AA17CR19

AS (2017) CR 19

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Nineteenth sitting

Monday 26 June 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.

(Mr Gutiérrez, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 11.40 a.m.)

1. Opening of the third part of the 2017 ordinary session

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

2. Statement by the President

      The PRESIDENT – Let me at the outset pay tribute to the memory of all those who died in tragic circumstances since our last part-session. I am thinking in particular about the victims of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, in Manchester and in London, but also about the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in London and of the forest fires in Portugal.

      Let me invite you to join me in a minute’s silence.

      A minute’s silence was observed.

      Unfortunately, terrorism continues to hit our member States, creating dozens of victims and leaving many more people injured. Regrettably, terror and violence continue to cause anxiety and feelings of insecurity in our population. The recent attack at the Finsbury Park mosque targeted the members of a particular community: the Muslim community. It would appear to be a worrying and dangerous attempt to make an amalgamation between religion and terrorism. We should oppose all such attempts.

      Each terrorist attack leaves only heartache and anger, but we should not give in to the hate and fear that terrorists seek to instil. The #NoHateNoFear initiative of our Parliamentary Assembly can play a role. I encourage you to continue supporting it as a platform for fighting fear and hatred.

      Faced with these ongoing terrorist attacks, our citizens are questioning the authorities’ response to the terrorist threat and the effectiveness of our prevention policies and measures. They want concrete action to strengthen their safety and security. This is especially important today, when populists seek to capitalise on people’s fears by developing a demagogical and irresponsible rhetoric that seeks to divide our societies further.

      As politicians, we must take a sober, realistic and critical look at our mechanisms to combat terrorism. We should not be afraid of acknowledging some failures and mistakes that may have been committed, in order to find – on the basis of lessons learnt – new mechanisms and approaches that will strengthen our resilience against terrorism.

      We should do it together – all member States of the Council of Europe – in a spirit of solidarity and constructive co-operation. We should bear this in mind when we come to the adoption of the agenda of the session, which includes a proposal for a current affairs debate on “Europe’s common response to terrorism: successes and failures”.

      Tomorrow, we will have the report on the recognition and implementation of the principle of accountability in the Parliamentary Assembly, which is an important debate for the present and future of the Assembly. We have to do it with all respect to the law, because without law there is no legal security or justice. Without law, the existence of this institution does not make sense. I am sure that we all put the general interest above individual and group interests.

      On Wednesday, our Assembly will hold a major thematic debate devoted to the issue of migration management and the refugee crisis. As you are aware, I attach particular importance to this issue and I am glad that thanks to the support of our committees – on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, on Political Affairs and Democracy, on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, on Equality and Non-Discrimination, on Culture, Science, Education and Media, and on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development – we have the opportunity to make a comprehensive assessment of the main migration and refugee challenges, so as to come up with effective strategies.

      The debate will be structured in two parts. During our morning sitting, we shall focus on the movement of people, and our humanitarian and legal obligations in terms of refugees and human rights law. I have always said that our response to the migration phenomenon and refugee crisis should be based on solidarity, fair responsibility sharing, and respect for human rights and the rule of law. The European continent has the most advanced human rights and rule of law protection system in the world. This is our major achievement and it is our duty, as guardians of the European Convention on Human Rights, to make sure that all people arriving in European waters or on European soil can benefit from the protection granted by the Convention. Our discussions will greatly benefit from the contributions of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Mayor of Athens, Mr Giorgos Kaminis.

      The afternoon sitting will be devoted to the issue of integration. Integration allows us to turn the phenomenon and crisis we are experiencing into an opportunity to make our societies richer, stronger, more dynamic and more resilient. We must remember that integration is a two-way process: both the hosts and the newcomers have duties and responsibilities. In this context, successful experiences of integration are important to analyse, as are failures. Together, though, we can find appropriate solutions.

      Therefore, the contributions of our eminent guests – Mr Morgan Johansson, Sweden’s Minister of Justice and Migration, and Mr Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner – will be particularly important in this regard. We look forward to hearing their statements and I thank them for accepting our invitation.

      As you are already aware, at its meeting in Prague, the Bureau of the Assembly appointed the members of the Independent External Investigation Body to look into allegations of corruption within our Assembly. We have chosen three highly-qualified persons: Sir Nicolas Bratza, from the United Kingdom, a former judge and former President of the European Court of Human Rights; Jean-Louis Bruguière, from France, a former judge in charge of investigations, particularly cases related to terrorism, and an expert on anti-terrorism work by States and international organisations; and Elisabet Fura, from Sweden, a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights and former chief parliamentary ombudsman of Sweden. I strongly hope that the Assembly will endorse their appointment when we adopt the progress report. I am sure that they will be able to conduct a serious, professional and impartial inquiry into the allegations of corruption and misconduct that affect the Assembly’s image and reputation.

      Allow me to end my statement by announcing the visits of several eminent guests to the part-session. In addition to the participants in the migration debate, we will be hosting the Prime Ministers of the Republic of Moldova and of Montenegro, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, who is the current Chairman of our Committee of Ministers. I am confident that their contributions to our debates will be interesting and thought-provoking. I am looking forward to the exchanges of views.

      I call Mr Küçükcan on a point of order.

      Mr KÜÇÜKCAN (Turkey) – I am the head of the Turkish delegation. Good morning to everyone.

      Today, like other members of the Turkish delegation, I was supposed to be at home with my family. The Muslim world has been celebrating the end of Ramadan – 1.1 billion Muslims are with their families today. The Assembly is closed over Christmas, but we are here working during one of the biggest celebrations in the world. I appeal to members’ emotions and sensibilities: Muslim holidays should be respected. Hopefully, the next time there is such a huge celebration, our working pattern will be adjusted accordingly. I hope that my request will be considered with tolerance and mutual respect.

      The PRESIDENT – I agree and will take note of your request.

3. Examination of new members’ credentials

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the examination of new members’ credentials. The names of the members are in Document 14350. If no credentials are challenged, the credentials will be ratified.

      Are any credentials challenged?

      The credentials are ratified. I welcome our new colleagues.

4. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly in respect of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly in respect of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova. The two candidates are Ms Arpine Hovhannisyan from the Armenian delegation and Mr Valeriu Ghiletchi from the Moldovan delegation. If there is no request for a vote, Ms Hovhannisyan and Mr Ghiletchi will be declared elected.

      Is there such a request?

      Since there has been no request for a vote, I declare Ms Hovhannisyan and Mr Ghiletchi elected as Vice-Presidents of the Assembly. I congratulate them on their election.

5. Changes in the membership of committees

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the changes to the membership of committees. The changes have been published in the Document Commissions 2017 (06) and Addendum 1 and are submitted to the Assembly for ratification.

      Are the proposals approved?

      The changes in the membership of committees are approved.

6. Request for debate

      The PRESIDENT – Before we examine the draft agenda, the Bureau has received a request from the Turkish delegation for a current affairs debate on “Europe’s common fight against terrorism: successes and failures”.

      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 “Europe’s common fight against terrorism: successes and failures” will therefore be held during this part-session, and the proposal is to hold it on Thursday morning, as set out in the draft agenda. It will be opened by Mr Talip Küçükcan.

7. Adoption of the agenda

      The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the adoption of the agenda for the third part of the 2017 ordinary session. The draft agenda submitted for the Assembly’s approval was agreed by the Bureau on 29 May and brought up to date this morning (Doc. 14332 prov2). I remind members that we have just agreed to hold a current affairs debate on “Europe’s common fight against terrorism: successes and failures” on Thursday morning.

      I draw members’ attention to the timing of the votes on Wednesday, when the votes on all four reports considered that day will take place at the end of the afternoon sitting, and to the fact that the free debate is expected to continue on Friday morning.

      Is the draft agenda, as amended, agreed to?

      It is agreed to.

      To enable as many members to speak as possible, the Bureau proposes that speaking time be limited to three minutes on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Is that agreed?

      It is agreed. I may make further proposals on such matters as required.

8. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Prague, 30 May 2017)

      The PRESIDENT – The minutes of the proceedings of the Standing Committee in Prague on 30 May 2017 have been distributed (AS/PER(2017) PV 02). I invite the Assembly to take note of them.

9. Progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, Document 14345 and Addendum 1, presented by Mr Tiny Kox. I remind members that speaking time in this debate will be limited to three minutes. The sitting must conclude at 1 p.m., so I propose to interrupt the list of speakers at around 12.50 p.m.

      I call Mr Tiny Kox 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. You have the floor.

      (Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gutiérrez)

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I thank the Bureau for granting me the honour of presenting to the Assembly my progress report on the activities of the Bureau and Standing Committee in the three months since our last part-session here in Strasbourg. My report provides an overview of those activities, and I will be glad to answer any member’s questions.

      I am far less pleased to have to update the Assembly on two issues that have cast a shadow on the Assembly in particular and the Council of Europe in general. I refer to the need to organise an external independent investigation into allegations of the corruption of members or former members of this Assembly and to the conflict that has arisen between the Assembly and its elected President.

      First, on corruption, by adopting the progress report, the Assembly will ratify the composition of an external investigatory body that has been asked to shed light on the possible corruption of members or former members. As the President announced, the external investigation body will consist of three eminent persons: Sir Nicolas Bratza, from the United Kingdom, the former President of the European Court of Human Rights; Mr Jean-Louis Bruguière, from France, a former judge in the French tribunal de grande instance; and Ms Elisabet Fura, from Sweden, a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights and former chief parliamentary ombudsman of Sweden.

      As soon as the Assembly has endorsed the composition of the investigation body by approving this progress report, it will start its duties and hopefully present its final report on its findings at the latest on 31 December this year. The Bureau may extend the investigation body’s terms of reference if need be. The investigation body will carry out a detailed independent inquiry into the allegations of corruption and fostering of interests made against certain members or former members of this Assembly. It will examine the practical functioning of the Assembly in its various activities, including part-sessions, committee and sub-committee meetings, rapporteurs’ missions and election observation missions, and participation in various events and decision-making mechanisms.

      The investigation body shall verify whether there are any forms of individual conduct by members or former members of the Assembly that have not respected the provisions of the code of conduct for members of the Assembly, and other relevant codes of conduct. It shall identify in the light of these findings whether there is sufficient proof to take action against members or former members of this Assembly, and it shall draw up recommendations on the measures to be implemented to rectify the shortcomings and fill the gaps in the Assembly’s ethical framework. On behalf of us all – I hope – I wish the external investigators all the best in their very difficult task.

      On the conflict between the Assembly’s President and the Assembly, on the last day of our April part-session, the Bureau expressed unanimously for the first time ever in the history of our Assembly no confidence in the President of the Assembly, and decided not to authorise the President to undertake any official visits, attend any meetings or make any public statements on behalf of the Assembly. The decision was taken after a week of heated discussions in the Assembly, its political groups and many of its national delegations on the visit of the President of the Assembly to Syria, albeit it in his capacity as a member of the Spanish Senate.

      In its meeting of 28 April, the Bureau took note of a unanimously adopted declaration on 27 April of our Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs on the principle of confidence in members and their duty of accountability when exercising their elected offices in the Parliamentary Assembly. On the same day, the Assembly instructed the Committee to draft a report on the recognition and implementation on the principle of accountability. The report, together with the resolution, will be discussed tomorrow here in the chamber. The resolution proposes some changes in our Rules of Procedure that create the possibility to dismiss holders of elected offices within the Assembly.

In the case of the President or Vice-President, it would apply if he or she no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly. In the case of a chairperson or vice-chairperson of a committee, it would apply if they no longer enjoy the confidence of the committee. Up until now, the Assembly has not had the power to dismiss its President. That absence of power has created a situation in which our President cannot properly function due to the absence of confidence of the Assembly, but can nevertheless hold formally to his post. I hope this unfortunate situation will end as soon as possible. In the words of the Vice-President who opened the meeting, it will be to the benefit of this Assembly in particularly and the Council of Europe in general.

      I should make some other remarks on the progress report that I consider relevant. During our last part-session in April, the Assembly decided to reopen the monitoring procedure with regard to Turkey. Unfortunately, part of the Turkish delegation left our meetings after the decision. I am very glad that the Turkish delegation is again participating in our meetings and the work of the Assembly today. It is important to signal that, in the past three months, little progress has been achieved to reaffirm the role of our Assembly as a pan-European forum for inter-parliamentary dialogue and co-operation, which we discussed in the Chamber exactly one year ago. The strength of an inter-parliamentary dialogue forum can be measured by its ability to include and represent as many differing views as possible to reflect the full complexity of Europe as a whole. Our biggest member state, the Russian Federation, is not represented in the Assembly by its parliamentarians. That is bad for them – it is also their responsibility – but it is also bad for us.

      Our Rules of Procedure on credentials and voting rights are as they were one year ago. The exclusion of national delegations, de jure or de facto, gives reason to others to discuss the credibility of the Assembly. We should overcome that situation. In the coming months, the Assembly has to elect persons to several important posts, such as the new Human Rights Commissioner and new judges to our Court. I hope we can show that we are capable of functioning as a major pan-European forum that is essential to the work of the Council of Europe as a whole. I have to remind colleagues that, if we fail, we face the possibility of proposals to limit our rights to elect the main actors in the Council of Europe. Therefore, I invite the Assembly and its organs to speed up their efforts to promote the presence of all national delegations in the Assembly.

      In the meetings of the Bureau and the Standing Committee in Prague, we adopted the reports on recent election observation missions, as I mentioned in the progress report. I inform the Assembly that, in regard to the referendum in Turkey, we made in Prague a clear statement against the text of the Turkish President and Foreign Affairs Minister on the credibility of our mission. We stated in Prague that it is to be deplored that both of them publicly questioned the integrity and credibility of our mission. We recalled that our mission was carried out strictly on the basis of guidelines for the observation of elections by the Parliamentary Assembly. As an Assembly, we should stand firm to protect those members of our Assembly who participate in those very important missions. We should make it clear that we do not allow those who invite us to observe their elections then to challenge the credibility of our observers when they are doing their work.

      At the end of this introduction, I remind the Assembly that the Bureau decided on 28 April to extend the deadline for submissions for the next Václav Havel Human Rights Prize until 30 June. That means that members have a few days to nominate candidates for that important award. The Václav Havel Human Rights Prize is given to a winner chosen by an esteemed jury. The prize is also our common salute to all those who sacrifice their personal well-being to the human rights and well-being of our citizens and inhabitants.

      Our Assembly faces some serious and concrete challenges, as I have said. If we can meet those challenges, I am convinced that we can continue our contribution to the protection, promotion and development of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in all our member States. I thank all members and our staff for their contributions to the work of the Assembly in the past few months, and wish them all a fruitful summer part-session.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Kox. You have three minutes remaining.

      Mr NÉMETH (Hungary, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party) – We know that we are at a difficult time in the life of the Council of Europe. It is of paramount importance that we avoid the deepening of this crisis. We should show respect and self-restraint towards each other, after which we should draw conclusions from the President’s period in office. I welcome the creation of the corruption investigation body and the decision of the Committee of Ministers in that regard. They found it important to underline that this whole operation is subordinated to national legal frameworks, which is obvious to all of us.

      On the so-called impeachment resolution, the Group of the European People’s Party is in favour of the initiative, in theory. But we have serious problems with the concrete form of the proposal. The greatest shadow cast on the report is that it may easily become a Lex Agramunt and, if it does, we believe that that will fundamentally undermine the credibility of the Council of Europe. There is no way we will be able to approach countries that employ, for example, retroactivity in their legislation and request them not to do that. We should pay attention to the position of the Council of Europe’s legal service division, which draws attention to the dangers of retroactivity. That is probably the most important aspect and, for that very reason, I will table, with my colleagues, an amendment that makes it very clear that it can be employed only for future actions and relate only to the future. Also, the secrecy of the vote is fundamental. We simply do not understand how it was possible to propose an open vote on such a subject, when personal issues are involved.

      Thirdly, I draw attention to the importance of the scope of the position. We believe that the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly should also be covered by the impeachment resolution. Finally, we believe that the Venice Commission should be approached regarding the legal document.

      Mr NICOLETTI (Italy, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group)* – I thank my colleague Tiny Kox for the report we have just heard and for the various issues he dealt with in his introductory statement. On behalf of my political group, I endorse what he said in respect of the external investigation body that will look into corruption allegations. Corruption, of course, undermines our political life, our freedom of expression, the freedom of parliamentarians and equality – all those things are put on the line by corruption. Corruption, therefore, has an effect on relations of trust between individuals and that is why we, today, are duty bound to address these issues. All members of this Assembly must give very strong backing to the external investigation body, which does not, in fact, have any investigative powers like a police force or the judiciary does but will simply draw its strength from our co-operation and support. I believe that, together, we have taken a very important step because fighting corruption is, of course, one of the main tasks of the Parliamentary Assembly and we must be above any suspicion. This is a huge challenge for civil society, and that is why we need to ensure that the fight against corruption is on the school curriculum. We in the Assembly would not be credible if we were not above suspicion ourselves.

      Tiny Kox alluded to the very difficult circumstances in which we have found ourselves because of this conflict, which came about as a result of Pedro Agramunt’s refusal to stand down, notwithstanding a vote of no confidence that was taken by the Bureau. This Parliamentary Assembly should be empowered to speak publicly and express its position. If we are unable to take a public position, that means that we condemn this Assembly to silence in the face of violations of human rights. In such circumstances, this Assembly should be able to make its voice heard. We should have a spokesperson acting on our behalf and, like Tiny Kox, I very much hope that the situation will be resolved as soon as possible.

      Mr LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) –I stand with my colleagues from the other political groups and the members of this session to say that this is one of the most unfortunate times for this Assembly, which was set up in 1948 to foster democracy and move forward together as one group and one organisation. The problem we face now is a loss of trust, not just in all of us but in the institution. To have to have an investigative body set up when we are parliamentarians, leaves us all in an interesting position.

      But the challenges do not stop there. As we have heard from our colleagues, Mr Nicoletti, Tiny Kox and Mr Németh, we are now in an unprecedented position. We have no rules for this, no set agenda and no real way of making progress. We stand up and say, “I’m giving a report on a progress report”, and we have not made progress in the way we want to make progress. Our entire being here at the moment is based on one thing: the situation we have got ourselves faced with and from which we cannot move forward because someone will not make a decision. There are two decisions we need to make: one is a moral decision, and a person needs to make that decision; and then there is what is right. The two are not always the same. In the eyes of the law they are certainly not, and if you have read the legal opinion we have been having over the past few weeks you will work that out for yourself.

      What I find so sad, and as democrats we understand this more than most, is that our Secretary General has had suspicion expressed towards him – all of us. We have a situation where the Russian Federation might not pay its full amount of money. It may or may not and, if it does not, we have a financial crisis as well as what we are facing here, which is a moral crisis. How will we run our budgets if people start to say, “No, we’re not going to pay our full amount”? The cut-off date is 1 July – you can work out for yourselves when that is. If that is the case, we will have to look at the finances of this Organisation

      Friends, colleagues and fellow country people of Europe, I suggest that we are not in a position at the moment to moralise about anyone until we sort our own house out. The progress we need to make now is the progress of this plenary session, set up in 1948 to foster the democracy of Europe. We need to get back to our principles and we need to do it quickly. Common sense must prevail, and that can happen only if people are big enough, brave enough and bold enough to make that decision. We must all now ensure that we look at ourselves and ask, “What do we want for the future?” because if we do not, we let ourselves, our nation and this plenary session down.

      Mr XUCLÀ (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe)* – I congratulate Tiny Kox on his presentation of the progress report, which is not just a routine affair but tells us everything that has happened since the last plenary session. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe welcomes its definitive endorsement of the external investigation body. We need to be well informed about this tool, which clarifies the situation in the light of the legal reports and of the report from our legal department, which refers to mechanisms for clarifying when cases of corruption occur. In a society like ours, it is very important to establish clarity and truth, to have a factual report and to be able refer to the reality behind mere allegations.

      This is the home of the rule of law, but it appears to be a house filled with rumours. With the agreement of the Bureau, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe decided to elect a new president in October. That decision took my colleagues somewhat by surprise. I made it without conditions, I did not yield to any external or internal pressure and I did not allow anybody to dictate the timing. It is important to bear that attitude in mind as we all try to regain confidence in each other.

      There is a principle in law: nulla poena sine lege. We need to have a rule to cover every situation, but in recent months, decisions have been taken for political reasons without true legal cover. We need to think about what has happened as we discuss our rules and procedure. Let us never agree on an ad personam law. Let us discuss the situation and the retroactive nature of what we are doing. We must regain confidence in one another, not just through sanctions but through dialogue between us all.

      Mr VILLUMSEN (Denmark, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – Allow me to thank the rapporteur for a good report, which deals with some issues that are, unfortunately, very relevant. The Assembly deals with some of the most important matters in Europe today. We deal with human rights and the rule of law – basic rights that are under threat in far too many countries. It is, therefore, shameful that this report primarily has to deal with allegations of corruption made against members and former members of this Assembly. It is also shameful that we have to deal with Mr Agramunt, who refuses to resign even though members of the Assembly obviously do not trust him; even though the political groups clearly stated at the last part-session that we did not trust him; and even though it is clear that that lack of trust makes it impossible for him to continue as President. I use this occasion to send a clear message once more to Mr Agramunt from the Group of the Unified European Left: resign now, because no one recognises you as President any more.

      The report deals with the corruption allegations and puts together a most competent inquiry body. I find it incredible that the Assembly seems to have been infiltrated by corruption. It is crucial that we take a firm stand against it and act as proposed in the progress report. After the report is adopted, the inquiry body will start working, and I hope that all who have been involved in corruption will be charged and convicted so that justice can prevail. We surely owe justice to this good Assembly, and justice will start with our adopting the report today.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Kox, you have three minutes remaining. You may use them now or wait until the end of the debate. Which would you prefer?

      Mr KOX (Netherlands) – I would like to use a few seconds to point out that those who spoke on behalf of the political groups all endorsed the establishment of the independent body. That is good and important news. Any comments on the report that we will discuss tomorrow are for the relevant rapporteur to deal with; I cannot comment on that issue.

      The PRESIDENT – The next speaker on the list is Mr Jean-Claude Mignon. Mr Mignon did not stand at the most recent French elections, so he is here for his last part-session. Mr Mignon – Jean-Claude, if I may – was a distinguished President of this Assembly. He has served the Assembly for very nearly a quarter of a century; that sounds slightly longer than 23 years. He is one of the longest-serving members: I think there is only one other person who has served slightly longer than he has. He has generated a number of reports, including – perhaps there is some irony in this, in view of what we are discussing this morning – one on reform of the Assembly. Jean-Claude, we all wish you well.

      Mr MIGNON* (France) – Thank you, Mr President. Your words go straight to my heart. Of course, I support Mr Tiny Kox’s report. This is probably the last time I will speak in this Chamber, so in the two minutes that remain I want to thank you all. I am very proud to have been a member of the Assembly and to have created, in 1999, the young people’s Assembly. I am also proud of the report that the President mentioned on reform of the Parliamentary Assembly, but the thing that gives me the most pride is my part in creating the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize in 2013. Time passes so fast. I have been a deputy for some years, and I have been a member of the Assembly for 24 years. I am in my seventh term of office; perhaps that is one too many, but, as we say in France, “Non, je ne regrette rien”.

      I am proud to have served this Parliamentary Assembly. I thank you all, because this is where I learned tolerance, humility and respect, and I have discovered here the most extraordinary men and women. Many of them are gone, but today I think about them all and about the significance of working with them. I thank you, Mr President, and the Secretary General. Please thank, on my behalf, all the members of the Secretariat for the remarkable work that they have done, over the years, under very difficult conditions. I thank the interpreters. I know it is not easy to translate what we all say in our different languages – especially when French people speak very fast, as I do. I know what a lot of effort you put in to interpreting my speeches, and it has been a pleasure to work with you.

      Now that the time has come for me to retire, I will try to do so with elegance. It is not easy to leave political life when it is part of who you are. Unfortunately, however, the time has come for me to do so, and I took voluntarily the decision not to stand again. Goodbye, arrivederci, au revoir and auf Wiedersehen to all of you. I am, and will always remain, a European. Throughout the rest of my life, I will continue to defend European ideals. In 1949, our forebears had the extraordinary idea of setting up a Council of Europe; let us be worthy of it and of this Parliamentary Assembly. I hope that we will solve the problems that we face as quickly as possible. I thank you all. [Applause.]

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Jean-Claude. The applause speaks for itself, and I know that all colleagues will miss you hugely. Thank you very much for your contribution.

      (Ms Oomen-Ruijten, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Sir Roger Gale.)

      Mr SCHWABE (Germany)* – That is a hard act to follow. When I joined the Parliamentary Assembly, Mr Mignon was the President, so I extend my personal thanks to him. What he has just said is relevant to this morning’s discussion, because we are talking here about a new historical phase of this Organisation: we had the foundation, and then enlargement in the 1990s, and we are now moving into a new phase in which the integrity of the Parliamentary Assembly is at stake.

      I think members understand that this is part of an ongoing process. It is not a trivial matter, but goes to the very core of what we do, which is why we need to take steps to ensure that there is transparency. There have been conflicts and clashes over the last few months and weeks, but recently things have moved very quickly. We instituted the external investigation body made up of three eminent members.

      I know that there is now going to be a long and drawn-out process. Colleagues with legal expertise have made it clear to us how complex it will be. This week, we need to tackle the issue of how we deal with the serving President, who is still in office, of course. We have brought pressure to bear on him, but we now must deal with this issue. We have to contend with some very unpleasant and uncomfortable circumstances, and we know that there is huge public interest in this. The public want us to shine a light on what has happened; they want transparency, and across all the political groups there is a big majority in favour of our setting in motion such a process to investigate these matters.

      This week, we are likely to hear a number of legal arguments, which must be weighed, but not used as a pretext for then doing nothing. A number of colleagues have discussed the legal aspects, but I have been asked a question, so let me state that the German delegation has not expressed any misgivings as such about the process now set in motion. We have Mr Fischer and another member who have, and they are free to do so, but that is not the position of the German delegation. I wanted to make that clear and set the record straight.

      Most importantly, this is not about Mr Agramunt. This is nothing personal. Rather, it is a process and I do not see why there should be a secret ballot at the end of it. This is not an election; rather, this is a proposal from the Assembly, and we have to know who voted and how, so let us bring things to a conclusion this week.

      Mr SOBOLEV (Ukraine) – The past three months has been the most complicated period for our Assembly. That is not only because of the situation surrounding our President and the lack of confidence in him and in some of the leaders of the political groups. It is also because we are now in a period of crisis in Europe and all over the world. Of course, the absence of the Russian delegation is a very serious problem for the Council of Europe, but we now have another problem, with the representatives of Russian politicians: troops and secret services in Europe and all over the world – Ukraine, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Syria and North Korea. That is a problem that the Russian secret services and Mr Putin are creating all over the world. We need to solve all these problems as well.

      The lack of confidence in our President is another question, but I do not agree that it is a question of impeachment. Impeachment occurs when there is evidence of corruption or another violation of the criminal code. This question is different: it is a question of when a political group gave serious support for this or that person in this or that position and now does not support the actions of that person. Therefore, in terms of groups such as the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe or the Group of the European People’s Party, of which I am a member, there is another question and we need to solve it according to the political decisions of the group: it must be a decision of the group, and only after that can we change the attitude towards certain leaders.

      We must now solve the problem of when someone thinks he is a king or queen in this Council of Europe and we have to make them realise that all of them were elected only thanks to the position of their political groups and the support of the entire Assembly. We need to solve that at this session so we do not face these problems in future.

      Mr GUNNARSSON (Sweden) – I thank Mr Kox for his progress report. All progress reports are a bit dry and the text is not particularly amusing, but I found something that is quite good news: our colleagues from Kosovo are now allowed to sit in this Assembly. That is a good step forward, and I want to highlight it. I hope this is a small step towards Kosovo becoming a member of this Organisation.

      Of course, I also want to say a few words on the big issues at hand. The progress report does not paint a positive picture of this Organisation. Frustratingly, over the past few months it has felt as if we are in a political soap opera. I hope that we can end this soap opera in this session, so we can go home and enjoy our holidays proud of what we have achieved over this week, by restoring democracy in Europe and trust in this Organisation.

      Democracy is based on trust; that is the basis of all democratic traditions, and when it is challenged, even though there are rules in place, we have to react, and that is what is happening now. We do not have trust in our President. He has to resign; otherwise we will have to take steps to ensure that he leaves his office. We cannot accept the current situation.

      I also want to mention the group that is going to work against corruption within this Organisation. That is truly needed. We have all had suspicions and heard rumours of corruption, but do not know what is true and what is not. It is good that we are now finally having a group that can investigate what is true and what is not, and find ways forward to prevent corruption in this Organisation.

      I am very pleased that Ms Elisabet Fura is part of this group. She has cross-party support from almost the entire Swedish delegation, and she is well known in Sweden for being a just and good lawyer and jurist. I thank Mr Kox for his report and hope that we leave this session with a nicer and more open attitude than when we came here.

      Ms NAGHDALYAN (Armenia) – Many thanks to Mr Tiny Kox, who presented the report on the Assembly’s activities over the last three months. It is obvious that the recent developments in this Assembly are the most important issue. I believe that we will be strong enough to find a way out of this political crisis to purify ourselves, to make our Assembly free from the plague of corruption and from the danger of stepping back from our pillar values, and to heal the situation.

      The fathers of this Assembly could not even have imagined that some day the basic principles and values of this Organisation would be sacrificed in such a way. That is probably why the Statute does not foresee the legal mechanisms that are needed today, and which we should elaborate and implement.

      I cannot bypass those mis-developments that are taking place in our region. A year has passed from the military aggression initiated by Azerbaijan that resulted in numerous casualties on both sides. We have informed our colleagues here about the war crimes instigated by Azerbaijan during that time. The criminal policy of our neighbour is continuous; the latest cease-fire violation claimed the lives of four young soldiers in one day. I underline that in their recent statements, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs condemned the cease-fire violations, identifying Azerbaijan as the initiator of the fire.

      I shall talk briefly about the parliamentary elections held in Armenia in April, the first general elections after the constitutional reforms. We have already had the opportunity to present to colleagues the fact that the core of the reforms was the change of the governing model from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary republic. We see the parliamentary form of governance as the best model for the democratic transformation of Armenia. With this in mind, these elections were an important test for the new electoral system.

      I thank the observation team of the Parliamentary Assembly, led by Ms Maury Pasquier, for carrying out such an important mission in Armenia. The findings and recommendations of our international partners are vital for us. These are not merely documents – they reflect the sincere opinion of our counterparts, who are concerned about Armenia’s future and will contribute to further improvements.

      The report of the International Election Observation Mission concluded that the elections were characterised by a general respect for fundamental freedoms; it praised the organisation of the elections as well administered, underlining the improvement of the quality of the electoral process and the fulfilment of concrete steps directed to improving confidence in the process and to guarantees of freedom of expression. We can proudly state that these elections created a new level and a new quality of elections, becoming another step forward in Armenia’s democratic development.

Mr BÜCHEL (Switzerland)* – There are very loud voices in Switzerland pleading for our country to leave the Council of Europe, and one of the reasons is precisely this case of corruption. Let me quote from one of the most recent debates in our Parliament, barely two weeks ago. A colleague of Mr Agramunt said that the committee had dealt intensively with the corruption affair in respect of members, or former members, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in particular with the attempts to shed light on this corruption, in which the current President of the Assembly is involved. The Swiss delegation will continue to advocate that an end be put to such cases, and it demands expressly the resignation of the President of the Parliamentary Assembly. To date, the Council of Europe has not had the opportunity to force this. In this case it looked as if, when the President is a member of a political group, he can be obliged to resign but today we realise that that is not the case. First, we need to be very careful with the term “corruption”. Secondly, there is the question of shedding light clearly on what actually happened. What really lay behind this?

That brings me to what a colleague from the same political group as the President said in the Swiss Parliament: among the 47 member States, there are some in which corruption is routine. It is very difficult to eradicate corruption in the Council of Europe. If such cases be so patently present, we need to tackle them head on. It is astounding that not all groups are in favour of the resignation, including the members of the President’s group. That was said by a colleague of the President.

It has long ceased to be a mere matter of principle or a political issue. It has been said quite clearly in Switzerland that the Council of Europe is the leading organisation in Europe for human rights and the rule of order. They are our basic tenets. Our colleague Mr Mignon has been here for 25 years; I have been here for only 15. He put it very elegantly: what is the point of eloquent words if we do not act? Our colleague Mr Németh, as the spokesman for his group, said that enough damage has already been done. Let us stop talking and act so that the President resigns and we do not need an ad personam rule. To ensure that he actually resigns, we – you – need to act.

Mr BILLSTRÖM (Sweden) – I too thank Mr Kox for his report. The Assembly’s most pressing problem is the lack of leadership emanating from the unacceptable behaviour of our pro tempore President, Mr Pedro Agramunt. Following the decision of the Bureau on 28 April, Mr Agramunt should have respected the unanimous decision taken and resigned immediately. There is no room for hesitation. In my opinion, the attempt to mix the question of the report of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs with Mr Agramunt’s case was wrong. There is nothing that relates the issue of Mr Agramunt’s failed presidency to the proposals aimed at strengthening the Assembly’s ability to fight corruption. In this context, we should instead find courage from the fact that the work of investigating the allegations on corruption is under way. The decision to appoint Ms Elisabet Fura to this group is heartening –she is a much-respected lawyer, with an impeccable reputation.

The fact that, after the Bureau’s decision, Mr Agramunt chose not to officially resign but to disregard the unanimous decision has only strengthened my opinion, and that of the Swedish delegation, that he is personally detrimental to the Assembly’s work. A person who shows such slight regard for us when being challenged in his office, as Mr Agramunt has done, is by default not worthy of our respect. My final remark is a call to him to step down.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia)* – Today is a moment of truth for our Assembly. At least to me, it is clear that Pedro Agramunt did not act as a politician or a man of honour. We need to remain true to the decision of the Bureau taken during April’s part-session and not allow someone like Agramunt, who refuses to accept the Bureau’s decision, and who does not want to leave like a man, to turn our Assembly into a mockery. We must immediately have a judicial procedure to impeach Pedro Agramunt and to remove this shameful stain on the Assembly’s reputation. Agramunt-gate is a good precedent for certain member States of the Parliamentary Assembly not to dictate their interests to any other member. What is even more shameful, Agramunt-gate is a good precedent for some members to understand once and for all that it is not possible to siphon off petrodollars which will one day end up in their throats.

It is a good precedent for the Parliamentary Assembly to create an independent body to investigate corruption in the Assembly. It will not only burnish the Assembly’s reputation but also ascertain how much money Azerbaijan spent to bring down the Strässer report on political prisoners in Azerbaijan, and whether Luca Volontè and other members of the Assembly were also caught up in this, as Gültekin Hacibeyli a former Azerbaijan assembly member who is well aware of the affair has said. I hope that the independent body will also examine the obscure story of the report drafted by Milica Marković and Robert Walter. Since Pedro Agramunt became President of this Assembly…

The PRESIDENT – I am sorry, I have to stop you. I call Mr Rafael Huseynov.

Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Notwithstanding the fact that our traditional reports reflecting the activities of the Bureau and the Standing Committee between part-sessions are called ‘progress reports’, it is clear that the indicated texts should not only cover achievements but analyse general progress. Any progress cannot consist solely of successes. If in future we based such reports not only on the positive moments but on self-criticism and directed our attention to analysis of the reasons for our failures to reach goals rather than to our achievements, we would benefit much more. In particular, attention should be directed to the Assembly’s implementation of its own resolutions, underlining which resolutions have been successfully implemented and which ones so far remain on paper.

Let me give one example. Water is the most vital boon for human life, even more important than democracy. One can live without democracy for many years, but even the man with the most endurance cannot withstand thirst for more than 14 days. On 26 January 2016, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2085, entitled ‘Inhabitants of frontier regions of Azerbaijan are deliberately deprived of water’, relating to the Sarsang water reservoir, which has been under Armenian occupation for more than 24 years. Armenia still continues its aggressive resistance to the implementation of that resolution. Has anybody ever come across a single sentence in the progress report about such unimplemented resolutions?

The Council of Europe is a family that should avoid the presence of sissy members. It should not have a preferential attitude towards some and a harsh attitude towards others. The actions of Armenia demonstrably resist Parliamentary Assembly Resolutions 1416 and 2085. In addition, the functioning of the Organisation’s Ad hoc Committee contradicts the Statute, having been sabotaged against the Council of Europe. The false hate speech of our Armenian colleagues continues the same policy. A harmful sample is infectious. As others have observed, certain countries can block resolutions, or paragraphs that do not suit them, and this is similar. How does it happen that the politically weak and economically poor Armenia can challenge the Council of Europe? The control buttons and puppet players of Armenia officially acknowledge its role as outpost: its independence is symbolic and they are outside the country. If we analyse much more the matters of concern that impede our progress, our success will increase, making our progress reports more objective and solid in future.

Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey) – I would like to say farewell to Mr Mignon. I wish that all present and future Presidents of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe could leave behind a name as clean as his. Goodbye, Mr President. I thank Tiny Kox for his report, a masterpiece of dealing with unpleasant realities in articulate and carefully worded form.

Among the issues in the progress report is the Assembly’s observation mission to the Turkish referendum on 16 April, as endorsed by the Bureau’s Prague meeting on 29 May. The report concludes: ‘The 16 April constitutional referendum took place on an unlevel playing field and the two sides of the campaign did not have equal opportunities. Voters were not provided with impartial information about key aspects of the reform, and civil society organisations were not able to participate. Under the state of emergency put in place after the July 2016 failed coup attempt, fundamental freedoms essential to a genuinely democratic process were curtailed. The dismissal or detention of thousands of citizens negatively affected the political environment. One side’s dominance in the coverage and restrictions on the media reduced voters’ access to a plurality of views. While the technical aspects of the referendum were well administered and referendum day proceeded in an orderly manner, late changes in counting procedures removed an important safeguard and were contested by the opposition.’

The report also said: ‘The campaign framework was restrictive, and the campaign imbalanced due to the active involvement of the President and several leading national officials, as well as many local public officials, in the “Yes” campaign…’The “No” campaign was predominantly conducted by the main opposition parties CHP and HDP, with the latter’ – my party – ‘significantly crippled in its ability to campaign given that hundreds of its party members remain behind bars, including its co-chairpersons and 83 HDP mayors.’

Yet the report closes with article 58: ‘The Parliamentary Assembly will continue to work alongside the authorities of Turkey in the field of elections and more generally on the reinforcement of democratic institutions.’

I would like to ask Mr Kox for his personal observations, and to ask the Assembly as a whole whether the expectations expressed in the final article of the report are not contradicted by the crude realities of the Turkish political landscape as reported above.

Ms HOVHANNISYAN (Armenia) – I thank Mr Tiny Kox for his personal commitment to preparing and presenting this difficult report. This is a symbolic moment for me; it is my first speech as the head of the Armenian delegation. I am very glad to return to this Assembly. I have worked here for 3.5 years, meaning that I am not a new member. However, I am not pleased to come back at a moment when the first thing in the progress report is the issue of no confidence in the President of the Assembly, corruption scandals and the creation of an investigative body.

Previously, when we spoke about corruption issues, it was only on the level of rumour. We referred to freedom of speech, or freedom to express our opinions, but now we are facing a situation in which everybody can speak about a person who has zero credibility in this Assembly. Everybody can argue that he is not trustworthy; everybody can be certain that he is corrupt and engaged in activities that contradict the values of the Assembly. Yet that person can continue his activity, creating an atmosphere of a crisis of confidence in the Assembly, exactly as Mr Liddell-Grainger stated. This situation is unacceptable and intolerable. We need not just to talk about it but to actually act, as described in the progress report.

      We inherited this Organisation as a cradle of democracy from true politicians who really cherished its values, and we should take responsibility for those values. We are the ones who shape the face of this Assembly. Because we are the face of this Assembly, we should decide who represents it and who takes steps on its behalf, and we should show our attitude towards those people.

      I call for action. Either we all bear a collective responsibility for the Assembly or our attitude towards it changes, in the sense that we treat it not as a cradle of democracy but merely as a place for the opinions of some rapporteurs. I remind my Azeri colleagues of the so-called Sarsang report, which is symbolic. Sarsang is a very important humanitarian issue, but because of the rapporteur – there were allegations of corrupt persons and corrupt rapporteurs – it became nothing but a political issue. We should acknowledge that this matter is very important for us all and for everything we cherish.

      The PRESIDENT – 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 to the Table Office for publication in the Official Report. I remind colleagues that the texts are to be submitted in typescript, electronically if possible, no later than four hours after the list of speakers is interrupted.

      Mr Kox, do you wish to reply? You have two and a half minutes.

      Mr KOX (Netherlands)* – First, I should say thank you to Jean-Claude Mignon for being our colleague and our President for such a long time, and for teaching me French.

      (The speaker continued in English.)

      The French that I learned from you, Jean-Claude, is not good enough for me to continue my speech in French, but thank you very much.

      With regard to Mr Kürkçü’s question, yes, the Assembly has decided to continue its co-operation with Turkey, but bear in mind that it has also decided to reopen the monitoring procedure, so that co-operation will be very closely monitored by the Assembly.

      I think almost everyone supported the proposal with regard to the investigation of allegations of corruption. That will start immediately after we endorse the progress report; we will not have to wait a day longer. We have heard a lot of compliments about this body’s members, so thank you very much. After a lot of discussion, we agreed that this has to happen to clear the house. With regard to what Ms Zohrabyan said, we will investigate allegations of corruption, and that means that we in this Assembly should be very careful. It is not appropriate to come out with new allegations that have not been investigated. We have created the body that will investigate, and we should be careful about accusing members of this Assembly or other people. That is dangerous.

      I heard calls from several groups and members for President Agramunt to step down. I can only refer to what Ian Liddell-Grainger said: this is a matter of common sense and a question of moral responsibility. It is up to President Agramunt to listen to those calls and decide; we cannot order him. I think we all agree that we need new rules, and we will start to discuss those new rules tomorrow morning. I am not in a position to comment about that, because it is in the hands of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and its rapporteur and chairperson, and tomorrow it will be in the hands of this Assembly, which is free to do whatever it wants with the resolution and the report. Our President is not here with us, but I hope that he is listening carefully to what is being said. We all agree that we have to overcome this crisis because, as Nikolaj Villumsen said, we have far more important things to do than deal with these internal questions.

      The PRESIDENT – The debate is closed. I invite the Assembly to approve the decisions of the Bureau, as set out in the progress report, Document 14345, and Addendum 1.

      The progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee is approved.

10. 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.)

CONTENTS

1. Opening of the third part of the 2017 ordinary session

2. Statement by the President

3. Examination of credentials

4. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly in respect of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova

5. Changes in the membership of committees

6. Request for debate

7. Adoption of the agenda

8. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Prague, 30 May 2017)

9. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

Presentation of the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee by Mr Kox, Document 14345 and Addendum 1.

Speakers on behalf of political groups: Mr Németh (Hungary), Mr Nicoletti (Italy), Mr Liddell-Grainger (United Kingdom), Mr Xuclà (Spain) and Mr Villumsen (Denmark)

Reply: Mr Kox (Netherlands)

Speakers: Mr Mignon (France), Mr Schwabe (Germany), Mr Sobolev (Ukraine), Mr Gunnarsson (Sweden), Ms Naghdalyan (Armenia), Mr Büchel (Switzerland), Mr Billström (Sweden), Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia), Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Kürkçü (Turkey) and Ms Hovhannisyan (Armenia).

Reply: Mr Kox (Netherlands)

10. 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 à l'article 12.2 du Règlement.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

ÅBERG, Boriana [Ms]

ÆVARSDÓTTIR, Thorhildur Sunna [Ms]

ALLAVENA, Jean-Charles [M.]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ÁRNASON, Vilhjálmur [Mr]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr])

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BAKRADZE, David [Mr]

BAKRADZE, David [Mr]

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr]

BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms] (PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms])

BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (ASCANI, Anna [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr] (MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr])

BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CENTEMERO, Elena [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

ČERNOCH, Marek [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (CIOLACU, Ion-Marcel [Mr])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DAVIES, David [Mr] (DAVIES, Geraint [Mr])

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FILIPE, António [Mr] (ROSETA, Helena [Mme])

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FISCHER, Axel [Mr]

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRESKO-ROLFO, Béatrice [Mme]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GOGA, Pavol [M.] (MAROSZ, Ján [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUNNARSDÓTTIR, Bjarkey [Ms] (JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HAMID, Hamid [Mr]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms] (NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr])

HANŽEK, Matjaž [Mr] (ŠKOBERNE, Jan [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOVHANNISYAN, Arpine [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HÜBINGER, Anette [Ms]

HÜBNER, Johannes [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

IBRAHIMOVIĆ, Ervin [Mr] (SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr])

IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr])

JACQUAT, Denis [M.]

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Michael Aastrup [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JOHNSEN, Kristin Ørmen [Ms] (JENSSEN, Frank J. [Mr])

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KRESÁK, Peter [Mr]

KRONBICHLER, Florian [Mr]

KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr]

KÜÇÜKCAN, Talip [Mr]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LE BORGN', Pierre-Yves [M.]

LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr]

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (LABAZIUK, Serhiy [Mr])

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MAMMADOV, Muslum [M.]

MARQUES, Duarte [Mr]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (ŠAKALIENĖ, Dovilė [Ms])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NAGHDALYAN, Hermine [Ms] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])

NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms] (BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr])

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NICOLETTI, Michele [Mr]

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr]

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])

POPA, Ion [M.] (KORODI, Attila [Mr])

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

POZZO DI BORGO, Yves [M.] (MARIANI, Thierry [M.])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRESCOTT, John [Mr]

PRITCHARD, Mark [Mr]

PRUIDZE, Irina [Ms]

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

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

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON, Azadeh [Ms] (OHLSSON, Carina [Ms])

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (BORK, Tilde [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SCULLY, Paul [Mr] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

ŠIRCELJ, Andrej [Mr]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STIENEN, Petra [Ms]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

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

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VILLUMSEN, Nikolaj [Mr]

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VITANOV, Petar [Mr] (JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZECH, Tobias [Mr]

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 à voter

BONET, Sílvia Eloïsa [Ms]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.]

ELENA, Eric [M.]

ENGBLOM, Annicka [Ms]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr]

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms]

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme]

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

MAGAZINOVIĆ, Saša [Mr]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.]

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr]

TSKITISHVILI, Dimitri [Mr]

Observers / Observateurs

ALLISON, Dean [Mr]

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

SIMMS, Scott [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

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

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

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

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Erdal ÖZCENK