Print
See related documents
Committee Opinion | Doc. 11728 | 01 October 2008
Reconsideration of previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation on substantial grounds
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
A. Conclusions of the committee
(open)The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs considers that the proposal in the report by the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe concerning the credentials of the Russian delegation (Doc. 11726) complies with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council of Europe. However, it wishes to present two amendments in order to clarify the draft resolution.
(open)
1. Introduction
1. On 12 September 2008 Ms Kristiina
Ojuland and 23 others tabled a motion for a resolution contesting the
ratified credentials of the Russian delegation on substantial grounds,
in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure (Doc. 11703).
2. At the Bureau meeting on 29 September, the question arose
as to whether signatories could withdraw their signatures once the
motion had been tabled and published. The Bureau decided to consult
the Chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs about the possibility of withdrawing or adding
signatures to motions for resolutions tabled under Rule 9.1 of the
Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
3. At the opening of the part-session, the President of the Parliamentary
Assembly, bearing in mind the opinion provided by the Chair of the
Committee on Rules of Procedure Immunities and Institutional Affairs, decided
to follow the Assembly’s established practice, whereby a motion
for a resolution, once it has been declared admissible by the President
of the Assembly and published as an Assembly document, is no longer the
property of its signatories but of the Assembly and may no longer
be amended in any way. Consequently, no signature may be withdrawn
from the motion for a resolution, any more than any new signatures
may be added.
4. As the procedure in question is of major political importance
and needs to be conducted with rigour because of its implications,
it cannot be used as a mere means of exerting pressure for purely
tactical reasons. It would therefore be worth amending the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure to specify that it is impossible to withdraw
a signature from a motion that has already been tabled, or indeed
to withdraw the motion itself.
5. Following the President’s proposal, on 29 September 2008,
at the opening of the current part-session, at its 28th Sitting,
the Assembly decided to refer the matter to the Committee on the
Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the
Council of Europe for report and to the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs for opinion.
6. The Committee on Rules of Procedure Immunities and Institutional
Affairs must therefore consider in this opinion whether the proposal
put forward by the Monitoring Committee in its report complies with
the Rules of Procedure, in particular Rule 9, and with the Statute
of the Council of Europe.
2. Compliance of the motion calling for reconsideration of credentials with the Rules of Procedure
7. As the motion tabled in the
Assembly under Rule 9, calling for reconsideration of previously
ratified credentials of a delegation, sets a true precedent, it
is worth expressing an opinion on the compliance of the motion itself
with the Rules of Procedure.
2.1. On the formal admissibility of the motion
8. Rule 9.2 states: “A motion
for a resolution to annul ratification shall be tabled by at least
20 members, belonging to at least 2 political groups and 5 national
delegations …”. The motion is admissible, having been tabled by
24 members, belonging to 5 political groups and 15 national delegations.
9. The deadline provided for in Rule 9.2 (“A motion for a resolution
to annul ratification shall... be distributed at least two weeks
before the opening of a part-session...”) was also met, as the motion
was received and distributed on 12 September 2008.
2.2. On the grounds of the motion
10. The motion contesting the credentials
which is before the Assembly reads as follows:
“Seriously concerned about the conflict opposing two member states of the Council of Europe in the South Caucasus, we the undersigned, demand the Assembly to reconsider – on the basis of Rule 9.1.a of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly – the ratified credentials of the Russian delegation on the grounds of serious violations of the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in the Preamble to the Statute.”
11. Rule 9.1.a states that
“The Assembly may reconsider ratified credentials of a national
delegation as a whole … on a motion for a resolution to annul ratification
based on the grounds set out in Article 8.2 …”.
12. Article 8.2, meanwhile, stipulates that:
“The substantive grounds on which credentials may be challenged are:
a. serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of, and the Preamble to, the Statute; or
b. persistent failure to honour obligations and commitments and lack of co-operation in the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.”
13. In challenging the credentials of the Russian delegation,
the signatories of the motion for a resolution contend that the
Russian Federation is guilty of “serious violations of the basic
principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in the Preamble to
the Statute” related to the “conflict opposing two member states
of the Council of Europe in the South Caucasus”.
14. It is recalled that the version of Rule 9 which was in force
before January 2000 (Rule 6.9) stipulated that the motion for a
resolution tabled “must state the reasons and shall be based on
a serious violation of the basis principles of the Council of Europe
…”. The current wording of Rules 8 and 9 is somewhat different.
The Committee on Rules of Procedures, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs therefore recommends that when a motion is tabled according
to Rule 9.1, the authors should cite evidence for the serious violation
mentioned in Rule 8.2. Any motion to challenge a delegation’s credentials
on the basis of Rule 9 must be properly substantiated.
3. Examination of the proposal made by the Monitoring Committee
15. The Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs has examined the report adopted
by the Monitoring Committee, and examined the draft resolution contained
therein for compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly
and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
16. Article 9.4 of the rules states that:
“Reports submitted to the Assembly or the Standing Committee under paragraphs 2 and 3 shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative part:
– confirmation of the ratification of the credentials;
– annulment of the ratification of the credentials;
– confirmation of the ratification of the credentials together with depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.”
17. The Monitoring Committee proposes to confirm the ratification
of the credentials of the Russian parliamentary delegation in order
to ensure continuing dialogue with members of the Russian delegation
to help bring about a resolution to the ongoing conflict.
18. However, it notes that the Assembly can be seized again of
the matter at any moment in accordance with its rules. The Committee
on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs recommends
that this be made clearer by specifying that at any moment a new
motion under Rule 9.1 may be tabled. Furthermore, in January 2009,
the credentials of all national delegations to the Assembly will
need to be ratified and, if appropriate, credentials may be challenged
under Rules 7 and 8.
4. Amendments to the draft resolution presented by the Monitoring Committee
19. The Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs wishes to table two amendments
to the draft resolution, worded as follows:
Amendment A
In paragraph 2 of the draft resolution, leave out the words “has led to further infringements by Russia, as well as Georgia,” so paragraph 2 reads as follows:
“The Assembly considers that the recent war between Russia and Georgia, two member states of the Organisation, constitutes, in itself, a serious violation of the Statute of the Council of Europe and of their obligations and commitments as member states of the Council of Europe”.
Amendment B
In paragraph 4, after the words “in accordance with its rules”, add the following words: “and that a motion under Rule 9.1 may be tabled again”.
5. Final remarks
20. The Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs is of the opinion that the
draft resolution contained in the report submitted by the Monitoring
Committee (Doc. 11726) meets the requirements of Article 9 and is in accordance
with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly and the Statute of the
Council of Europe.
21. The Parliamentary Assembly has never before had occasion to
consider a motion tabled under Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure,
and this motion therefore sets a precedent. In the light of the
discussions both in the Assembly Bureau and in the Assembly itself
at its 28th Sitting, during which several members referred to the need
to clarify the rules, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities
and Institutional Affairs reasserts its competence to provide some
preliminary answers to such important questions.
Reporting committee: Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).
Committee seized for opinion: Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs.
Reference to committee: Doc. 11703 and Reference No. 3488 of 29 September 2008.
Opinion unanimously approved on 30 September 2008.