1804231130E

AA18CR10

AS (2018) CR 10

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Tenth sitting

Monday 23 April 2018 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 Nicoletti, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 11.40 a.m.)

1. Opening of the part-session

The PRESIDENT – I declare open the second part of the 2018 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

2. Statement by the President of the Assembly

The PRESIDENT – The Statute of the Council of Europe states that “the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation”. Today, those words are as important, relevant and topical as ever. The lesson that the founding fathers of the Council of Europe taught us is that peace is the fundamental basis for the protection of all other values; no human rights, democracy or rule of law can be defended properly in a state of war. In that sense, peacebuilding represents the highest mission of politics. Neither economy nor culture, nor religion per se, can create a peaceful condition.

The path chosen by humankind after the Second World War to achieve peace was peace through law. Hans Kelsen famously wrote in 1944 that “war is mass murder, the greatest disgrace of our culture, and to secure world peace is our foremost political task…for there is no essential social progress possible as long as no international organisation is established by which war between the nations of this earth is effectively prevented”.

Bearing that idea in mind, the founding fathers of the Council of Europe created our Organisation as an international multilateral mechanism to prevent wars on the European continent and to allow the peoples of Europe to live together and co-operate in peace. They found the courage to put aside disagreements and differences that were fuelled by centuries of confrontation, thirst for supremacy, territorial claims and civil wars, in order to look into the future and lay the foundations for a common European home, where the protection of the rights of individuals according to a common uniform standard would be put at the centre, and where pluralism and political freedom would serve as safeguards against totalitarianism and the upsurge of populism. They were convinced, as Alcide de Gasperi said, that “the future will not be built through force, nor the desire to conquer, but by the patient application of the democratic method, the constructive spirit of agreement, and by respect for freedom”. The importance of those words and ideas cannot be underestimated today. Our Assembly is not a battlefield on which to confront national agendas; on the contrary, it is a place where bridges between peoples and Governments are built and where parliamentarians from all over Europe defend the common good.

Whenever our values are threatened, within our geographic borders and outside, we must raise our voice. For the past several years, the war in Syria has been a constant focus of our attention. The war in Syria affects us all directly, because for the sake of the universality of human rights, we cannot remain silent when millions of civilians are enduring unthinkable suffering and the worst atrocities of modern warfare, including the use of chemical weapons. This is totally unacceptable. The rule of law must be upheld and those responsible for such atrocious attacks on human rights must be brought to justice.

At the same time, we must uphold the rule of law by means that respect international law and within the framework of the multilateral mechanisms that were created by common agreement to maintain peace and security. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations recently stated, “when dealing with matters of peace and security,” member States have the obligation “to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general.” He went on to say that “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” lies with the United Nations Security Council. We must keep in mind these fundamental rules of international law and act consistently. We must use the potential of diplomacy to the full in the search for a political solution to this terrible conflict, because it is only through political means that a lasting peace can be restored for the people of Syria.

All member States of the Council of Europe should shoulder their international responsibilities in this respect, and our Assembly should contribute by reflecting on how the current conflicts within and among States can be prevented and settled, while being faithful to our ideal of peace through law. We cannot accept the idea that hard power is the only tool to solve problems. As we face an increasing number of critical situations, we have the responsibility to invent new peaceful solutions. Citizens, non-governmental organisations and governments all over Europe are watching us. They expect from our Assembly not only words of condemnation of violence or a resignation to realpolitik, but words of wisdom and hope, as well as action.

Trust and credibility are important prerequisites for the effective functioning of our institutions. European citizens, who have appointed us to the Parliamentary Assembly through national parliaments, must have trust in the strength of our commitment to uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Member States must have trust in our institutions and mechanisms, because by virtue of international agreements they gave this Assembly important powers and the role of a pan-European parliamentary platform for dialogue, with a plurality of the views of the 830 million Europeans that the Assembly represents. In that context, we were appalled by the allegations of corruption in our ranks that were voiced a little more than a year ago.

While firmly condemning practices that cast shadows on the credibility of the Assembly, we felt it necessary to take bold action by conducting a thorough, independent and external investigation into all allegations of corruption. At the same time, we decided to review our own rules and strengthen considerably our code of conduct to ensure that effective mechanisms for preventing conflicts of interest are put in place, taking advice on that from the Group of States Against Corruption – GRECO.

You will be aware that yesterday afternoon the Bureau of the Assembly met with the three members of the Independent External Investigation Body set up to look into the allegation of corruption made against certain members and/or former members of the Assembly. After that meeting, the report of the investigation was made public and is on the Assembly’s Internet site. You have the report, so I will not seek to summarise it. However, I would like to inform you of the decisions taken in the Bureau last night in the light of the report and its findings.

In this respect, the Bureau decided: first, to invite the current and former members of the Assembly whose behaviour has been found by the investigation body to be unethical or in violation of the Assembly’s code of conduct, or who have refused to co-operate with the investigation body, to suspend all their activities within the Assembly with immediate effect; secondly, to invite the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to consider further possible actions; and thirdly, to invite the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to ensure proper follow-up to the recommendations for the Assembly’s ethical framework made in the report. I take this opportunity to thank publicly the three members of the investigation body, namely Sir Nicolas Bratza, Mr Jean-Louis Bruguière and Ms Elisabet Fura, as well as their secretariat for their important work. I also thank all those who co-operated with the investigation body, including parliamentarians, members of the Secretariat, civil society representatives and others.

Corruption is not only an illegal and unethical use of money or one’s power; it can be much worse. It can affect human life in the most negative way. It can take lives. Let us be reminded of cases of journalists investigating corruption. Sometimes, their investigative work can produce violent reactions, including psychological pressure, physical aggression and even murder. For that reason, corruption has to be considered a potentially mortal disease.

During the last part-session, I had the opportunity to meet here in Strasbourg the sons of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. I was impressed by their dignity, calmness and determination to demand truth and justice for their mother and for everyone fighting corruption around the world. They came to Strasbourg, to the Council of Europe and our Assembly. They knew that we do not have superpowers to solve the mystery of their mother’s death, and they were aware of our imperfections since we have also been accused of corruption. Nevertheless, they asked for our support, for our solidarity with the victims – not the perpetrators – and for our commitment to use all instruments at our disposal to help them. If we want to restore the confidence of new generations in democratic institutions, we owe them that commitment. That is the only way for a civic and democratic society to praise and honour those who are hungry and thirsty for justice.

Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we have a busy part-session ahead of us, including visits by important guests and debates on several reports dealing with human rights: our core business. There are several proposals for debates under current and urgent procedures, which we shall come to in a few moments. For now, allow me to wish us all a fruitful part-session and to thank you for your attention.

3. Examination of credentials

The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the examination of credentials of new members.

The names of the representatives and substitutes are in Document 14532. If no credentials are challenged, the credentials will be ratified.

Are any credentials challenged? This is not the case.

The credentials are ratified.

4. Changes in the membership of committees

The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is to consider changes proposed in the membership of committees. This is set out in document Commissions (2018) 04 and Addendum 1.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

5. Requests for urgent and current affairs debates

The PRESIDENT – Before we adopt the draft agenda, the Assembly needs to consider requests for debate under urgent procedure and for current affairs debates, which we will consider in the following order: first, a request from Mr Kox, on behalf of the Group of the United European Left, for an urgent debate on “Copenhagen Declaration, appreciation and follow-up”; secondly, a request from Sir Roger Gale and 19 other members of the Assembly for an urgent debate on “Member State’s respect for international rules-based agreements and principles in the context of the interventions by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and most recently in the United Kingdom and of a further recent transgression of international law by the regime in Syria and its sponsors”; and thirdly, a request from Ms Maury Pasquier, on behalf of the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, for an urgent debate on “Follow-up to the report of the Independent Investigation Body on the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly”.

There is also a request from Mr Ariev, on behalf of the Ukrainian delegation, for a current affairs debate on the “Illegal election of the President of the Russian Federation on the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea: a human rights violation” and a request from Ms Brynjólfsdóttir on behalf of the Icelandic delegation for a current affairs debate on “Europe’s role in peace making initiatives in Syria”.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau was informed that the request from Mr Kiliç has been withdrawn.

The Bureau agreed to support the requests for urgent procedure debates on “Copenhagen Declaration, appreciation and follow-up” and “Follow-up to the report of the Independent Investigation Body on the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly”. The Bureau agreed to recommend that the Assembly should reject the request for an urgent procedure debate on “Member State’s respect for international rules-based agreements and principles in the context of the interventions by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and most recently in the United Kingdom and of a further recent transgression of international law by the regime in Syria and its sponsors.” The Bureau agreed to support the request for a current affairs debate on “Europe’s Role in Peace Making Initiatives in Syria”.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau took note of the request for an urgent debate and agreed to support a debate on “Copenhagen Declaration, appreciation and follow-up”, and therefore recommends that this matter be debated during this part-session as set out in the draft agenda, as issued.

Does the Assembly agree to this recommendation? That is not the case.

I call Mr Goncharenko.

Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – Despite the Bureau’s decision to reject the urgent debate proposed by Sir Roger Gale and other members about the aggressive politics of the Russian Federation, with the use of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom and Syria and its aggression in Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia – by the way, the Bureau’s decision was made by only a small majority – I propose that we should vote in the Chamber to put this urgent debate on our agenda, because this is one of the most important challenges we currently face in Europe.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Goncharenko, but we are now discussing the first proposal, which is for a debate on the Copenhagen Declaration. We must first decide what to do with this recommendation, and we will then come to the debate you mention.

Does the Assembly agree to the Bureau’s recommendation to support the debate on “Copenhagen Declaration, appreciation and follow-up”?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for the debate under the urgent procedure is approved. The Bureau proposes that this urgent procedure debate be held on Thursday afternoon as the first item of business.

The Bureau proposes that the topic of this debate be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for report. Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

We now come to the second request, which is from Sir Roger Gale for an urgent debate on “Member State’s respect for international rules-based agreements and principles in the context of the interventions by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and most recently in the United Kingdom and of a further recent transgression of international law by the regime in Syria and its sponsors”.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau agreed to recommend to the Assembly that this request be rejected. I understand that there is an objection. I call Mr Goncharenko.

Mr GONCHARENKO (Ukraine) – The Bureau’s decision was made by only a small majority – 10 votes to 13. I think this decision is a mistake. We need to have an urgent debate because what is going on is awful. We have seen the use of chemical weapons in Great Britain and Syria, and aggression in Ukraine, together with illegal elections in an occupied territory for the first time in the history of the Council of Europe since the Second World War, and in Georgia and the Republic of Moldova. We need an urgent debate, and I ask members to support it.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Goncharenko.

Does anyone wish to speak against the proposal? I call Mr Kox.

Mr KOX (Netherlands) – We will probably have a current affairs debate on the role that Europe can play in peace initiatives for Syria, and the most important thing is to have that debate. To have a debate at such short notice only on this, which raises all sorts of problems, would not be appropriate for the Assembly. We do have to address all these issues, but we already have several ongoing reports on them. I think that the current affairs debate on Syria is the most appropriate one to have and that, like the Bureau, we should reject this proposal.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Kox.

We shall now vote on the request for this debate under the urgent procedure. Since the Bureau decided against it, the proposal requires a two-thirds majority. Those who are in favour of holding an urgent procedure debate on “Member State’s respect for international rules-based agreements and principles in the context of the interventions by the Russian Federation in Ukraine, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and most recently in the United Kingdom and of a further recent transgression of international law by the regime in Syria and its sponsors” should vote yes, and those who are against holding such a debate should vote no.

The vote is open.

The request for this urgent procedure debate is rejected because it has failed to achieve the required two-thirds majority.

At its meeting this morning, the Bureau took note of the request for an urgent debate and agreed to support the debate on “Follow-up to the report of the Independent Investigation Body on the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly”, and therefore recommends to the Assembly that this matter be debated during this part-session as set out on the draft agenda, as issued.

Does the Assembly agree to this recommendation?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for the urgent procedure debate is therefore approved. The Bureau proposes that the urgent procedure debate be held on Thursday morning as the first item of business.

The Bureau proposes that the topic of this debate be referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for report.

Is this agreed?

The reference is agreed to.

Now we have to decide about the current affairs debate.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I object to the last point. It is very good that the report will go to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. However, since there is a heavy suspicion of corruption within this body, and regarding members who are sitting here, we may want to refer it to not only that committee but the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We should ask that committee to prepare a short note on what legal route should be taken, because this was not an official, legal investigation and there were not powers to seize documents or force witnesses to come, to ensure that the issue gets properly sorted out in courts in the 47 member States. I propose you refer the report to that second committee for an opinion as well.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. Your proposal is to refer the investigation body’s report to not only the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs but the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion. We must vote on that proposal. Those who are in favour vote yes; those who are against vote no.

The vote is open.

The proposal is agreed. The report will also be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, Mr President, will you confirm the information that was given to the Bureau yesterday, and again today, that members who have refused to give either written or oral evidence and those otherwise involved in the corruption report, should recuse themselves from the respective committees, which in this case are now the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs?

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Sir Roger. In my introductory speech I read the Bureau’s decision to invite members and former members who have been found in violation of the code of conduct, or who have not co-operated with the external Independent External Investigation Body, to suspend themselves from the Assembly’s activities immediately. That includes being active in committees, not only in the plenary. That was what we agreed. It is the only power that we have at this stage, until the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs takes the appropriate decision for eventual sanctions. We believe that all the members of the Assembly will accept our invitation and co-operate with what was unanimously agreed by the Bureau.

Mr KIRAL (Ukraine) – Thank you for this opportunity to speak, Mr President. Referring to your last statement that those who are mentioned in the report should recuse themselves from not only the committees and all official functions but the plenary, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Mr Tiny Kox is mentioned in appendix 2 as one of the members who refused to co-operate with the judges. He just spoke against my colleague Mr Goncharenko’s proposal. Was that a violation or not?

The PRESIDENT – That does not correspond with what is written in the report. Sorry, Mr Kiral, but I must object to your mentioning of Tiny Kox in that list.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – That point raises the question of which members you have asked to recuse themselves. There is a gradation: a number of people have declined to appear five times; other people may have missed one email; some people were asked five times and then wrote a short email saying they had co-operated; and for one or two members it is clear. To avoid discussions such as this one, will the Bureau make a list of those to whom it put the question?

I was very disappointed that the Bureau members who were mentioned yesterday did not leave the room but actively participated in the secret meeting, even though they were implicated and even though I said beforehand that it was very unwise. I ask the Bureau to publish a list. Will you publish a list this afternoon of the people you feel should not take part in any debate?

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt. I must reiterate the Bureau’s decision since, being the house of the rule of law, we have to maintain what we have decided. The decision was to invite those members that are clearly mentioned in the Independent External Investigation Body’s report. If you want, I can give you the names that are clearly mentioned in the report. There are five members: Mr Agramunt, Mr Preda, Mr Schennach, Mr Seyidov and Mr Xuclà. Again, we have decided to invite them to suspend themselves, and that is all.

Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – On a point of order, I am afraid that you are incorrect, Sir. That is one list, but there is also the list of people who declined, for whatever reason, to give written evidence. You need to be cognisant of that.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Sir Roger. I have to say that the members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—not of former members—who have been found in breach of the code of conduct, or who have not co-operated with the body, are all included in that list of five names. Then there are the names of former members of the Assembly who have been found in breach of the code of conduct. Since this is not under the competence of the plenary, we have, as we have agreed, appointed our Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to consider every single individual case for further action. I suggest that we conclude our discussion on this point.

Mr LIDDELL-GRAINGER (United Kingdom) – I am sorry to labour this point, Mr President, but I am on the Bureau. We did make a clear decision that the people mentioned in the report – not just the five – had to excuse themselves, regardless, from whatever their duties were. Pages 154, 155 and 156 clearly lay out the people who have to think about their positions this week very carefully indeed – certainly before the Committee on Rules of Procedure’s consideration and after it. I urge you to rethink what you have just said, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you very much again. We have appointed the Committee on Rules of Procedure to deal with this matter and, following Mr Omtzigt’s proposal, we have also involved the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. We have to follow the procedure strictly. Now we must move on to the other issues we need to discuss, or else the activities of our Assembly will be blocked by something that we have already clearly decided.

Now we have to decide about the current affairs debate. The Bureau can approve only one request for a current affairs debate, and, at its meeting this morning, it decided to approve the request from Ms Rósa Björk Brynjólfsdóttir on behalf of the Icelandic delegation for a debate on “Europe’s Role in Peace Making Initiatives in Syria”. Does the Assembly agree to the recommendation of the Bureau? The proposal is agreed to. The debate will be held during this part-session and the proposal is to hold the debate on Thursday morning after the debate on the “Follow-up to the report of the Independent Investigation Body on the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly”. It will be opened by Ms Rósa Björk Brynjólfsdóttir.

6. Adoption of the agenda

The PRESIDENT – The next item of business is the adoption of the agenda for the second part of the 2018 ordinary session. The draft agenda submitted for the Assembly’s approval was drawn up by the Bureau on 15 March and updated this morning. I remind you that we have just agreed to hold an urgent debate on the “Copenhagen Declaration, appreciation and follow-up”. I propose that the debate take place as the first item of business on Thursday afternoon.

We have also just agreed to hold an urgent debate on “Follow-up to the report of the Independent Investigation Body on the allegations of corruption within the Parliamentary Assembly”. I propose that the debate take place as the first item of business on Thursday morning. We have also just agreed to hold a current affairs debate on “Europe’s Role in Peace Making initiatives in Syria”. I propose that the debate take place as the second item of business on Thursday morning.

Is the draft agenda, as amended, agreed to?

It is agreed to. Details of the debates are set out in each sitting’s Organisation of Debates document.

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

Is that agreed? It is agreed.

I may make further proposals on these matters as required.

7. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Paris, 16 March 2018)

The PRESIDENT – The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee in Paris on 16 March 2018 have been distributed. I invite the Assembly to take note of these minutes.

8. Progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee

The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and Standing Committee, presented by Ms Liliane Maury Pasquier. I remind members that speaking time in this debate will be limited to three minutes. The sitting must conclude at 1 p.m. and I will interrupt the list of speakers shortly before 1 p.m.

I call Ms Maury Pasquier 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. Ms Maury Pasquier, you have the floor.

Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – President, ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, it is an honour for me to present the progress report for the past quarter.

We had a Bureau meeting yesterday, which has already been referred to quite a few times this morning. We particularly focused on issues relating to the independent investigation body and we had an exchange of views on the final report of that body. As we have decided, that is now accessible to the public and it has been sent to all the Speakers of national parliaments of member States of the Council of Europe.

Other steps taken by the Bureau have already been described by our President, and we have already heard considerable comment on them. None the less, I want to make a few further comments. I note what we have decided about the urgent debate on Thursday, but I highlight that the independent body emphasises the danger posed by corruption to all institutions. In particular, it points out that this is one of the most widespread and insidious social scourges that we face. It commends the boldness with which the Parliamentary Assembly has responded to allegations of corruption. However, sadly, the report notes that the allegations are likely to be well founded, at least for four of our current or past colleagues. The body also highlights a number of violations of our own code of conduct by some present or past colleagues. It concludes by putting forward a number of recommendations that would allow us to be more efficient in combating the scourge of corruption.

We still have a lot to do. As the establishment of this body shows, we want to make progress and be truly effective in fighting corruption. We have also looked at a follow-up to the resolution on the promotion of transparency, accountability and integrity among member States of the Council of Europe. We have looked in particular at the form for the declaration of interests, as approved by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. We decided that 30 September 2018 would be the deadline for signed and sworn declarations of interest for the year in question. We also noted that a failure to make the declaration or a refusal to complete or submit one, as well as any failure to disclose a relevant interest or the submission of an untruthful declaration, would automatically lead to a deprivation of the right to be appointed rapporteur, act as a committee rapporteur or become a member of an ad hoc election observation committee. We also invited the Committee on Rules of Procedure to draw up guidelines or an explanatory note to be added to the declaration of interest form.

We had an exchange of views about the memorandum of understanding on the rules of access to and movement within the Council of Europe during Assembly sessions and meetings. Members of the Bureau will shortly be expressing a view on the final version of those rules, with a view to adopting them in Zagreb on 31 May. On 15 March, the Bureau considered and approved updated guidelines for election observation, again as part of our fight against corruption. That, too, was adopted. We decided that a deadline would be established for the end of this month for those who had not yet already adopted such guidelines, the view being that they should be adopted in their final form by 31 May.

We also discussed the participation of members in plenary sessions and committee meetings. The purpose was to encourage delegations that are not greatly involved to become more so. That issue relates to another form of involvement of member States: I mean financial participation. The financial situation of the Council of Europe is, to put it mildly, not very rosy, and we have noted that some governments have decided that, as of the end of this year, they will step down from their status as major contributors and big payers. We also note that, alongside the Russian Federation position, the Committee of Ministers has decided to maintain zero nominal growth for a number of years. All of this means we have an €18 million shortfall in our regular budget. Clearly, this will lead to cuts in the Assembly budget for this year and there will also be knock-on effects on other areas of work. The Bureau has therefore adopted a number of measures relating in particular to how committee work is organised, with a view to making savings; this is set out in appendix 3 to the report.

Given that the budget is under pressure, the Bureau, and then the Assembly, might have to look again at the overall way in which we set priorities and the way in which we work. Here I call upon us to shoulder joint responsibility: all member States must be involved in this and must uphold the responsibilities and commitments they entered into in becoming members of the Council of Europe. That implies relevant contributions in financial terms and in terms of active participation; otherwise, the Council of Europe, and in particular this Assembly, will have no resources available to it and will be unable to undertake its core tasks. We therefore call upon the Assembly to think seriously about increasing transparency within its own borders. This is essential, because without transparency and the active and genuine participation of all its members, we will remain a clean shell, but will be an empty shell, and nothing more.

The question of empty shells brings me to the subject of the Copenhagen Declaration. We made it because we were greatly afraid that the whole European human rights system might become nothing but an empty shell. The Danish presidency of the Committee of Ministers therefore decided to organise the Copenhagen meeting that resulted in this declaration, in particular thinking about access to the European Court of Human Rights and emphasising that we must have substance and not just form. It was adopted by the Standing Committee on 16 March, and we now see what we have already been able to achieve. We believe that the Copenhagen Declaration, which does not in any way call into question the universality of the rights protected by the ECHR, nor its independence, nor the fact that member States are obliged to implement its decisions and judgements, none the less allows us to recognise the big picture and move forward. We also recognise that in a number of States there have been problems, but there can be no question of overhauling the whole system of the European Convention on Human Rights. If this is to work smoothly and properly, everyone must play their part. I am sure I will say more about that on Thursday.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you. You have five minutes and 40 seconds remaining.

To start the debate, I call Mr Andreas Nick from Germany on behalf the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr NICK (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party)* – The accusations against past and present members of the Parliamentary Assembly have provoked a serious crisis in the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly. We are faced with a challenge to the national delegations, as well as the political groups, because some of the accusations involve members of these national delegations. On behalf of my group and my national delegation, I thank members of the investigation body for their work; they have made an important contribution and have helped confer greater credibility and legitimacy on the Parliamentary Assembly, and we are all pursuing the same objective. We must learn lessons from this report in terms of both past conduct and the future work of the Parliamentary Assembly.

The report refers to two different levels of investigation. There are individual cases that suggest we are indeed talking about hands-on corruption by a certain number of members. The report also refers to organised structures and networks, and a conspiratorial nature that goes way beyond the confines of corruption. We have to assume that those networks continue to operate, but the immediate conclusion, as the President and rapporteur have said, is that the members accused of refusing to co-operate with the investigation body should follow the invitation extended to them and suspend their activities in the Parliamentary Assembly until the accusations are clarified. That must be done. Five colleagues are concerned and they need to be able to defend their position and ensure that the accusations are confirmed or not. We must also clarify what rules or procedures need changing in terms of our working methods and how our political groups operate so that we can reduce the risk of this happening again in the future.

No member of the current German delegation is impugned in any way or referred to in the report or accused of any criminal offences. On past members of the German delegation referred to in the report, the national authorities, including the Bundestag and judicial authorities, must investigate further, but here we are called upon to provide a political response to this issue and to address the political culture of this Organisation, as its integrity needs to be restored.

Mr SCHWABE (Germany, Spokesperson for the Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group.)* – We are not talking about just any subject; we are talking about the very foundation on which this Organisation is based. We are facing difficulties and serious challenges, and I recall that it was something of a struggle even to set up this Independent Investigation Body; and then there was a struggle as to whether the report to be produced by the investigation body was to be made public.

Azerbaijan has been the focus of our concerns through reports, election observation missions, and the appointment of rapporteurs on the country. The situation in Azerbaijan is undoubtedly difficult. We have differing assessments, perhaps, of the situation, but it is I think beyond dispute that Azerbaijan has contributed to the calling into question of the credibility and legitimacy of this organisation. That is why we need to establish the facts.

On behalf of my group, I express our thanks to the three members of the independent investigation body for an excellent report. They are as clear as they could be. They are not prosecutors; they were tasked with producing this report, and the executive summary says there is considerable suspicion, and the report is clear when talking about allegations of corruption and also shows that there was a systematic approach. There have been criticisms of the European stability initiative, non-governmental organisations, the Azerbaijani Laundromat affair and the like, and the report seems to confirm them.

We have been talking about Mr Volonté, Mr Agramunt and Mr Preda; we have been talking about present or past chairs of the Group of The European People’s Party who have been accused of corruption or who have failed to elucidate allegations of corruption. They include the acting chair of the EPP. There are valuable and very worthy members of the EPP, but the EPP has not done what was called for in a press communiqué: give its full co-operation. As the report shows, on six occasions Mr Preda failed to co-operate with the independent investigation body. It has been suggested that the five people referred to in the report should suspend their activities, but the different levels of accusations referred to by Mr Schennach in the report are very different indeed – contacts with non-governmental organisations and civil society that are too close, and perhaps too close a relationship with political prisoners – so I think we are talking about a very different level of accusation. We need to clarify that and we need to bring all this to light in the days to come. It is important that we take note of the report in the days and months to come, and to draw all necessary conclusions from it.

Ms GOGUADZE (Georgia, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – I thank Ms Maury Pasquier for her report.

On behalf of the European Conservatives Group, I would like to thank the three judges for the excellent and very important investigation they conducted into the corruption allegations within our Parliamentary Assembly. The report contains a great amount of unpleasant detail that gives a very bad impression of our Organisation, which the vast majority of us still love and value. I therefore praise the Bureau for last year taking the necessary steps to not only decide it was high time for an investigation but, despite strong resistance from some, to make the investigation external and as open and transparent as possible, in the clear knowledge that we would expose ourselves to harsh criticism, and to the disappointment and disapproval of the general public.

The European Conservatives Group has not waited for the report to be published to take action. Our group leader, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, was rapporteur on the Assembly’s new code of conduct. Our group also took the unanimous view before the publication of the report that members accused in the report, or any members who refused to co-operate with the investigation, would have to stand down from all their functions with immediate effect. We call upon all other members and political groups to follow that example, to bring back calm and stability to this Assembly and to allow us to focus on the important work our citizens rightly demand from us.

The point has been made that the report is long overdue. Rumours about corruption in the Council of Europe have been circulating since 2008. In February 2013, Secretary General Jagland announced in The New York Times that the fight against corruption would be his big challenge. However, little action has been taken since then. Hiding behind false arguments and not doing anything other than writing a letter in 2017 shows weakness. That is not the leadership we expect from a Secretary General.

It would be too easy to just criticise others and be blind to our own mistakes. My own country of Georgia is not mentioned in the report, yet two former leading members of the then European Democrat Group receive considerable negative attention in it. We condemn their actions and we are deeply disappointed with them.

The question now is how to move forward. Other countries are mentioned in the report. The three judges, whom we cannot praise enough for their work, have shown us how to proceed. It is now up to the Sub-Committee on Ethics to convene as soon as possible, to leave no question unanswered and to set up mechanisms for members, staff and the general public to help us to stop any further wrongdoing. Thank you so much.

Mr DAEMS (Belgium, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – ALDE welcomes the report, which is external, neutral and thorough. There is some naming in the report, but even more important than that are the recommendations for avoiding the misbehaviour pinpointed in the report in the future. Rightly, the report has been sent to the Committee on Rules and Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. ALDE believes that the rules can be issued to act fast in the short term, at least in terms of the five active members of the Council of Europe named in the report, so we could at least know what actions need to be taken. It is even more important that the recommendations are put into practice as quickly as possible.

We are going to have an urgent debate on this issue. ALDE asks specifically that the urgent debate not be the end of matter. After the report is voted on in the plenary session, the matter could be finished. We stress that this is not the way to tackle this problem. We should go on and, in the long term, try to find solutions to the problems enumerated in the report. If the Assembly is able to eradicate the behaviour pinpointed in the report, it might act as a leading example for our national assemblies. We know this problem exists in the world and, to a certain extent, in our national assemblies. If the Council of Europe, the upholder of the rule of law and democracy, can find a system that, to a large extent, is able to avoid these kinds of problems, we may again take our place within Europe as an example for the national assemblies from which we have been sent. The problem unearthed by the report could become an opportunity for the Council of Europe to become an example of good conduct and good behaviour for the national assemblies.

Let me end by making the point that no group is cleaner than the other. There has already been a little bit of naming and blaming in the plenary: “I am the good group, you are the bad group,” and “This group has more people mentioned than the other group.” I urge my colleagues to stop this idiotic political game. This is not about groups; it is about individuals who have behaved badly, and yes, we should stop that behaviour. If the Council of Europe is able to have a system that avoids it then we – all the groups together – should do that. If we start blaming each other, we will not succeed. If we work together, we can succeed in having a system that avoids these problems in the future.

Mr KOX (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – This week, we will spend a lot of our time considering how it was possible that members and former members of this unique Assembly involved themselves in the hidden and inappropriate influencing of our discussions and decisions, when the large majority of members try to do its work to the best of their abilities. We will have the opportunity to react to the scandal in the urgent debate on Thursday morning, but I want to make some preliminary remarks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

The UEL greatly welcomes the report of the External Investigation Body. The group was the first to ask for such an inquiry, and insisted on it being as quick and as powerful as possible. As we know, it took some time before the Assembly as a whole was convinced, but this was the only appropriate way to act. I thank the three esteemed members for their good work. Their findings are shocking: a former President is mentioned as being involved in corrupt activities, as well as a former president of one of our political groups. Five former members, including a member of my group, appear to have acted, after they left our Assembly, as paid lobbyists for a member State, thereby misusing their positions as honorary members of this Assembly. Some members are thought to have breached our code of conduct. At least one member State has tried to influence discussions and decisions inappropriately, using, among other things, bribes to members and former members. It has been mentioned that other member States might have tried to inappropriately influence our decision making. It is up to the Assembly to decide whether to check that and how. Great harm has been done by some of our members, former members and at least one member State to the credibility of the Assembly, its members and the Council of Europe. We should now do our utmost to restore credibility and to take appropriate measures, and the proposals of the Independent External Investigation Body should of course be taken into account.

I end by referring to something that Ms Fura, one of our esteemed external investigators, said yesterday. After seeing the evidence, she said that, as a former judge of the Court, she felt betrayed, because she had been elected by us, and she trusted us. However, she also said that she finally found new hope in the fact that this Assembly was ultimately brave enough to decide to have an external investigation. This Assembly should show that Ms Fura’s hope was correct and that we are brave enough to restore our credibility as the guardians of human rights, the rule of law and democracy in Europe. My group will continue to do its utmost in that respect.

Ms GAMBARO (Italy, Spokesperson for the Free Democrats Group)* – Thank you, Mr President, and many thanks to Ms Maury Pasquier for her report on the Parliamentary Assembly’s activities over the past quarter. It has been an eventful quarter, not least because of the work of the Independent External Investigation Body. I was able to listen to the judges at the meeting of the Bureau. They covered many different issues, including many that we have been talking about for many months, and it was useful to have their opinion on them. Like one of the judges, I too felt betrayed by some of the events described. As she said, however, this Assembly has also shown courage. This is the first international body to avail itself of an external body to restore lawfulness. That is something that we can be proud of.

I agree that the various methods should be discussed within the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I believe in respecting the principle of innocence which is at the very foundation of all our democracies. The report focuses on doubts that have existed for too long.

Ms Maury Pasquier also talked about the financial situation. This is indeed a serious problem and the Assembly, with the member States, needs to discuss it. It is important that the Assembly should not be an empty shell and that, with the Court, we continue our activities.

The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Gambaro. As Ms Maury Pasquier wishes to reply at the end of the debate, I call Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Thank you, Mr President. I also thank Ms Maury Pasquier for a thorough report.

I should like to focus on paragraph 2.5. For far too long, the seriousness and credibility of the work of this Assembly has been questioned by human rights organisations and the public, as well as by members of this Assembly itself. Starting with rumours that have escalated into concrete allegations of severe corruption – staged by some member countries, to avoid criticism for malpractice – named and unnamed parliamentarians have been accused of taking bribes and thus of obstructing the basic purpose of this Organisation, which is to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law on behalf of our 800 million individual inhabitants. An organisation such as this one cannot live with such allegations. Our work for freedom depends on the public’s confidence in our conclusions, regardless of whether they concern demands to release political prisoners, the content of election observation reports, criticism of a lack of freedom of assembly, speech or the media, or discrimination on any ground.

If the allegations of corruption are proven to be true, those involved will carry a great responsibility. The ultimate consequence could mean that personal greed will have led to a weakening of our work to prevent the imprisonment, torture and killing of innocent people. Are money, travel and parties with champagne and caviar really worth that price? Have those involved never asked themselves what their short-term pleasure might have inflicted on other people’s lives?

The investigation body’s report was made public yesterday, and some parliamentarians have deservedly been named and shamed. The most important consideration, however, is the future. The investigating body has addressed some key deficiencies in the organisation of our work and processes. Among other things, it mentions a lack of transparency in appointments and voting procedures, and confusion over our roles in election observations. Those matters have to be dealt with. It would therefore be wise, as the Bureau suggests, to invite the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs to work on changes.

Our responsibility now is to restore confidence in our work. In addition, I urge the Bureau of the Assembly always to keep the prevention of corruption high on its agenda. Corruption does not go away by itself; it needs to be focused on continuously. Improving procedures is one thing but constant awareness-raising is another and even more important one.

Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – Thank you for your thorough work yesterday, Mr President. It must have been a long and difficult session. I thank Ms Maury Pasquier for writing the progress report.

This is a difficult time, because many people in Europe look to Strasbourg for their ultimate remedy. Here, they hope to get the justice that they cannot get at home. Before people arrive at the European Court of Human Rights, they have gone through years of legislation, corrupt governments, and decisions that they want to fight. When they find out that justice is not to be found here at the Parliamentary Assembly, or that quite a few of our members have engaged in corrupt activities, there is a real problem. The problem is so big that if we do not solve it, this body may cease to function, or at least to be useful in doing what it was founded to do: fight corruption and ensure free and fair elections. We do not even know whether our internal elections were free and fair. That means that there will be a difficult task for the presidency; for you, Mr President; and for the members of the Bureau in seeking re-election.

This week will not be enough. That is why I am asking the rapporteur and the chairperson what action they will take in a few areas. The first area is transparency. In committee meetings, when we nominate a rapporteur or take decisions, no votes are ever recorded. Would it not be an idea to start recording those votes? Secondly, the Presidential Committee seems to take positions of which most of our members are unaware. That makes us extremely vulnerable to decisions being taken by small groups, and then being taken by everybody. Is the Presidential Committee – those seven people, some of whom talked earlier – willing to change its ways? Are you, Mr President, willing to write letters to the judicial authorities of the countries whose members have been implicated? I ask you that because we have an excellent report by three judges who have no means of forcing anyone to participate in this. Participation is voluntary, and we have seen that some people have avoided being questioned. Are you willing to refer this to national authorities, with the view to their asking about it? If there is corruption here, it should be fought thoroughly. Thank you.

The PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Omtzigt, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify a point that you raised. The Bureau decided to send a copy of the Independent External Investigation Body’s report to the Speakers of the national parliaments of our 47 member countries, to inform them, and to invite them to consider whether the facts in the report – breaches of the code of conduct and suspicion of corrupt activities – deserve attention by national authorities under national legislation. I think that goes in the direction that you suggest, Mr Omtzigt; if you have any remarks to make, you know that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs is responsible for this.

I have to close the debate. It will continue in the afternoon.

9. 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 second part of the 2018 ordinary session

2. Statement by the President of the Assembly

3. Examination of credentials

4. Changes in the membership of committees

5. Requests for urgent and current affairs debates

Speakers: Mr Goncharenko, Mr Kox, Mr Omtzigt, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Kiral and Mr Liddell-Grainger

6. Adoption of the agenda

7. Approval of the minutes of proceedings of the Standing Committee (Paris, 16 March 2018)

8. Presentation by Ms Maury Pasquier of the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee in Document 14529, Addenda 1 and 2, and Document 14533

Speakers on behalf of political groups: Mr Nick, Mr Schwabe, Ms Goguadze, Mr Daems, Mr Kox, Ms Gambaro, Ms Christoffersen and Mr Omtzigt

9. 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]

ALEKSANDROV, Nikolay [Mr] (BOGDANOV, Krasimir [Mr])

AMON, Werner [Mr]

AMORUSO, Francesco Maria [Mr] (BERNINI, Anna Maria [Ms])

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ARNAUT, Damir [Mr]

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

BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms]

BAKUN, Wojciech [Mr] (JAKUBIAK, Marek [Mr])

BALFE, Richard [Lord] (SHARMA, Virendra [Mr])

BAYR, Petra [Ms] (HAIDER, Roman [Mr])

BECHT, Olivier [M.]

BENEŠIK, Ondřej [Mr]

BENNING, Sybille [Ms] (VOGEL, Volkmar [Mr])

BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BERNHARD, Marc [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEYER, Peter [Mr]

BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILOVOL, Oleksandr [Mr]

BLAZINA, Tamara [Ms] (QUARTAPELLE PROCOPIO, Lia [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BRYNJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Rósa Björk [Ms]

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

BURES, Doris [Ms]

BUSHATI, Ervin [Mr]

BUSHKA, Klotilda [Ms]

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTODOULOPOULOU, Anastasia [Ms]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CIMBRO, Eleonora [Ms] (SANTANGELO, Vincenzo [Mr])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

CORREIA, Telmo [M.] (MARQUES, Duarte [Mr])

CORSINI, Paolo [Mr]

COURSON, Yolaine de [Mme] (MAIRE, Jacques [M.])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme]

DAEMS, Hendrik [Mr] (DESTREBECQ, Olivier [M.])

DALLOZ, Marie-Christine [Mme]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DE PIETRO, Cristina [Ms] (CATALFO, Nunzia [Ms])

DE TEMMERMAN, Jennifer [Mme]

DIVINA, Sergio [Mr]

DONCHEV, Andon [Mr] (HRISTOV, Plamen [Mr])

DUMERY, Daphné [Ms]

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

EIDE, Espen Barth [Mr]

ESTRELA, Edite [Mme]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FATALIYEVA, Sevinj [Ms] (PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FILIPOVSKI, Dubravka [Ms] (PANTIĆ PILJA, Biljana [Ms])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GAVAN, Paul [Mr]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr] (TAMAŠUNIENĖ, Rita [Ms])

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Dame]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GLASOVAC, Sabina [Ms] (BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms])

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr])

GONÇALVES, Carlos Alberto [M.]

GONCHARENKO, Oleksii [Mr]

GONZÁLEZ TABOADA, Jaime [M.] (BARREIRO, José Manuel [Mr])

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GORROTXATEGUI, Miren Edurne [Mme] (BUSTINDUY, Pablo [Mr])

GOUTTEFARDE, Fabien [M.]

GRAF, Martin [Mr]

GRECH, Etienne [Mr] (CUTAJAR, Rosianne [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

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

HARDT, Jürgen [Mr] (MOTSCHMANN, Elisabeth [Ms])

HASANOV, Elshad [Mr] (HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HEINRICH, Frank [Mr] (MARSCHALL, Matern von [Mr])

HEINRICH, Gabriela [Ms]

HONKONEN, Petri [Mr] (KALMARI, Anne [Ms])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HOYO, Belén [Ms] (GARCÍA HERNÁNDEZ, José Ramón [Mr])

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

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

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

IBRYAMOV, Dzheyhan [Mr] (HAMID, Hamid [Mr])

JANSSON, Eva-Lena [Ms] (KARLSSON, Niklas [Mr])

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JOHNSSON FORNARVE, Lotta [Ms] (OHLSSON, Carina [Ms])

JONES, Susan Elan [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERN, Claude [M.] (GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme])

KILIÇ, Akif Çağatay [Mr]

KIRAL, Serhii [Mr] (ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr])

KITEV, Betian [Mr]

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

KOBZA, Jiři [Mr] (NĚMCOVÁ, Miroslava [Ms])

KOPŘIVA, František [Mr]

KORODI, Attila [Mr]

KOVÁCS, Elvira [Ms]

KOX, Tiny [Mr]

KYRIAKIDES, Stella [Ms]

KYTÝR, Jaroslav [Mr]

LACROIX, Christophe [M.]

LEIGH, Edward [Sir]

LEITE RAMOS, Luís [M.]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms])

LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms]

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LOPUSHANSKYI, Andrii [Mr] (DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr])

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

LOVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LUCHERINI, Carlo [Mr] (ZAMPA, Sandra [Ms])

LUPU, Marian [Mr]

MADISON, Jaak [Mr] (KROSS, Eerik-Niiles [Mr])

MANNINGER, Jenő [Mr] (GULYÁS, Gergely [Mr])

MARKOVIĆ, Milica [Mme]

MARUKYAN, Edmon [Mr] (RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.])

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness]

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

McCARTHY, Kerry [Ms]

MEIMARAKIS, Evangelos [Mr]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MULDER, Anne [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr])

NAUDI ZAMORA, Víctor [M.]

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr]

NICK, Andreas [Mr]

NICOLINI, Marco [Mr] (D’AMBROSIO, Vanessa [Ms])

NISSINEN, Johan [Mr]

OBRADOVIĆ, Marija [Ms]

OBRADOVIĆ, Žarko [Mr]

OBREMSKI, Jarosław [Mr] (WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr])

OEHME, Ulrich [Mr] (KLEINWAECHTER, Norbert [Mr])

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr] (MAEIJER, Vicky [Ms])

OOMEN-RUIJTEN, Ria [Ms]

O’REILLY, Joseph [Mr]

ORTLEB, Josephine [Ms] (BARNETT, Doris [Ms])

OSUCH, Jacek [Mr] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PISCO, Paulo [M.]

POCIEJ, Aleksander [M.] (KLICH, Bogdan [Mr])

POLETTI, Bérengère [Mme] (DURANTON, Nicole [Mme])

POPA, Ion [M.] (PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PRESCOTT, John [Mr]

RAUCH, Isabelle [Mme] (SORRE, Bertrand [M.])

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

ROCA, Jordi [Mr] (MATARÍ, Juan José [M.])

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

RÖSSNER, Tabea [Ms] (AMTSBERG, Luise [Ms])

SANDBÆK, Ulla [Ms] (KRARUP, Marie [Ms])

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SANTERINI, Milena [Mme]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHIEDER, Andreas [Mr] (ESSL, Franz Leonhard [Mr])

SCHMIDT, Frithjof [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SEKULIĆ, Predrag [Mr]

ŠEŠELJ, Aleksandar [Mr]

SEYIDOV, Samad [Mr]

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SMITH, Angela [Ms]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOLEIM, Vetle Wang [Mr] (MEHL, Emilie Enger [Ms])

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STANĚK, Pavel [Mr]

ȘTEFAN, Corneliu [Mr]

STELLINI, David [Mr]

STIENEN, Petra [Ms]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

STROE, Ionuț-Marian [Mr]

ŞUPAC, Inna [Ms]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (VERCAMER, Stefaan [M.])

SVENSSON, Michael [Mr]

TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr]

TOMIĆ, Aleksandra [Ms]

TRISSE, Nicole [Mme]

TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr]

TZAVARAS, Konstantinos [M.]

VALLINI, André [M.] (CAZEAU, Bernard [M.])

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VEN, Mart van de [Mr]

VENIZELOS, Evangelos [M.] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

VERDIER-JOUCLAS, Marie-Christine [Mme] (GAILLOT, Albane [Mme])

VOGT, Ute [Ms] (JENSEN, Gyde [Ms])

VOVK, Viktor [Mr] (LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr])

WASERMAN, Sylvain [M.]

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

YEMETS, Leonid [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

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

AGHAYEVA, Ulviyye [Ms]

ANTL, Miroslav [M.]

AST, Marek [Mr]

AZZOPARDI, Jason [Mr]

BRUIJN-WEZEMAN, Reina de [Ms]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [Mr]

EIDE, Petter [Mr]

EROTOKRITOU, Christiana [Ms]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms]

JANIK, Grzegorz [Mr]

KELLEHER, Colette [Ms]

KOOPMANS, Sven [Mr]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr]

MAVROTAS, Georgios [Mr]

OVERBEEK, Henk [Mr]

RUSSELL, Simon [Lord]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

TOUHIG, Don [Lord]

XHEMBULLA, Almira [Ms]

Observers / Observateurs

DOWNE, Percy [Mr]

TILSON, David [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALAZZAM, Riad [Mr]

ALQAISI, Nassar [Mr]

CHAGAF, Aziza [Mme]

EL MOKRIE EL IDRISSI, Abouzaid [M.]

ERGESHOV, Almazbek [Mr]

SURABALDIEVA, Elvira [Ms]

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)

CANDAN Armağan

SANER Hamza Ersan