Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

THE PRESIDENT – It is a great honour for me to open the 2011 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I should like to remind you of what I said a year ago.

For the past 60 years, the Council of Europe has continued to fulfil the dream of its founding fathers – they should be beatified – Robert Schuman, Alcide De Gasperi and Konrad Adenauer, all of whom took great care to preserve the historical identity of Europe and its Christian roots, not forgetting the contribution of Judaism and Islam. I hope that we, as a Parliamentary Assembly, together with the European Court of Human Rights, remain faithful to the ideas of the founding fathers.

2. Examination of credentials

THE PRESIDENT – The first order of the day is the examination of credentials of new members submitted in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure.

The names of the Representatives and Substitutes have been published in Doc. 12474. If no credentials are contested, the credentials will be ratified.

Are any credentials contested?

I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – Mr President, I would like to challenge the credentials of three delegations – those from Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia. I contest them according to Rule 6.2.a of the Rules of Procedure of this Assembly, which states: “National delegations should include members of the under-represented sex at least in the same percentage as in their parliaments and, at a very minimum, one member of the under-represented sex appointed as a Representative.” That is not the case with these three delegations, which is why I challenge them.

THE PRESIDENT – Mr Mendes Bota is challenging the credentials of the national delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia on procedural grounds.

I remind the Assembly that under Rule 7.1, as recently revised, challenges must be supported by at least 10 members from at least five national delegations present in the Chamber. Would those members supporting this challenge please rise in their places?

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

Accordingly, the credentials of the national delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia are referred without debate to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.

I draw your attention to the fact that under Rule 7 as recently revised the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs may conclude that the credentials should be ratified, in which case it may submit an opinion to the President of the Assembly who shall read it out in the plenary sitting of the Assembly without debate. If the committee concludes that the credentials should not be ratified or that they should be ratified but that some rights of participation or representation should be denied or suspended, the committee’s report shall be placed on the agenda for debate. The Chair will make proposals for the examination by the Assembly of a possible report from that committee when we consider the draft agenda. Representatives or Substitutes whose credentials are contested may take their seats provisionally until the Assembly has reached a decision in their case. But they may not vote in any proceedings relating to the examination of their own credentials.

The other credentials set out in Doc. 12474 are ratified. I welcome our new colleagues.

3. Election and address of the President of the Assembly

THE PRESIDENT – The next business is the election of the President of the Assembly. I have received only one candidature: that of Mr Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu. In accordance with Rule 14, I declare Mr Çavuşoğlu re-elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for this ordinary session.

Mr Çavuşoğlu, I congratulate you on your re-election and invite you to take your place as President of our Assembly.

(Mr Çavuşoğlu, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Bender.)

THE PRESIDENT – Dear colleagues, first of all thank you for your confidence in re-electing me as President of the Parliamentary Assembly. Let me assure you that I do not consider this re-election as a simple formality. It is for me a further encouragement, but also a reminder that I can be your President only as long as I represent your interests and the interests of this Assembly. That was how I acted throughout the first year of my mandate, and that is how I will continue to work.

We have started a new year and today we start a new Assembly session. Let me take this opportunity to welcome you all to Strasbourg for another year of hard work and to wish you and your families all the best for 2011.

At this stage let me say something in Turkish, as again this year we have so many Turkish guests, particularly from my home town of Antalya.

(The speaker continued in Turkish)

He said that it gave him great pleasure to be re-elected President of the Assembly. He thanked members for the confidence that his re-election demonstrated. He indicated that the Assembly had been joined by some of his friends and colleagues from Turkey: they were present not only as a show of support for the Council of Europe but also for him personally. Over the past eight to 10 years many meetings had taken place in Ankara and Antalya, and some of these visitors were representatives from these places which had shown such kind hospitality. He hoped that the session of the Assembly would be a successful and effective one.

(The speaker continued in English)

We can start our work with confidence, based on the achievements of last year. In 2010, we continued to assist, through visits, reports or election observation, those member states presenting delicate political, institutional and human rights situations or facing the consequences of armed conflicts. The fact that this assistance was largely welcomed by different political forces in the countries concerned, either in government or opposition, is proof of your objectivity, fairness and great professionalism.

We also succeeded in concentrating on and dealing with issues that I consider to be our priority, in particular: fighting against all forms of intolerance and discrimination, paying special attention to the rights of the Roma population; defending the human rights of the most vulnerable groups in our societies, in particular children, women, minorities and migrants; developing intercultural and inter-religious dialogue; supporting the reform of the Council of Europe and initiating the reform process in the Parliamentary Assembly; promoting accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights and engaging in a dialogue with the European Parliament on the election of judges; bringing non-member states closer to the Council of Europe and our standards, particularly through Partnership for Democracy status.

By doing so, I am convinced that our Assembly has gained respect in many parts of Europe. Our action has also obtained us more support in our national parliaments, which is of the utmost importance in the current context of budgetary restrictions in many member states. Convincing Speakers all around Europe of the need to support the activities of our Assembly has been a major item on the agendas of more than 40 official and working visits that I carried out in 2010.

Throughout last year, we continued to improve our institutional relations with other organs and bodies of the Council of Europe. We now enjoy excellent working relations with the Secretary General and have installed direct and personal contacts with the respective Chairs of the Committee of Ministers.

However, I must also say that, despite our efforts, we could not achieve satisfactory results in some of our undertakings. In this connection, I think mainly about frozen conflicts in Europe. Negotiations concerning the settlement of these conflicts are mostly in the hands of career diplomats, but parliamentary diplomacy plays an important role in creating a climate of trust and confidence, necessary for lasting solutions. Be it in Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia or on the island of Cyprus, it is difficult to see any meaningful progress in confidence-building over the last year. But we must and will continue our efforts because there is simply no alternative.

Furthermore, in some member states, confrontations between the government and the opposition were seriously hampering the functioning of democratic institutions. In Albania, the existing tensions degenerated and resulted in the death of several persons last week. That is clearly unacceptable – people must not die as a result of political struggles. We have to be more active in supporting democratic changes through peaceful evolution. Therefore, we need to be more present in Tunisia. The people in the streets are sending a clear message – assist us to build a democratic society based on more equality and social justice.

I said that our Assembly is becoming more relevant, and there is no better evidence of that than the agenda of this part-session. We shall welcome among us three Presidents – those of Turkey, Serbia and Romania, as well as the Prime Minister of Albania. They come not just out of respect for our respectable body but also because we will deal with serious issues such as reports on reconciliation in the Balkans, organ trafficking in Kosovo and the protection of journalists’ sources of information, just to name a few.

We have also received requests to hold important urgent debates. Besides that on the situation in Tunisia, the Bureau recommends that we discuss the violence against Christians in the Middle East and Belarus. Both topics are very close to my heart. Religious violence has been the scourge of humanity since the beginning of ages and it has created millions of victims over centuries. Religious extremists have always been there to stain the humanistic and value-based message of the world’s main religions. We must clearly say that those killing in the name of religion are not believers – they are just fanatics and terrorists.

On Belarus, I still believe in achieving progress through contact and dialogue. However, this dialogue can hardly take place when people are imprisoned for obviously political reasons. Presidential candidates and human rights activists are still in prison today and some are suffering from bad health. They must be released immediately – it is only on this basis that we can continue our relations.

Dear colleagues, I remind you of an important commemoration which traditionally takes place during the January part-session. The date of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp is not an ordinary event. It is a cruel reminder of what people can do to others if they deviate from universal human rights principles and start to categorise individuals, groups and whole nations as those who are or are not entitled to human rights.

Human rights and freedoms must be the same for all – this is what we stand for and it is against these criteria that we must measure the level of democracy in our societies today.

I wish you a successful and interesting week in Strasbourg. Thank you for your attention.

4. Voting cards and the register of attendance

THE PRESIDENT – May I remind all members, including Substitutes and Observers, to sign the attendance lists outside the doors of the Chamber at the beginning of every sitting? May I also remind all Representatives and duly designated Substitutes to place their voting cards in the slot to ensure that the electronic system works properly.

5. Written declarations

THE PRESIDENT – The written declarations tabled in the last part-session are set out in the organisation of debates. Under Rule 52.3, Representatives, Substitutes or Observers, may sign any of these declarations up to the end of this part-session after which time they will be issued with the names of all those who have signed them. To do so, go to the Table Office, Room 1083.

6. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly

THE PRESIDENT – The next order of the day is the election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly.

No Representative or Substitute may be elected as a Vice-President unless proposed in writing by the chairperson of the national delegation concerned on behalf of that delegation.

Twenty nominations have been received for the 20 positions as Vice-Presidents. They are listed in Assembly document as AS/Inf (2011) 02. If there is no request for a vote, they will be declared elected.

As there has been no request for a vote I declare these candidates elected as Vice-Presidents of the Assembly, in accordance with Rule 15.4 of the Rules of Procedure.

7. Appointment of members of committees

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

The candidatures for the eight general committees, the Monitoring Committee and the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs have been published. The nominations for general committees are in Commissions (2011) 01 and those for the other two committees in Commissions (2011) 01 Addendum 1.

These candidatures are submitted to the Assembly for ratification.

Are these proposals approved?

They are adopted.

8. Request for debates under urgent procedure

THE PRESIDENT – Before we examine the draft agenda, the Assembly needs to consider the three requests for debates under the urgent procedure.

The first request is from the Group of the European People’s Party for a debate on “Recent violence against Christians in the Middle East”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau was in favour of this request.

Is the Bureau’s recommendation accepted?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for urgent procedure is therefore approved.

The second request is from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and 21 individual members of the Assembly for a debate on “The situation in Belarus in the aftermath of the presidential election which took place on 19 December 2010”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau was in favour of this request.

Is the Bureau’s recommendation accepted?

The Bureau’s recommendation is accepted, and the request for urgent procedure is therefore approved.

The third request is from Socialist Group for a debate on “the situation in Tunisia”.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau was in favour of this request.

Is the Bureau’s recommendation accepted?

I call Mr Mendes Bota.

Mr MENDES BOTA (Portugal) – I would like to object to this request because the debate should be referred to the Standing Committee in March and the report on rural women in Europe should be kept in the agenda. I would like to submit my proposal to a vote. This Assembly’s debates should be balanced. We should not have an excess of urgent debate or of visits by presidents and ministers. We should respect and consider the work of the committees. We should also respect the work of all the members who have put so much effort into the report.

THE PRESIDENT – There is an objection to the Bureau’s recommendation. The Assembly itself must now decide on the question of urgent procedure.

On the request for urgent procedure only the following may be heard: one speaker for the request, one speaker against, the chairperson of the committee concerned and a member speaking on behalf of the Bureau.

Who will speak in favour of the request?

I call Mr Gross.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – This proposal for an urgent debate and a current affairs debate should be seen as a package. It is a compromise between the leaders of the groups, and the Bureau supported it. We do not question the work of the committees, but the democrats in Tunisia are disappointed that we have not helped them. Europe has turned its back on them. There is still a danger that a military coup could undermine the democrats’ revolution. That is why it would be a big mistake to postpone the issue to the Standing Committee. We should stick with the Bureau’s proposal and hold the debate this week.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gross. Mr Mendes Bota has already spoken against holding the urgent debate.

What is the opinion of the Political Affairs Committee?

I call Mr von Sydow.

Mr von SYDOW (Sweden) – It is possible for the Political Affairs Committee to handle all three reports. We have enough slots and spaces, so I look forward to handling them. I personally agree with what Mr Gross said about the situation in Tunisia.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr von Sydow. The chairman of the committee is in favour of having this urgent debate. The Bureau is also in favour of the proposal.

We shall now vote on the request for urgent procedure. Those in favour of the proposed urgent debate should vote yes. I remind the Assembly that the decision requires a two-thirds majority.

The vote is open.

The request for urgent procedure is agreed to, with 144 votes for and 20 votes against.

Under Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedure, I propose that the question of “Violence against Christians in the Middle East”, “the situation in Belarus” and “the situation in Tunisia” be referred to the Political Affairs Committee for report and that the question of “the situation in Belarus” be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights for opinion.

Is this agreed?

The references are adopted.

9. Proposal for a current affairs debate

THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly needs to consider the proposal by the Socialist Group that a current affairs debate should be held on the functioning of democracy in Hungary.

The request for a current affairs debate was submitted to the Bureau in due form under Rule 51.2 of the Rules of Procedure.

At its meeting this morning the Bureau decided to support the request and proposes that this item be placed on the agenda for this part-session. If this is agreed, the Bureau proposes that the debate be held as the second item of business on Wednesday afternoon, with Mr von Sydow as the first speaker.

Is the proposal for a current affairs debate agreed to?

I call Mr Lipinski to speak again the proposal.

Mr LIPINSKI (Poland) said that he wanted to speak against the proposed debate on the functioning of democracy in Hungary. The Assembly had already agreed to three important and urgent debates. There were serious human rights violations in other countries. Hungary was already in good health and there was, therefore, no justification for the debate.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Lipinski. Mr Lipinski has made an objection to the Bureau’s proposal for a current affairs debate on the functioning of democracy in Hungary.

Does Mr Gross wish to explain the position of the Bureau?

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – We have already discussed the situation of the Christians in Antalya. The Socialists were ready to accept the proposition of the EPP/CD Group because the Conservatives’ leader said that he was ready to discuss current affairs in Hungary without a report. We should stick to the standards of the Assembly when discussing one of our member states. A debate is not a verdict; it is a reflection. Hungary would also be able to defend itself. That is why it would be fair to stick to the proposal.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gross.

The Assembly will now vote on the Bureau’s proposal that a current affairs debate be held. Vote “yes” to support the holding of such a debate. I remind the Assembly that the decision requires a simple majority.

The vote is open.

The Bureau’s proposal is adopted with 101 votes for, 55 against and 12 abstentions.

A current affairs debate on the functioning of democracy in Hungary will therefore be held during this part-session.

10. Adoption of the agenda

THE PRESIDENT – The next item is the adoption of the agenda for the first part of the 2011 Ordinary Session.

The draft agenda, which is submitted for the Assembly’s approval, was brought up to date by the Bureau on 24 December and this morning. It has been distributed.

I propose that any report from the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on the challenge of the credentials of the national delegations of Montenegro, San Marino and Serbia be debated on Wednesday afternoon as the last item of business after the current affairs debate on the functioning of democracy in Hungary.

The urgent debate on violence against Christians in the Middle East will take place on Thursday morning as the first item of business.

The urgent debates on the situations in Belarus and Tunisia will take place on Thursday afternoon in place of the scheduled debates on rural women in Europe and the need to assess progress in the implementation of the Bern Convention as the second and third items of business respectively.

Is the draft agenda, as amended, agreed to?

The draft agenda, as amended, is adopted.

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

THE PRESIDENT – The minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee held in Antalya on 12 November 2010 have been distributed.

I invite the Assembly to take note of the minutes.

12. Organisation of debates

THE PRESIDENT – As there are a large number of speakers and many debates, the Bureau proposes that speaking time in the debate on the progress report today and all debates on Tuesday and Wednesday be limited to three minutes.

Is that agreed to?

It is adopted.

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

THE PRESIDENT – The next order of the day is the debate on the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee (Doc. 12477 Part I and Addenda 1 and 2, and Part II). With this, the Assembly will consider the reports on the observations of the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan and Moldova from the ad hoc committees of the Bureau (Docs. 12475 and 12476).

The sitting must finish at 1 p.m. This debate and other business relating to the progress report will be concluded as the last item of business this afternoon, at about 5 p.m., and the meetings of political groups have been postponed to 5.30 p.m. to accommodate this.

In the debate I call Ms Brasseur 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 BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) thanked the President for his work as President and as a member of the Turkish delegation and for the warm welcome that his countrymen had given to her delegation’s meeting in Antalya, where the President had been born. She extended her gratitude to the whole Turkish delegation and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

She said that she had been appointed rapporteur on 8 October last year, and she paid tribute to her predecessor.

The committee on reform of the Assembly had decided to set up an ad hoc committee, which was scheduled to report to the Bureau the following Friday. It had devised a procedure that would enable all groups to express their opinion on the report and to take part in the debate on reform.

On the situation regarding the Roma in Europe, she had asked to have an exchange with the European Roma and Travellers Forum, which it had accepted.

Her committee had met the Committee of Chairpersons of the European Parliament, which had agreed to form a new informal joint body for co-operation. The European Parliament had agreed to establish the body on 13 June 2010.

Looking to the future, the committee had been asked to respond to the request from the Palestinian National Council for Partnership for Democracy status. It was also to look at election observer methods in Moldova and Azerbaijan.

She extended thanks on behalf of all the committee to the Secretary General, Mr Sorinas, who had worked for the Council of Europe since 1978. He was one of the first Spanish civil servants to have joined the staff of the Council and had progressed to the very top of the Organisation in a career spanning half his life. He was to retire on 31 January 2011, and she thanked him for his work, competence, knowledge and kindness.

THE PRESIDENT – Ms Brasseur, thank you very much for your presentation and your kind words to Mr Sorinas. I shall give the Floor to Mr Sorinas before I give the Floor to our two distinguished rapporteurs. Mr Sorinas is the outgoing Secretary General of the Assembly.

Dear Mateo, dear friend, I thank you most sincerely personally and on behalf of all colleagues for your 33 years of hard work in the Assembly Secretariat. During all these years we have greatly appreciated your advice and support on a wide range of issues, including sometimes very politically sensitive questions. Your capacity to anticipate political developments has always helped our Assembly to react in a timely and appropriate manner to the challenges democracy, the rule of law and human rights pose in our societies today. Your consensus-building skills have helped us – politicians with different political and national backgrounds – always to stay united on mutually acceptable positions, always based on respect for the fundamental values and principles that our Assembly stands for.

Of course, we know well that during all these years you were supported by a team of competent and dedicated staff who work for the Assembly Secretariat. Your human qualities, your open and friendly approach and your availability to support and accompany colleagues in their professional development have helped to create an excellent working environment in the Assembly. As members of the Assembly, we know well that we can always rely on the professional and high-quality support of your team whenever necessary.

Thank you very much once again for your support and dedication. Your outstanding contribution to the Assembly’s work will stay in our memories. You can now turn the page and enjoy new experiences, leaving us in the competent hands of Wojciech and the Secretariat team you have led in a highly competent and professional manner for the last five years. We wish you all the best, my dear friend Mateo. You have the Floor.

Mr SORINAS (Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) – Thank you, President – Mevlüt – and thank you Anne for your kind words. For me, it is a very touching moment, to address this Assembly, which I have followed for so many years.

First, I thank you, Mevlüt, for what you said. I also thank you for giving me the opportunity to take the Floor. I am fully aware that it is exceptional for the Secretary General of the Assembly to address the Assembly. As it is so exceptional, I shall take this opportunity to give you some of my personal reflections on the Assembly and the Organisation. I shall continue in French, as I think it is the best way to express my emotions.

(The speaker continued in French)

He recalled that he had been part of the Parliamentary Assembly for many years. He had begun his work here in September 1978, only a few months after Spain had become a member of the Council of Europe. His first experience of the Council of Europe had, however, been earlier, in 1963, when he had been the leader of a youth organisation in Spain. At that time his group was part of a Europe-wide organisation that had visited Strasbourg. The trip had opened his eyes to the benefits of democracy and freedom, and had showed him that the Council of Europe could be a guiding light for democracy across Europe.

Today, Europe was a continent in which every state, with one exception, was a democracy. This had led people to ask what the current purpose of the Council of Europe was and whether it should be maintained. His answer was simple: democracy was not permanent and it required the Council of Europe to act as the conscience of its member states and to demand that those states did not commit acts and make errors that would damage democracy. Evidence of the ongoing vitality of the Council of Europe could be seen in the work of the President and others who worked to reform it to meet modern challenges and problems.

Before he had joined the staff of the Council of Europe, he had been a physics teacher, which was rather different from his current career. His time as a teacher had taught him that life was a learning process and, through working at the Council of Europe, he had indeed learned much both professionally and personally. He thanked the members of the Secretariat for their support over the five years in which he had been Secretary General and he returned to his home in Catalonia knowing that the Organisation was to be in the good hands of Mr Sawicki. He was proud to have served the Council. The friendships he had made over his career were a great privilege and were a magnificent leaving present.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Sorinas, dear Mateo. Again, I wish you all the best on behalf of all of us.

I call Mr Iwiński to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Parliamentary Elections in Azerbaijan. You have three minutes.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland) – Azerbaijan joined the Council of Europe 10 years ago. The country has a strong presidential system, and its head of state, Mr Aliyev, was our colleague here for a couple of years, but the role of the Milli Mejlis legislature should not be overlooked. On 7 November, parliamentary elections took place, in accordance with the majority principle, in 125 constituencies. Our Assembly’s pre-election mission included representatives of all five political groups, and it visited Baku in mid-October. The full ad hoc committee – 30 MPs from 18 countries – was split into 16 teams and it observed elections in and around Baku, Sumgait and Sheki.

The report includes analysis of improvements and weaknesses in the whole electoral process. A new positive element was that, in contrast to the previous parliamentary and presidential elections, the opposition participated in the vote. Election day was generally calm and peaceful. For the first time, each candidate was given four minutes’ air time on public television. On the other hand, numerous people could vote only if they returned to their homes. Many candidates were not registered. Activity by political parties was not particularly visible. The ad hoc committee heard allegations of intimidation of voters and candidates, as well as abuse of administrative resources. However, we are happy that two imprisoned bloggers were released after the elections.

Some of our colleagues, including the outgoing chairman of the delegation, Paul Wille from Belgium, said that the report was not sufficiently positive when compared with previous elections, while others thought it was too soft. To my mind, it is balanced. The conclusion, which was unanimously supported by all members of the pre-electoral mission, is as follows: “whilst stating that the whole process showed progress in reaching Assembly and OSCE standards and commitments,” the delegation is “convinced that significant progress would still be necessary to reach an overall electoral and democratic consensus in Azerbaijan.”

I have visited Azerbaijan on more than 10 occasions since the 1990s, and I am convinced that our Assembly and the whole Council of Europe stand prepared to continue co-operation with Azerbaijan in further improving its democratic system.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Iwiński.

I call Mr Saar to present the report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Observation of the Parliamentary Elections in Moldova. You have three minutes.

Mr SAAR (Estonia) – I had the responsibility of chairing our Assembly’s delegation to observe the early parliamentary elections in Moldova on 28 November 2010. Our observation delegation was composed of 26 members from 14 countries representing all political groups. I thank all the members of the delegation for their active and efficient participation in the observation of the Moldova elections, as well as the experts of the Venice Commission and the staff of our Assembly for their excellent work.

As usual, we observed the elections with our traditional partners in the framework of the International Election Observation Mission. It was composed of the European Parliament delegation, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Co-operation with both OSCE and ODIHR was very good. The make-up of the European Parliament delegation did not facilitate the process of negotiating the text of the joint declaration.

Turning to the voting day, the ballot was well organised and took place in a peaceful and calm atmosphere. We noted that the electoral administration as a whole functioned transparently and impartially. The quality and accuracy of the voter lists remains problematic, however. Media coverage was, on the whole, balanced and better than in the past.

The main concern was the amendments to the election code. Four months before the election, the Moldovan authorities amended the code, including Article 87 on the allocation of seats in parliamentary elections. The new system was superseded by an apparently unique method that gives a significant advantage to small parties, and is deserving of the nickname of a Robin Hood system. Clearly, the choice of electoral system is a sovereign decision for each state. However, such choices must be made on the basis of public consultation and broad agreement among the main political parties, but that was not the case in Moldova. This is not in line with the Venice Commission code of good practice in electoral matters.

I am happy to be able to conclude by saying that the Moldovan parliamentary elections met most international standards, and that I was positively surprised by the democratic conduct of the citizens of Moldova. There was a remarkably high, and increasing, turnout on election day, although the voters were facing their third parliamentary elections in less than two years.

The delegation insists once again that it is now up to the main political stakeholders to ensure at last the functional operation of public institutions and to put the interests of the country as a whole above their personal or political disagreements.

I support what has been said about the importance of election activities in the programme and budget of the Council of Europe for 2011, which stresses that free and fair elections are the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. Together with compliance with commitments by member states, elections represent the basis of states’ membership of the Council of Europe.

(Ms Hurskainen, Vice President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Çavusoglu.)

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Saar. I call Mr Vareikis, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – I thank Mr Sorinas on behalf of the EPP Group. He is a good man who was always our helper, and now we will have a good friend. I think we will remain in touch – you will never forget the Council of Europe and we will never forget you.

The observation of elections and voting exercises such as referendums is an important mission of the Council of Europe that is based not only on defending our values but on agreements between the Assembly and the respective countries. Such observation is also an example of co-operation with other assemblies and parliaments. It is not always 100% successful and not always simple, but co-operation with other assemblies is always important for the Assembly’s work.

The countries of the Council of Europe are taking the observation of elections very seriously and improving the technical aspect of elections. We can see that in Moldova and Azerbaijan, where it improves the general image of the country. Observation reports and press releases are very important documents for these countries. When press releases about elections are presented, the mass media are very interested in what the Council of Europe is doing. The Council of Europe is becoming very popular and important in this respect. We therefore have to perform a little better and take observation more seriously and with greater responsibility. I am speaking about myself and our observation team; perhaps we need to improve some technical aspects of what we do.

I am the rapporteur on Moldova, so I will concentrate on that country. In recent years in Moldova, elections have become a part of everyday life and the country has moved from one election campaign to another. During that time, we have seen a great technical improvement, with better understanding of voters and electoral commissions. One of the greatest victories in an election is not the victory of a particular party, as was the case in Moldova a few years ago; now people understand that the greatest victory is that of democracy, with free and fair voting. Perhaps we need to consider making some technical changes such as the so-called Robin Hood method. Voting itself cannot change the constitutional problem – that is the job of lawmakers. We have to make Moldovan elections less frequent, although they are not badly organised. I have a very positive picture of the situation in Moldova.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Vareikis. The next speaker is Mr Gross, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland) – On behalf of the social democrats, I thank Anne Brasseur for her presentation and her kind comments about Mateo, which we can underline and sign up to every word of. As one Catalan goes, another Catalan also goes – Mr Lluís Maria de Puig i Olive, our former President. He worked in the Assembly for four years fewer, but today is also his last day, and we thank him as well as Mateo. We know that we have two Catalonian friends. As Mr Vareikis said, we will not forget them, but also they will never forget us.

There is a common theme regarding the two main countries that are quoted in the report, Azerbaijan and Moldova, and the four main countries with which we will deal this week – Belarus, Tunisia, Hungary and Albania. There is a crisis of democracy in those countries because they do not live up to what Mateo said – that democracy is an everyday challenge in which you have to share your power. Power-sharing is one of the hardest aspects of democracy. If you do not have fair elections, the sharing process is not fair. If you have fair elections but afterwards do not live up to the constitution, which requires, in voting for the president, that you give your hand to those who have less than you, then you also do not live up to the idea of sharing power. That is why 61 seats are needed in the Moldovan Parliament. When you have two thirds of the seats in the parliament and behave as though you have 100%, you do not share power.

When you do not let the opposition speak up, as in Azerbaijan or Belarus, you do not have a real system for legitimately sharing your power. Then, as in Tunisia, you forget that democracy is about giving powers to the citizens and you have a bloody revolution. In Albania, the people who have the majority think that winning the election means possessing the state like a private company. That is not democracy. Democracy is about sharing power even with those who have lost elections. Elections only show you where to share, not what to share or that you have to share. That is the best illustration of what Mateo said. We never stopped looking for the fair sharing of power, which is the common issue in all these countries. That shows that democracy is in crisis in Europe as well. We therefore have to look in the mirror when we speak about democracy and take it as seriously as human rights, of which it is an essential part.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Gross. The next speaker is Mr Kosachev, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) said that the reports on Azerbaijan and Moldova had been discussed that morning in the Bureau. Representatives of the European Democrat Group had asked Mr Iwiński what his report meant, as it was not clear to them whether it was saying that the election in Azerbaijan had been good or bad. In the view of the European Democrat Group, the issue was not as simple as that. The quality of an election was more dynamic, and the question that really mattered was whether the direction of travel in a given country was the right one. If Azerbaijan was heading in the right direction, the Council of Europe should surely support it.

The Bureau had also discussed Hungary and specifically, whether it was a subject fit for debate at this part-session. The European Democrat Group felt that the question of Hungary ought to be debated, as nothing ought to be outside the scope of the debates of the Assembly. It was regrettable that, at a recent meeting of the Monitoring Committee, the issue of Georgian and Russian relations had been debated without a Georgian representative being present. The European Democrat Group had members from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia, and was therefore well placed to contribute to such debates. He had hoped to thank Mr Sorinas at the autumn part-session for his unstinting professionalism and great contribution to the work of the Assembly, but he had not had the opportunity to do so. He paid tribute to Mr Sorinas, whose retirement marked a great loss to the Council of Europe.

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

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom) – I would like to express my very warm appreciation of Mateo’s work and in particular of the personal friendship he has shown me and many other members here. He has always had a friendly smile, a warm handshake and a pleasant response when asked questions or – more importantly, in my case – when asked for help. There has never been a refusal; there has always been a warm accommodating look on his face to say that if he can help, he will. That is much appreciated. I am sure that you will be a very hard act to follow, Mateo. I wish you very well for your retirement and I wish your successor well.

I think I speak for all members who were present at the hearing at Paris in saying that it was a great pity that the Georgians did not come. That was a wasted opportunity. There were first-class presentations by a group of people who had invested a lot of time and energy in trying to find ways forward. But without the Georgians being present, it was impossible for anyone to gauge whether there was good will on all sides. It was also unfair that some of the correspondence circulated to all members by the Georgian authorities and members of the Georgian delegation criticised the actions of Dick Marty. That was completely unnecessary, unfounded and manifestly unfair.

I was proud to be at the elections in Azerbaijan. The best you can say about any election in any country – in Europe, or anywhere else in the world – is that on the day following the election, the majority of people have the result that the majority want. Undoubtedly, my experience in Azerbaijan leads me to say that the majority wishes of the people of Azerbaijan were reflected in the results. A lot of credit should go to the monitoring team under Paul Wille’s guidance. The pre-election mission and the team there at the time looked very closely at the pitfalls of the past, but they looked with optimism for the future in respect of that election in November, and beyond that to the next round of elections in that country.

I feel confident that the sorts of things that Andreas Gross and Mr Kosachev talked about will be realised in Azerbaijan. In 10 years, the country has come a long way. It has come a long way because this Assembly was prepared to put out a hand of friendship and work through.

The biggest obstacle in the Caucasus is the unsettled disputes. Nagorno-Karabakh will not go away; it featured in the election campaign and it was on the minds of millions of people when they went to vote. We still have a job to do, but given the government and parliament in Azerbaijan, I believe that the future looks better now than it has for a long time.

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

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) – The situation in Moldova is discussed yet again as part of the agenda of the part-session – this time in the light of the most recent parliamentary elections, held in November 2010. First, on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Assembly election observation delegation for the work it did, and I thank all members of our Assembly who impartially observed the voting process in Moldova.

Secondly, we should admit that the last parliamentary elections in Moldova were the most undemocratic, the dirtiest and the most cynical in recent years of Moldovan democracy. In that regard, I wish to remind members that the ruling alliance in Moldova went to great lengths to do certain things. In the few months before the election, contrary to common practice and Council of Europe recommendations, Moldovan election laws have been changed; a number of significant amendments have been made without the required Venice Commission expertise. Unprecedented pressures were put on the Moldovan media in the past year and a half – those who were not afraid to criticise the current regime harshly – and the only opposition TV channel, NIT, still broadcasts from the garage of a private house and is under constant threat of licence revocation.

For the first time, having changed the election code, the authorities have opened a loophole enabling multiple voting and they did nothing to prevent it. As a consequence, a record number of Moldovan citizens voted based on the so-called supplementary voters lists.

Despite all I have said – intimidation, the use of administrative resources, the use of public television against political opponents and political persecution – the opposition party of communists has once again won, with 42 seats out of 101.

The political crisis in Moldova did not end with this election – rather, it worsened. The undemocratic and oligarchic regime remained in power in Moldova. This is definitely not a democracy. The country is ruled by the oligarch, who is the real puppeteer of this regime.

The new – old – alliance has once again insisted that the same person be elected as president of the republic. Yet again, the opinions and proposals of the opposition, without which it is impossible to elect a president, are not taken into consideration. The whole country is held hostage by the personal ambition of one man who wants to become president by using any means. None of the ruling alliance even wanted to discuss the idea of the opposition in electing a politically non-affiliated person from outside the parliament as president of the republic. They want to talk again to the opposition from a position of strength that is simply unacceptable. In that situation, if the will of almost half the population is to be further ignored, the next snap parliamentary election could become a reality.

The recent elections in Azerbaijan showed once again the need to have an in-depth discussion in our Assembly about the role of different international observation missions and interaction among them. In this respect, we need seriously to discuss our interaction with ODIHR and its place in the observation process.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Pourbaix-Lundin, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Ms POURBAIX-LUNDIN (Sweden) – I observed the elections in Azerbaijan and Moldova, so I will speak about those. The election in Azerbaijan may have been conducted better than last time, but the overall tone and wording of this report is too positive in comparison with what my team saw on election day, especially during counting.

We should consider the information that we got about how many opposition candidates were eliminated from standing; it is definitely hard for me to say that the people of Azerbaijan had a free choice. It seemed that opposition candidates who could challenge a majority candidate were eliminated and those who could not challenge a majority candidate were allowed to run.

In each polling station that I observed, there were small incidents. There were voters who could vote without being recorded in voter lists. Some voters did not get the ink on their thumbs, so they could vote again. There were cameras above polling booths – not the ones that were allowed in some of the polling booths, but others.

The worst experience was during counting. The polling station was closed, as it should have been, but suddenly someone knocked on the door and in rushed the police and several men, one claiming that he was from the constitutional election committee, and they started to interfere with the counting and the figures that the commissioners were counting. They said that they had come because observers – not international observers, but national ones – were beating up election officials. But that was not true, I can tell you – I was there all the time, and it was not like that.

The only thing that I had in mind when these men rushed in was that I should keep an eye on the ballot papers so that nothing happened to them; I was quite afraid that something would happen to them. The turnout at this polling station was less than 20%. I heard from many international observers that that figure was very low; the turnout was to have been 50%. I wanted some changes to the report and I got support from several colleagues, but there were no changes. That is bad and sad – not for me, but for the Azerbaijani people.

The elections in Moldova took place in good conditions overall. Of course, there were some questions about voter lists and about students and other people being added on election day. In my opinion, the ballot paper was too long – it was almost a metre long and there were some difficulties about that. The counting, however, was quite good, almost perfect. But the problem that the election should have solved was not solved because Moldova can still not elect a new president. That is too sad and bad.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Frécon.

Mr FRÉCON (France) said that the previous parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan, which had taken place in November 2005, had given a clear victory to the party in power. The head of state had then been succeeded by his son. The observers had reported a number of reservations about how the elections had been conducted. In particular the elections had not respected plurality and democracy. The parties had not had equal access to airtime and there had been multiple votes and stuffed ballot boxes. The conduct of the elections had not, however, been without significant progress.

The Council of Europe should draw lessons from Russia, where the history of the relationship between the political elite and oil was an unhappy one. In Azerbaijan, the economy had experienced rapid growth from energy income, especially around the Caspian Sea. This oil and gas was vital to the security of Europe’s energy supply, but the Council of Europe should take note of the impact these resources could have on democracy.

He supported the ad hoc committee’s report but had reservations about the future.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Herkel.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia) – Of the two countries under discussion, I was an election observer in Moldova, and I was surprised about the patience of the nation in having two elections or elections plus a referendum in a year. That is not an easy task, and the elections were relatively well administered.

The election day was very good from my point of view in the south of the country. The critical points in the report are mainly based on long-term work done by OSCE/ODIHR and by our Organisation and its rapporteurs and the pre-election mission, as well as the Venice Commission’s analysis.

On this so-called Robin Hood method, the most important angle of criticism is that a change in electoral law before the election is not the best way to develop trust in a society. The main problem in Moldovan society relates to the lack of trust between competing political forces in the parliament. The second question is that the constitution is imperfect. The third question is that there are too many elections, and we have probably not seen an end to them.

To compare Azerbaijan and Moldova is very difficult: one country is rich with oil and the other country is poor; one country has a relatively open political system, and the other one – Azerbaijan – has a rather controlled democracy. Our observers made criticisms of Azerbaijan and Moldova with regard to different partners. In previous meetings, the observers from Azerbaijan have suggested that it was difficult to co-operate with OSCE/ODIHR. The Moldovan delegation raised the issue of co-operation with OSCE/ODIHR and said that there were some difficulties with a biased delegation from the European Parliament. I am rather surprised that such criticism has not come out in this discussion. To observe an election, we really need co-operation and long-term work. Without OSCE/ODIHR, our hands are tied.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Mr Ibrahimli.

Mr IBRAHIMLI (Azerbaijan) said that the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan had confirmed his country’s dedication to achieving democracy. The elections had been held in a democratic environment. Despite this, certain psychological factors, not considered by the observers, had detrimentally affected the elections; the observers had not considered the poll to have been objective but these factors needed to be taken into account.

Azerbaijan was a country at war. Ceasefires were frequently violated, especially on the borders. In the November elections, people who had lost their families and lived in fear still went to vote. These were difficult conditions for the monitors to observe. None the less, psychological factors, such as fear, should be taken into consideration. The people of Azerbaijan had been unable to enjoy their homes and a decent standard of living for many years; the elections marked progress.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Ibrahimli.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The debate and other business related to the progress report will be concluded as the last item of the afternoon’s sitting, as on the agenda we agreed earlier.

14. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT – I propose that the Assembly 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 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Opening of the 2011 Ordinary Session

2. Examination of Credentials

3. Election and address of the President of the Assembly

4. Voting cards and the register of attendance

5. Written declarations

6. Election of Vice-Presidents of the Assembly

7. Appointment of members of committees

8. Requests for debate under urgent procedure

9. Proposal for a current affairs debate

10. Adoption of the agenda

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

12. Organisation of debates

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

Presentation by Ms Brasseur of the progress report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee (Doc. 12477 Part I and Addenda 1 and 2 and Part II)

Presentation by Mr Iwiński of observation of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan (Doc. 12475)

Presentation by Mr Saar of observation of the Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau on the parliamentary elections in Moldova (Doc. 12476)

Speakers:

Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

Mr Gross (Switzerland)

Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

Mr Hancock (United Kingdom)

Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

Ms Pourbaix-Lundin (Sweden)

Mr Frécon (France)

Mr Herkel (Estonia)

Mr Ibrahimli (Azerbaijan)

14. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

APPENDIX

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

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Artsruni AGHAJANYAN

Francis AGIUS

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA

Arben AHMETAJ/Damian Gjiknuri

Miloš ALIGRUDIC

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB

Mördur ÁRNASON

Sirpa ASKO-SELJAVAARA/Tuulikki Ukkola

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA*

Michal BABÁK/ Lenka Andrýsová

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE/Guy Coëme

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Denis BADRÉ

Doris BARNETT

Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA*

Marieluise BECK

Alexander van der BELLEN

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ/Tatiana Rosová

Marie-Louise BEMELMANS-VIDEC

Ryszard BENDER

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Andris BERZINŠ

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM/Maryvonne Blondin

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES*

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN

Federico BRICOLO*

HanTEN BROEKE*

Patrizia BUGNANO/Roberto Mario Sergio Commercio

André BUGNON

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUSOGLU/ Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECI

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Igor CHERNYSHENKO

Vannino CHITI

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVICS

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON/Lord Tim Boswell

Ann COFFEY*

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN

Titus CORLATEAN

Lena DABKOWSKA-CICHOCKA

Per DALGAARD*

Cristian DAVID*

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Fenech Adami

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

ArmandDE DECKER/ Dirk van Der Maelen

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Karl DONABAUER

Miljenko DORIC

Gianpaolo DOZZO/Giacomo Stucchi

Daphné DUMERY

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Baroness Diana ECCLES*

József ÉKES

Lydie ERR

Arsen FADZAEV/Ivan Savvidi

Frank FAHEY*

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV

Valeriy FEDOROV

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIC-VAC

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Paul FLYNN

Stanislav FORT

Pernille FRAHM

Dario FRANCESCHINI/Gianni Farina

Erich Georg FRITZ

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA

Guiorgui GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDUŠKOVÁ/Pavel Lebeda

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Marco GATTI*

Tamás GAUDI NAGY

Gisèle GAUTIER

Sophia GIANNAKA/Georges Charalambopoulos

Paolo GIARETTA/Vladimiro Crisafulli

Michael GLOS/Holger Haibach

Svetlana GORYACHEVA/ Sergey Egorov

Neven GOSOVIC/ Obrad Gojkovic

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM

Claude GREFF

Francis GRIGNON*

Patrick DE GROOTE

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER

Ana GUTU

Sam GYIMAH*

Azra HADŽIAHMETOVIC*

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/ Fazail Ibrahimli

Mike HANCOCK

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Jeanine HENNIS-PLASSCHAERT*

Olha HERASYM'YUK*

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER

Anette HÜBINGER

Andrej HUNKO

Sinikka HURSKAINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Aydin Abbasov

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Shpëtim IDRIZI

Mladen IVANIC

Željko IVANJI

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWINSKI

Denis JACQUAT

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Cedomir JOVANOVIC/Nataša Vuckovic

Armand JUNG*

Antti KAIKKONEN/Jaakko Laakso

Stanislaw KALEMBA

Ferenc KALMÁR

Karol KARSKI

Michail KATRINIS

Jan KAZMIERCZAK

Cecilia KEAVENEY

Birgen KELES

Haluk KOÇ

Albrecht KONECNÝ

Konstantin KOSACHEV

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA

Pavol KUBOVIC

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA

Ertugrul KUMCUOGLU

Dalia KUODYTE

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Markku LAUKKANEN*

Sophie LAVAGNA

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER

Jean-Paul LECOQ

Harald LEIBRECHT

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA

Dariusz LIPINSKI

François LONCLE/Jean-Claude Frécon

Younal LOUTFI*

Marian LUPU*

Philippe MAHOUX

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Milica MARKOVIC*

Dick MARTY

Jean-Pierre MASSERET/Françoise Hostalier

Frano MATUŠIC*

Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA

Silver MEIKAR/Indrek Saar

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Sobko

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA MENDES*

Dragoljub MICUNOVIC

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangute MIKUTIENE/Egidijus Vareikis

Akaki MINASHVILI

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Nikolay Shaklein

Patrick MORIAU

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ*

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Felix MÜRI

Philippe NACHBAR*

Adrian NASTASE

Gebhard NEGELE

Pasquale NESSA*

Fritz NEUGEBAUER

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON

Tomislav NIKOLIC

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Miroslawa NYKIEL

Carina OHLSSON

Jim O'KEEFFE*

Sandra OSBORNE

Brian O'SHEA*

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/Charoula Kefalidou

Valery PARFENOV

Ganira PASHAYEVA

Peter PELEGRINI

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY*

Marijana PETIR/Marija Pejcinovic-Buric

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY/Tatiana Volozhinskaya

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Christos POURGOURIDES

Cezar Florin PREDA

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESECNIK

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA

Lluís Maria de PUIG i OLIVE

Milorad PUPOVAC/ Gvozden Srecko Flego

Valeriy PYSARENKO/ Volodymyr Pylypenko

Carmen QUINTANILLA BARBA

Mailis REPS/ Aleksei Lotman

Maria Pilar RIBA FONT

Andrea RIGONI

François ROCHEBLOINE

Luisa ROSEIRA*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

Amadeu ROSSELL TARRADELLAS

René ROUQUET

Marlene RUPPRECHT

Ilir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIC

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Džavid ŠABOVIC/Ervin Spahic

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO*

Manuel SARRAZIN/Violavon Cramon-Taubadel

Kimmo SASI

Marina SCHUSTER

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN

Ladislav SKOPAL

Leonid SLUTSKY

Anna SOBECKA

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Maria STAVROSITU*

Arune STIRBLYTE

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ

Michal STULIGROSZ*

Doris STUMP/ Liliane Maury Pasquier

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO/Yevhen Marmazov

Vilmos SZABÓ

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ/David Darchiashvili

Mehmet TEKELIOGLU

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Zhivko TODOROV/Stanislav Ivanov

Dragan TODOROVIC/ Nataša Jovanovic

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE

Tugrul TÜRKES

Özlem TÜRKÖNE

Tomáš ÚLEHLA

Ilyas UMAKHANOV/Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov

Mustafa ÜNAL

Giuseppe VALENTINO/ Oreste Tofani

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS*

José VERA JARDIM

Stefaan VERCAMER/Cindy Franssen

Peter VERLIC/ Andreja Rihter

Luigi VITALI

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaasde VRIES

Dmitry VYATKIN

Piotr WACH

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND

Michal WOJTCZAK*

Karin S. WOLDSETH

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA*

Karl ZELLER*

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV/Oleg Lebedev

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Moldova*

Vacant Seat, Moldova/Valeriu Ghiletchi

Vacant Seat, Montenegro/Valentina Radulovic-Šcepanovic

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Joan TORRES PUIG

Joseph FALZON

Observers:

Sladan ĆOSIĆ

Jean DORION

Percy DOWNE

Alberto ESQUER GUTIÉRREZ

José GONZÁLEZ-MORFÍN

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

Michael L. MACDONALD

Massimo PACETTI