swiftly. I am speaking directly to the President of Assembly, who is to be designated shortly. He is being challenged and he is directly concerned by this challenge.

      Let me conclude by saying that we should give birth to a community of rights. This is a major achievement for our universal civilisation. We must once again take on the mantle of the sublime mission of the Council of Europe. Let us unite peoples in peace, justice and the lofty moral values of the society we wish to build. (Applause.)

4. Election of the President of the Assembly

      The PRESIDENT* – The next item of business is the election of the President of the Assembly. I have received one single candidature, that of Mr Pedro Agramunt of Spain, from the Group of the European People’s Party, for re-election. Under Rule 15, I declare Mr Pedro Agramunt re-elected as President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for this ordinary session.

      Mr Agramunt, I invite you to take the presidential chair. Let me convey to you my compliments and my best wishes for a successful performance in this lofty office.

(Mr Agramunt, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Ms Durrieu.)

5. Address by the President of the Assembly

      The PRESIDENT – Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first to thank you for your confidence in re-electing me as your President. I shall do my utmost to lead this Assembly in the best way possible through challenging times, and not just for Europe.

      Allow me also to thank the Committee of Ministers and the ambassadors for their excellent co-operation and for the frank and open exchange of views that we have been able to have over the last year. I am sure that these will continue. My gratitude also goes to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Deputy Secretary General for their input and support of the Assembly’s work, not just in the Chamber and the Bureau, but in the activities of the committees. Furthermore, I would like to thank the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights and the President of the Venice Commission, as well as the many Council of Europe officials with whom I have had the privilege to work. Last but not least, allow me to thank Mr Sawicki, the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly, and his staff. Without their competence and devotion, we could not achieve our political aims and objectives.

      Dear colleagues, before I start my speech, let me mention a tragic event that happened over the weekend. A coach carrying Hungarian students crashed in Italy. I was profoundly touched by this tragedy and would like to express my deepest condolences to the families of the victims and to the Hungarian people.

      Dear colleagues, a year ago I shared with you some profound concerns about the state of our continent, highlighting four issues: international terrorism, the refugee crisis, conflicts in Europe and the dangerous rise of populism. Little did we know at that time of the additional challenges that would be faced by our values, institutions and standards, including the failed coup d’état in Turkey and its consequences. Allow me to recall some of our responses to these challenges.

      “Vous n’aurez pas ma haine” – “You will not have my hate." These words of Antoine Leiris, a French journalist who lost his wife in the Bataclan terrorist attack, marked me profoundly. As we mourn the victims of terrorism – I would like once again to express my condolences to Turkey, Germany and Russia, which were recently targeted by terrible terrorist attacks – we must defend ourselves and our way of life against terrorism that seeks to destroy our societies. But we must not fall into paranoia and security extremes. We should say a resounding “No” to the atmosphere of fear and hatred that is the breeding ground for terrorism.Th

      The #NoHateNoFear initiative that we launched in June last year is an important tool to achieve this. It has gained the support of many parliamentarians, heads of State, ministers and high officials, including the Secretary-General of the United Nations. I am proud and humbled by what we have achieved over six months, especially because we can count among the supporters of the #NoHateNoFear initiative those who have a personal experience of terrorism – Antoine Leiris, Luciana Milani, the mother of an Italian victim of the Bataclan attack, and Bjřrn Ihler, a survivor of the Utřya attack, to give just some examples. They overcame their trauma with a reinforced commitment to the values of humanity and democracy. Their experience is a strong motivation for us to continue. Together, we can transform the #NoHateNoFear initiative into a genuine grass-roots social movement. I am counting on your support.

      To illustrate the gravity of the refugee drama, I would like to recall our visit to Greece. It completely changed my vision of the migration challenge. Seeing children in improvised schools installed in tents was an extremely moving experience. This experience reinforced my conviction that migration management and the refugee crisis is everyone’s problem. No country can cope with it alone. Europe needs a comprehensive approach to migration management and the refugee crisis, based on the principles of solidarity, responsibility sharing and respect for human rights standards and international commitments. As Europe’s largest Parliamentary Assembly, we must have an all-inclusive reflection process about how to achieve this, relying in particular on the deliberations of the European Conference of Presidents of Parliament held in September last year. Therefore, during the June 2017 part-session, I would like to organise a major debate on the refugee crisis and the migration problematic. I count on you and our committees’ support to prepare this important event.

(The speaker continued in French.)

      Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, we have not been successful in addressing conflict situations among our member States. In April 2016, we saw a dangerous escalation of hostilities on the contact line in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and still today the situation there is highly flammable. The conflict in Ukraine – and the violations of the cease-fire in Donbass – continue. Tensions in the Balkans are on the rise again. From Europe’s long and turbulent history, we have learned that conflicts cannot be resolved by military means. Our role as parliamentarians is crucial to achieve this. Parliamentary diplomacy is an important tool for dialogue, and our Assembly must use its potential to the full.

      It is also regrettable that, for a second consecutive year, one of our member States – Russia – is not submitting a delegation to the Assembly. Since my election, I have held numerous consultations with the Speakers of the Russian Parliament as well as with Russian parliamentarians. In my discussions, I have always stressed that the delegations of all member States must participate in the Assembly’s work because, after all, we are an Assembly of 47, not 46. The absence of one delegation from our work benefits no one. I shall not give up, because I see that the Russian Parliament and its parliamentarians are open to dialogue and co-operation in order to break the current impasse. I hope that we can use interparliamentary platforms to maintain contacts with Russian parliamentarians. In this context, I would like to organise a hearing on parliamentary diplomacy – possibly in my home town of Valencia – and I am looking forward to working with the Assembly’s competent committees to develop further the concept of this event.

      Dear colleagues, the fourth challenge that I mentioned is the challenges to our values and standards, and here I must start with the attempted coup d’état in Turkey. Thanks to the wide mobilisation of Turkish citizens, democracy prevailed and the attempted coup failed. Today, Turkey needs our solidarity and support, which we have given through clear public statements, visits and the provision of appropriate expertise. At the same time, it is our duty to remind our Turkish colleagues and friends that the best defence against attacks on democracy is to strengthen the pluralism of our democratic institutions, to make them more inclusive and to uphold the rule of law and fundamental freedoms. Turkey is facing enormous challenges, not just because of terrorist attacks from different quarters but also because of the refugee situation, but as responsible politicians we must adhere strictly to international standards and commitments. I hope that in our discussions this week we will be able to take this forward.

      Another major challenge to our values and standards is the existence of political prisoners. Upon my election as President of this Assembly, I decided to focus specifically on this matter. I pushed for the release of Nadiia Savchenko and Giorgi Ugulava, and I have also engaged in talks with the Azerbaijani authorities about the liberation of political prisoners. These initiatives, which I have not undertaken on my own, have borne fruit. In Russia and in Georgia, Ms Savchenko and Mr Ugulava were released, and in Azerbaijan a considerable number of civil society activists and journalists were also released. I welcomed these developments. Some, however, still remain in detention, including our colleague and friend Ilgar Mammadov. His continued detention, in breach of a final ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, is particularly disappointing, and I call once again on the Azerbaijani authorities to release him. I shall continue to raise this matter with the authorities, in close co-ordination with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Equally, I am following with great concern the situation of parliamentarians detained in Turkey. Detention of parliamentarians is an exceptional measure. Not only does it restrict their rights and freedoms to participate in the political process, but it also has a chilling effect on democracy and pluralism in general. I hope that our Turkish colleagues will follow the Assembly’s recommendations and release the HDP parliamentarians. I shall continue to press in this direction.

      (The speaker continued in Spanish)

      Dear colleagues, this Assembly is a house of democracy, bringing together parliamentarians from across Europe and beyond. We have representatives from the entire political spectrum, with a plurality of views. There may be fundamental disagreements between countries, political groups or even individuals, but this should not stop us talking and listening. However, we must respect each another, and this respect should be shown in this house of democracy. We must respect the Assembly’s votes and decisions, even when we disagree with them – this is a basic principle of democracy.

      In recent times, I have noticed that some members of parliament of this house of democracy have used their status to pursue a campaign to discredit political opponents by means of slurs, intimidation and coercion. As President of the Assembly, I cannot allow the honour of the Assembly or any of its members to be defamed. I cannot allow this Assembly to be misused as a platform to fight battles against States that some perceive as rivals or enemies. I cannot allow campaigns of hatred, verbal aggression, blackmail or pressure, orchestrated by who are not satisfied with the results of a vote.

      In democracy, when a vote is lost, the result must be accepted. We must accept victory and defeat because that is one of the main prerequisites of living in a democracy. The Assembly needs to set an example in this respect by promoting respect and tolerance both within and outside these walls. We are all responsible for our own words and actions. It is important to understand that unlawful attacks on the honour and reputation of an individual may require defence through the courts.

      Before I close, let me mention a very relevant event. This year, my country – Spain – is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its accession to the Council of Europe. Spain fully embraced democracy and good governance 40 years ago and this brought prosperity, freedom and respect for human rights to all my fellow citizens. Therefore, we want to pay tribute to this Organisation for having united 47 European States under one roof, using the European Convention on Human Rights as a solid foundation. As part of our celebrations, it will be my pleasure to host the Bureau and Standing Committee of the Assembly in Madrid, in March. I look forward to seeing many of you in Spain.

      Thank you for your attention. Let us now move to the agenda of the part-session.

6. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly

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

      Seventeen nominations for Vice-Presidents are listed in Document AS/Inf (2017) 01.

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

      Since there has been no request for a vote, I declare these candidates elected as Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules of Procedure. They will take precedence by age.

7. Appointment of members of committees

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the appointment of members of committees.

      The candidatures for committee members have been published in Document Commissions 2017 (01) and Addendum 1. These candidatures are submitted to the Assembly for ratification.

      Are these proposals approved?

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

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

      The PRESIDENT – Before we examine the draft agenda, the Assembly needs to consider requests for debates under urgent procedure and on current affairs. The Bureau has received the following: two requests for an urgent debate on the subject of “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”, from the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy; a request for an urgent debate on the subject of “The need to reform European migration policies” from the European Conservative Group; and a request from the United Kingdom delegation for a current affairs debate on the “The situation in Syria and its effects upon surrounding countries”.

      Taking the first request for an urgent procedure debate, on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”, the Bureau agreed at its meeting this morning to recommend to the Assembly that this request be rejected. Is the Bureau’s recommendation accepted?

      There is an objection to the Bureau’s recommendation on the request for an urgent procedure debate on “The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey”. We must therefore proceed to a vote. On this question only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against and a representative of the Bureau.

      Who wishes to speak in favour of holding this debate? I call Mr Kox.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – Normally I would follow the wisdom of the Bureau, of which I am a member, but now we have a recommendation from two main Committees – the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy and the Monitoring Committee – and a proposal from an ad hoc committee of all five political groups that we sent to Turkey. The urgent debate is endorsed by the two co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee. If such a broad section of this Assembly says that it wants to debate the functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey this week, I do not think that it is appropriate for the Bureau to say no. The decision not to have the debate rested on a majority of only one vote, so I urge the Assembly to vote in favour of the debate.

      The PRESIDENT – Who wishes to speak against? I call Mr Küçükcan.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – I wish you a happy new year, Mr President. Unfortunately, Turkey entered the new year with the unfortunate event of the terrorist attack in Istanbul, and before that we had a number of other terrorist attacks in Turkey. We are facing a number of challenges in my country and this is not the right time to have an urgent debate. We had such a debate and a current affairs debate just last year and I think that this is the right time to look at my country more positively. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe have an impact on Turkey; yesterday, a decree law introduced a number of steps recommended by you. Your voice is heard in Turkey and will be heard more effectively if you continue a positive and constructive dialogue with us. I therefore urge you to vote against the request for an urgent debate.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you.

      The Bureau is obviously against.

      We shall now vote on the request. The decision requires a two-thirds majority.

      I call Mr Destexhe to make a point of order.

      Mr DESTEXHE (Belgium) – Mr President, will you make it clear whether we are voting on the proposal to have an urgent debate or on the recommendation of the Bureau?

      The PRESIDENT – We are going to vote on the proposal to have the debate. Those who are in favour of holding the urgent procedure debate should vote yes, those who are against holding the debate, and therefore agree with the Bureau’s recommendation, should vote no. As I said, the decision requires a two-thirds majority.

      The vote is open.

The request failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority, with 94 votes for, 68 against and 19 abstentions.

      Taking the second request for an urgent debate, at its meeting this morning the Bureau agreed to propose to the Assembly that it holds an urgent debate on “The need to reform European migration policies”.

       Does the Assembly agree to this proposal from the Bureau? It is agreed.

      The request for an urgent procedure debate is therefore approved and the Bureau proposes that this takes place on Thursday morning, as set out in the draft agenda.

      The Bureau proposes that the debate on “The need to reform European migration policies” be referred to the Migration Committee for report.

      Is this agreed? The reference is agreed to.

      We now consider the request submitted by the United Kingdom delegation for a current affairs debate on “The situation in Syria and its effects upon surrounding countries”. At its meeting this morning, the Bureau decided to recommend to the Assembly that this request be accepted. Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau?

      A current affairs debate on “The situation in Syria and its effects upon surrounding countries” will therefore be held during this part-session, and the proposal is to hold it on Thursday afternoon, as set out in the draft agenda. It will be opened by Sir Roger Gale.

9. Adoption of the agenda

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the adoption of the agenda for the first part of the 2017 ordinary session. The draft agenda submitted for the Assembly’s approval was agreed by the Bureau on 16 December 2016 and brought up to date this morning, Document 14220 prov 2. I remind members that we have just agreed to hold an urgent debate on “The need to reform European migration policies” and a current affairs debate on “The situation in Syria and its effects upon surrounding countries”. We also have to consider the challenge to credentials accepted this morning. The Bureau proposes that the report from the Rules Committee be considered on Thursday morning.

      Is the draft agenda, as amended, agreed to? It is agreed to.

      It is clear already that there will be a large number of speakers for certain debates. To enable as many members as possible to speak, the Bureau proposes that speaking time be limited to three minutes throughout the week.

      Is this agreed? It is agreed.

      I may make further proposals on these matters as required.

10. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Nicosia, 25 November 2016)

      The PRESIDENT – The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee held in Nicosia, Cyprus, on Friday 25 November 2016 have been distributed, AS/Per (2016) PV 03.

      I invite the Assembly to take note of those minutes.

11. Debate: Progress Report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee; Observation of the presidential election in Bulgaria (6 and 13 November 2016); and Observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (11 December 2016)

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, Document 14231 and addenda 1 and 2 and Document 14235, presented by Mr Michele Nicoletti. That will be combined with consideration of the report of the Ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the presidential election in Bulgaria, 6 and 13 November 2016, presented by Mr Joseph O’Reilly, Document 14237, and the report of the Ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, presented by Mr Stefan Schennach, Document 14238.

      I will interrupt the list of speakers at 1 p.m. The debate will continue at this afternoon’s sitting after the Communication from the Committee of Ministers.

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

      Mr Nicoletti, you have the floor.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy)* – I congratulate you on your re-election, Mr President. I wish you all the best in your work. I wish all my colleagues a fruitful and successful year, although it looks like it will be a very difficult one.

      I would like to thank the Bureau for putting its confidence in me by appointing me as rapporteur on the progress report, which covers the activities conducted since last October up until the present day. In the report, members will find a description of the various activities being conducted when it comes to electoral observation missions, as well as references and the various transmissions to committees. I refer members to the report for those parts that have not given rise to any particular discussion.

      In my introduction, I will limit myself to those events that are of greater political significance and that have had a more direct bearing on the work of our institution. In recent months, the Parliamentary Assembly, through its Bureau, committees and the Standing Committee, has dealt on a number of occasions with the situation in Turkey following the failed coup d’état. The Assembly has confirmed the line it has adopted in respect of those events: a strong show of solidarity with victims of ongoing terrorist attacks in that country and a clear condemnation of any use of violence, whether it is with a view to subverting democratic institutions, demonstrating one’s own dissent or negotiating some kind of political agreement.

      At the same time, the Assembly has expressed its concern about how the defence of human rights, the rule of law and democracy has been very much put to the test, as a result of not only terrorist attacks, but the emergency legislation that has been adopted. Criticism has been expressed by the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Venice Commission, with the various bodies deeming the means resorted to as disproportionate. It is important that human rights are once again restored to their rightful place, with freedom of opinion and of expression for journalists; decisions often taken by judges in this regard can be deemed arbitrary. On 24 November, the Bureau asked the Assembly to write to the Speaker of the Grand National Assembly in Turkey to underscore the need to respect the immunity of members of the Grand National Assembly, including members of the Parliamentary Assembly. At the meeting of 16 December, the Bureau took note of the request made by the Monitoring Committee to hold a debate under the urgent procedure on the respect for democratic institutions in Turkey.

      This request was supported by the Political Affairs Committee; it dispatched an Ad hoc sub-committee to Turkey, and in December the Committee submitted a memorandum to the Bureau making a similar request. The Turkish delegation has played an active role in that Ad hoc sub-committee, flagging up the rather exceptional circumstances of the country having to grapple with terrorist attacks. The delegation has expressed its desire for dialogue with the Assembly. We have just now taken a decision, while hoping that dialogue and respect for the fundamental principles on which this Organisation rests will continue in the months to come.

      The other aspect I wish to deal with refers to an issue discussed in the Standing Committee: the so-called Nicosia declaration, a statement that has an eminently political significance. In it, the Assembly forcefully expresses its will to strengthen our institution as a pan-European forum made up of 47 member States – not 46, as the President of the Assembly has reiterated on a number of occasions. The difficulties and the conflicts that may well emerge between member States should not jeopardise the strength of this Organisation; on the contrary, it is important that our Organisation is taking the initiative compared with other institutions such as the European Union. One might say that we need not less but more Council of Europe involvement, so that we can extend further in the area of shared democracy, human rights and rule of law. In other words, we are talking about the notion of a shared jurisdiction, that of the European Court of Human Rights.

      Neutrality – or neutralising the issue of defence – which is clearly spelt out in the statute of this institution, can be a strength and asset for us at a time when member States would seem to be pursuing diametrically opposed aims in their foreign policy. Neutrality is a tool that has to be used wisely, by respecting the sovereignty of all member States, from the smallest to the largest. If we do that, we can show that we can bring peoples together – peoples that may be diverse, but nevertheless have so much in common. They share principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but these are also countries that stand up in defence of their own people.

      Defining that framework is incumbent on the Parliamentary Assembly, but it must involve member States at the highest level, as has been stated in the Nicosia statement. It is thought that convening a summit of the 47 member States of the Council of Europe would serve as an important milestone in the history of this institution; we could bring together heads of State and heads of government of the 47 member States so that they have an opportunity to set out how they see the Council of Europe evolving in the future. The Parliamentary Assembly, of course, has to be a party to any such negotiations. As a strong, credible institution, any attempt to discredit it with accusations of misconduct should be rejected. We need to respond in word, flagging up the facts. We need to reject any efforts to discredit this Organisation. To do that, we need to beef up our internal machinery; we need mechanisms that can look at possible reforms in this area so that we can stand as an institution of some authority on democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and show that we have not lost our moral compass and that we are prepared to proceed further on this path and be seen as the Organisation that is taking the initiative.

      We know that the Russian Federation has failed to submit its credentials and has not taken up its seat alongside us, despite the many efforts deployed by our President Agramunt. Of course, there are differences of view on the subject, but in recent months the Parliamentary Assembly, as this statement makes clear, has been attempting to reinstate dialogue, on the basis of the principles of this Organisation, and bring Russia back into the fold, as a way of best defending the rights of all. We have seen attempts by the Russian Federation to call into question the rulings handed down by the European Court of Human Rights when such rulings are deemed not to be compatible with the Russian constitution. That is a difficult situation for us, as the last thing we want is any efforts to weaken the standing of the ECHR.

      Finally, in the report there are one or two considerations on gender equality. It is with some satisfaction that I note that women’s representation within the Assembly in 2016 has increased and now stands at 39% of the total. That is not quite the 40% we set as our objective in Resolution 1585 of 2007, but we are moving closer to that figure. We have seen women taking on the roles of chair, vice-chair and rapporteur to a greater extent, so we can afford to be proud of the progress that has been made, while committing ourselves to achieving more in this direction. A number of delegations have responded to the request made of them in this regard, such as Kosovo, and have honoured the commitment entered into when acceding to the Organisation. As a new delegation, we extend it a welcoming hand, and this should be construed of a sign of growing solidarity in the Balkan region, which deserves our attention.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Nicoletti. You have one minute remaining.

      I now call Mr O’Reilly to present the report of the Ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the presidential election in Bulgaria. You have three minutes.

      Mr O’REILLY (Ireland) – Thank you, Mr President. I join in the good wishes to you for the forthcoming term.

      We observed the first round of the presidential elections in Bulgaria and three minor referendum issues. There were 11 members of our delegation, with two co-rapporteurs and members of the Venice Commission. We broke into six teams and covered a comprehensive area around Sofia and out into the provinces. Given the time constraints and in the interest of giving the full picture, I will address the conclusions of the report, but I invite colleagues to read the interesting detail on the whole process of the elections and of democracy in Bulgaria.

      The first significant and important conclusion is that, as a monitoring group, we were unanimously happy with the progress and entire process of the elections, including the technicalities and the way in which all protocols were observed. We were impressed that they were well administered. We were equally impressed by the engagement with democracy in the election process, although we thought that the media were somewhat disengaged and a bit limp in their approach. There was a concern about the voters list, as there is need for an improved one. We were impressed that the 500 voting machines were used effectively. There was a concern about the fact that there were changes to the electoral code, which are the subject of Venice Commission reports at the request of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We were concerned that those changes had come in within the previous year, which was not recommended with the Venice Commission. So we were generally happy with all that.

      We had an extremely effective delegation. My colleagues were excellent and committed to the process. Our secretariat, led by Bogdan Torcatoriu and Daniele Gastl, did an extremely good job, and I acknowledge the great work of all our delegation. The fundamental point that I want to convey to colleagues and to you, President, is that we felt that the election was successful and that there is a real developing commitment to the democratic process in Bulgaria. We would like to see improvements at the media level – that would be the fundamental change – but I suppose that is an incremental change and will arise from the successes that we witnessed.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr O’Reilly.

      I now call Mr Schennach to present the report of the Ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. You have three minutes.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – After two years of deep crisis in Macedonia, there were early elections in December last year. For two years, the biggest majority boycotted the parliament. During that time, there was illegal tapping, various government reshuffles and a massive intervention on the part of the European Union. A special public prosecutor was deployed to address and investigate almost 60 cases of corruption. The President of the State pardoned all those who had been charged, but had to withdraw those pardons because they had not been discussed with parliament or the government. That is the backdrop against which the elections took place. However, as the report shows, there was a result, which has been accepted by all the parties involved – six altogether, including coalitions – and there have been substantial consequential changes.

      Up until now, the leading party – the Albanian party, PDIU – has been the strongest party, but its results have halved since the elections. It now has only 10 seats, two of which are very soft, if I may put it that way. The governing party lost quite a number of seats. Therefore, there was a situation whereby the previous government – the coalition that was – now has only one position in common. On the Albanian side, a great number of options were available to the voters. In practice, that means that there are more Albanian members of parliament in the country’s parliament than previously – more, in fact, than the total number of PDIU members in the past. There is a new paradigm.

      There has quite clearly been a division according to ethnic lines. One Macedonian party presented some candidates from the Albanian list and reaped the rewards of that move. As you may therefore have observed, there have been changes in the political landscape in the cities and in the rural areas. To this day, no government has been formed, which is a matter for concern. The elections took place in December and the Council of Europe must pay close attention to further developments.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. We will now move to the speakers list, starting with the speakers of behalf of political groups. This afternoon, the other speakers in the list will speak.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Today is a national day of mourning in Hungary. At the weekend, we lost 16 victims of a coach accident during a ski excursion in Italy. Thank you, Mr President, for your condolences. We have confronted tragedies in the international arena and in the Assembly, and this is a particular tragedy that we have had to witness. Empathy can give power to nations and individuals who carry the terrible burden of a tragedy.

      The Bulgarian and Macedonian elections proved that those countries have working democracies, which is good news, especially in an unstable environment. The Balkans are getting unstable and, unfortunately, the ambition of the European Union is not strong enough. On the contrary, negligence on the part of Europe towards the Balkans is, unfortunately, growing. The Council of Europe must replace even the European Union in this situation, and maintain our attention towards the Balkans.

      The President invited the new US President to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Democracy is in transformation not just in Europe, but at a global level. The US election was the success of democracy against media, financial and bureaucratic obstacles. We expect less ideology and, hopefully, more values and responsibility on behalf of the United States. The security dialogue between the important players of the world, including the United States of America, is vital to help to make peace in the immediate vicinity of Europe.

      Finally, we should not intervene in the democratic process of Turkey, but we should give our attention and solidarity. The Council of Europe is going the right way to help the Turkish democracy.

      Mr Mogens JENSEN (Denmark, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – Thank you, Mr President. On behalf of the Socialist Group, I would like to comment on a couple of aspects of the progress report. First, the allegations that members and former members of this Assembly are involved in corruption, which are spreading in the media all over Europe, are a great threat to the Assembly’s reputation and reliability. It is very important that our Assembly and the President respond strongly to such allegations and make two things very clear: first, that the Assembly does not in any way accept or tolerate corruption and will fight it in all forms everywhere; and, secondly, that allegations directed against members of this Assembly will be investigated. That is a very important signal to send to our people, who rely on this Assembly.

      Secondly, I was in Turkey recently talking to political parties, non-governmental organisations and media bodies, and they must be astonished by the Assembly’s decision not to have an urgent debate on that country. Turkey faces severe problems, including the coup attempt and terrorism. We have to support it, but our support has to be founded on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, about which Turkey still has problems, although there have been recent improvements, which I am very happy about. I think it is a problem that we are not discussing the situation in Turkey in this Assembly.

      Finally, I welcome our colleagues from Kosovo, who have now formed a delegation and are present today. It is very important that they have done so, although we will have to discuss their status in the Assembly. I urge our President to ensure that when we ask people to set up a delegation, they are given a seat among us in the Assembly. I ask the President to ensure that our Kosovar colleagues have a seat here. We can decide later on their right to speak and vote.

      Mr LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I echo what my socialist colleague said about the allegations of corruption. This Organisation was set up by many people, including Sir Winston Churchill, to be the beacon of democracy in a war-torn series of nations. It was to be at the forefront of everything that matters to us all. Since then, it has expanded to include many nations.

      We are still here trying to do that job, but corruption seeps into every part of life. Every single one of us has some way of tackling that in their parliament, and we have got to do the same here. Enough: no more weasely words and no more, “Oh well, we’ve got to look at it.” We need to come up with a strategy – under the rules, we have got to ask for outside help – and provide funding and staffing for it. If we are going to lance this boil and ensure that this Organisation carries on for the next 70 years, we are going to have to take control of our destiny. Every time there is even a whiff of corruption, by association every single one of us is affected. We are part of this Parliamentary Assembly; we sit here at the home of democracy. Therefore, the time has come for us to take the lead.

      I have been looking this morning at the various bodies we could ask to help us – there are three or four. Some are better than others, and some will need a lot of guidance from parliamentarians – us – to ensure they get to where we need them to be. It is not right that someone can just make an allegation. If that happened in most of our parliaments, there would not only be a hearing but the person would probably be brought before parliament to explain what they were doing. But here they can get away with it. That has got to stop. If we are to continue our work, we have got to be leaders. I support my colleague, Mr Jensen: we need to sort this out now. It cannot go on.

      As a member of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs, I will personally do what I can. I know that everybody will join me, because we have got to lance this boil quickly. Once we have done it, we can go forward and say, “We are a beacon again.” At the moment the beacon is dimmed, so we have got to get it alight again. The only way to do that is to work together.

      Mr President, I know your views on this matter because you have led us on it. Well done – I thank you for that. We have got to stand together – one voice, one group of nations, one ideal – to stop this cancer before it takes hold of the very systems we hold dear.

      Mr XUCLŔ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – On behalf of the liberal group, I congratulate you and wish you a happy new year. Let us hope it is better than last year – from a political point of view, anyway. I thank the three rapporteurs for the information we received from them. From the point of view of the assessment of the most important events that have happened since October, I think the Nicosia declaration, which Mr Nicoletti mentioned, is important. It is not coincidental. We find ourselves at a crossroads, and we have to ask ourselves whether the Parliamentary Assembly can be inclusive while the composition of the Europe of 47 is being redefined.

      Since October, the jewel in the crown – the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe – has been threatened by some very worrying events. Of course, resolutions such as the Ilgar Mammadov resolution need to be implemented, but certain countries are considering leaving the Convention. I welcome the news from Macedonia. It has been years since political parties recognised the results of elections in Macedonia. Let us also look at the results of the elections in Bulgaria. Some 25 years ago, several countries declared independence, left communism and went back to their own history, but in certain countries there are now feelings of frustration about European integration.

      Let me say to our colleagues from the Turkish delegation that by a very narrow majority we decided to postpone the debate until the spring part-session in April, but our concerns are still alive. A referendum is going to be held at the end of March or the beginning of April. Those who organise referendums in Europe seem to lose them, so let us see whether that trend continues in Turkey.

      This is classic subject for law faculties: it is a case study in the burden of proof. Those who make accusations need to prove that they are true. I agree with Mr Jensen and Mr Liddell-Grainger: we need to react. We are politicians. We are not here simply to look at this matter from a legal angle; we need to talk about this Organisation’s reputation and image, so let us fight defamation.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I, too, wish everybody a happy new year. I pay my compliments to the rapporteur, Michele Nicoletti, for his progress report, but we will need a lot of luck if we want to make this year a happy new year.

      Today, we have three bad signals. The first is the corruption that may have taken place in the Assembly. This is a horrible threat to us all here. We have to be aware that any allegations of corruption are allegations against all of us. I am happy that the President today instructed the Rules Committee to take a lead and investigate the allegations. I am also happy that Mr Liddell-Grainger is supportive. The Rules Committee should now investigate and, after it has reported, we should have a debate in the Assembly. This issue should be a part of Mr Nicoletti’s report, with regard to the upcoming fourth summit, into how our Assembly should function. If we do not behave, we will not be in a position to order others to behave.

      The second bad signal is that the biggest member State did not present its delegation to the Assembly, so in the coming year we will not be able to talk with our Russian colleagues about major European developments. The issue relates to our rules and credentials, so I ask the rapporteur to consider this matter, too. We should review our rules to ensure that all countries and parliaments are represented here.

      The third element that makes today a bad day and a sad day is that two of our major committees want an urgent debate on the functioning of the democratic institutions in Turkey. All the rapporteurs we sent, on behalf of all the political groups, also want a debate. The majority of Assembly members want a debate. Many of my colleagues in the Turkish delegation – Mr Küçükcan forgot to mention this – would love to have this debate, because next time they could be in prison and not be able to hear it. For the rules to prevent us from having a debate, even though the majority want it, is a very bad start to the year. I ask Mr Nicoletti to respond to this point. The rules are old fashioned. If a majority of Assembly members want something, it should happen. The rules should not prohibit debate on this important issue.

      Despite all the bad things happening on the first day of our meeting, I hope this year will nevertheless be a happy year. My group will do everything possible to contribute to that.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Kox. The rapporteur, I imagine, will reply at the end of the debate. I remind that him that he has just one minute.

      I remind members that the debate will continue this afternoon after the presentation by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cyprus, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers.

12. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda that was approved this morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)


1. Opening of the 2017 ordinary session

2. Examination of credentials

3. Address by the doyenne of the Assembly

4. Election of the President of the Assembly

5. Address by the President of the Assembly

6. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly

7. Appointment of members of committees

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

Speakers: Mr Kox, Mr Küçükcan, Mr Destexhe

9. Adoption of the agenda

10. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Nicosia, 25 November 2016)

11. Debate: Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee; Observation of the presidential election in Bulgaria (6 and 13 November 2016); and Observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (11 December 2016)

Presentation by Mr Nicoletti of the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, Document 14231, Addenda 1 and 2, and Document 14235

Presentation by Mr O’Reilly of the report of the Ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the presidential election in Bulgaria (6 and 13 November 2016), Document 14237

Presentation by Mr Schennach of the report of the Ad hoc committee of the Bureau on the observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (11 December 2016), Document 14238

Speakers: Mr Németh, Mr Mogens Jensen, Mr Liddell-Grainger, Mr Xuclŕ, Mr Kox

12. Next public business

Appendix / Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure.The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément ŕ l'article 12.2 du Rčglement.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthčses.

ĹBERG, Boriana [Ms] (BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr])

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms]

ARDELEAN, Ben-Oni [Mr]

ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [Mr] (ZZ...)

BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms]

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

BAYDAR, Metin Lütfi [Mr] (KOÇ, Haluk [M.])

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]



BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BROPHY, Colm [Mr] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

BUDNER, Margareta [Ms]

BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]


CEPEDA, José [Mr]




CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr] (TUDOSE, Mihai [Mr])

COWEN, Barry [Mr]

COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (ZZ...)



DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (BLANCHART, Philippe [M.])

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme] (MARIANI, Thierry [M.])

D'AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms]

DAVIES, Geraint [Mr]


DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DJUROVIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady]

ELENA, Eric [M.] (ALLAVENA, Jean-Charles [M.])

FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr]

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

FEIST, Thomas [Mr] (WELLMANN, Karl-Georg [Mr])


FENECHIU, Cătălin Daniel [Mr]

FISCHER, Axel E. [Mr]

FOULKES, George [Lord] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]


FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]


GERMANN, Hannes [Mr] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Ms]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]


GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme] (BALLESTER, Ángela [Ms])

GOSSELIN-FLEURY, Genevičve [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]


GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HARANGOZÓ, Gábor [Mr] (MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HENRIKSEN, Martin [Mr]

HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HÜBNER, Johannes [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

HUSEYNOV, Vusal [Mr] (MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.])

IBRAHIMOVIĆ, Ervin [Mr] (ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms])

JACQUAT, Denis [M.]

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JENSSEN, Frank J. [Mr]

JOHNSEN, Kristin Řrmen [Ms] (VALEN, Snorre Serigstad [Mr])


JORDANA, Carles [M.]


KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KARAPETYAN, Naira [Ms] (ZOURABIAN, Levon [Mr])



KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]


KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

KORODI, Attila [Mr]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]


KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]



KYRITSIS, Georgios [Mr]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LANGBALLE, Christian [Mr] (BORK, Tilde [Ms])

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.]


LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (ARENT, Iwona [Ms])


LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr] (CHITI, Vannino [Mr])

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms] (GHASEMI, Tina [Ms])

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MAROSZ, Ján [Mr]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MARTINS, Alberto [M.]


MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]

MENDES, Ana Catarina [Mme]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MILTENBURG, Anouchka van [Ms]

MOŻDŹANOWSKA, Andżelika [Ms] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]


OEHRI, Judith [Ms]


O'REILLY, Joseph [Mr]


PALIHOVICI, Liliana [Ms] (NEGUTA, Andrei [M.])

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr]

POPA, Ion [Mr] (ZZ...)

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms]

REICHARDT, André [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ROCHEBLOINE, François [M.])

RIGONI, Andrea [Mr]

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])


ROJO, Pilar [Ms]

ROSENKRANZ, Barbara [Ms] (AMON, Werner [Mr])

ROSETA, Helena [Mme]

ROUQUET, René [M.]

ŠAKALIENĖ, Dovilė [Ms]

SALMOND, Alex [Mr]

SAMMUT, Joseph [Mr] (SCHEMBRI, Deborah [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHIEDER, Andreas [Mr] (KORUN, Alev [Ms])

SCHNEIDER, André [M.] (LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.])

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

ŠEPIĆ, Senad [Mr]

SHARMA, Virendra [Mr]

SILVA, Adăo [M.]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STOILOV, Yanaki [Mr]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TORNARE, Manuel [M.] (LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.])

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEJKEY, Imre [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.]

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VOVK, Viktor [Mr]

WILK, Jacek [Mr]

WINTERTON, Rosie [Dame]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

WURM, Gisela [Ms]


YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZECH, Tobias [Mr]

ZIMMERMANN, Marie-Jo [Mme]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

ZOTEA, Alina [Ms] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés ŕ voter


BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr]


LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]



MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr]

MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]

MIKADZE, Gela [Mr]

MURRAY, Ian [Mr]


ÖZSOY, Hişyar [Mr]

PODERYS, Virgilijus [Mr]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]


SANDBĆK, Ulla [Ms]



WILSON, David [Lord]

Observers / Observateurs

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie


ABUSHAHLA, Mohammedfaisal [Mr]

ALBAKKAR, Khaled [Mr]


ALQURAN, Ibrahim [Mr]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

ZAYADIN, Kais [Mr]

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément ŕ la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)