Print
See related documents
Committee Opinion | Doc. 13488 | 09 April 2014
Reconsideration on substantive grounds of the previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation
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. 13483) complies with the Assembly's Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Franken, rapporteur for opinion
(open)1. Introduction
1. On 21 March 2014, Mr Walter and 73 other Assembly
members tabled a motion for a resolution challenging the ratified
credentials of the Russian delegation on substantial grounds, in
accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure (Doc. 13457). On 24 March, a second motion for a resolution, on
the suspension of the voting rights of the Russian delegation (Rule
9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly) (Doc. 13459 corr.), was tabled by Mr Jensen and 52 other Assembly members.
2. At its meeting on 7 April 2014, the Bureau decided to refer
these two motions to the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations
and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe for report
and, in accordance with Rule 9.2 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure,
to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs for opinion. This decision was ratified by the Assembly
the same day.
3. The Committee on Rules of Procedure will therefore consider,
in this opinion, whether the proposal contained in the Monitoring
Committee’s report complies with the Rules of Procedure, particularly
Rule 9, and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
4. The Assembly has not been asked to reconsider the credentials
of a delegation on substantial grounds, on the basis of Rule 9,
since October 2009. In the challenges of credentials made in the
course of 2008 and 2009, 
the Committee on Rules of Procedure
was obliged to clarify certain procedural points, relating in particular
to the conditions for implementing the procedure for reconsideration
of a delegation's previously ratified credentials and to the admissibility
of amendments. The committee’s deliberations led to the introduction,
in 2010, of a number of changes to the Rules of Procedure, in particular
to strengthen the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure.
the Committee on Rules of Procedure
was obliged to clarify certain procedural points, relating in particular
to the conditions for implementing the procedure for reconsideration
of a delegation's previously ratified credentials and to the admissibility
of amendments. The committee’s deliberations led to the introduction,
in 2010, of a number of changes to the Rules of Procedure, in particular
to strengthen the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. 2. Compliance of the request for reconsideration of the credentials of the Russian delegation with the Rules of Procedure
5. The committee points out that a motion calling for
reconsideration of a delegation's credentials must comply with certain
formal conditions in order to be admissible.
6. Rule 9.2 provides that “A motion for a resolution to annul
ratification shall be tabled by at least fifty representatives or
substitutes, belonging to at least two political groups and five
national delegations, and be distributed at least two weeks before
the opening of a part-session …”. These criteria are met.
7. In addition, Rule 9.1.a provides
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 Rule 8.2 …”.
8. Rule 8.2 provides that:
“The substantive grounds on which credentials may be challenged are:
serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3
persistent failure to honour obligations and commitments and lack of co-operation in the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.”
9. When examining the previous requests in 2008 and 2009, the
committee had been particularly concerned that any procedure for
reconsideration of credentials should be based on a duly substantiated request
“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”.
10. It therefore welcomes the fact that the present motions challenging
credentials – one alleging a “serious violation of the basic principles
of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of the Statute of
the Council of Europe” (Doc.
13457) and the other alleging a violation by the Russian military
of “the territorial integrity of Ukraine” and a “direct violation
of international law, including ... the Statute of the Council of
Europe, as well as Russia’s accession commitments” (Doc. 13459 corr.) – contain a detailed statement of the grounds on which they
are based. It should be noted that the procedure laid down in Rule
9 was introduced in parallel with the consolidation of the procedure
for monitoring the honouring of obligations and commitments of member
states, as a response to the Assembly’s wish to be able to “challenge
ratified credentials when urgent action is deemed necessary”.
3. Examination of the proposal made by the Monitoring Committee
11. Rule 9.4 of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows:
“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.”
12. The proposal by the Monitoring Committee in paragraph 14 of
the draft resolution is “to confirm the ratification of the credentials
of the Russian delegation whilst suspending its voting rights until
the end of the 2014 session”, in order to mark the Parliamentary
Assembly's condemnation and disapproval of the Russian Federation's
actions with regard to Ukraine.
13. The Committee on Rules of Procedure also notes that the Monitoring
Committee's report includes a detailed presentation and analysis
of the facts and circumstances leading the rapporteur and the Monitoring Committee
to support the proposal to confirm ratification of the Russian delegation
credentials, together with depriving its members of their voting
rights. The Monitoring Committee considers that the actions of the Russian
Federation “remain in clear contradiction with the Statute of the
Council of Europe, in particular its Preamble, and the obligations
resulting from Article 3, as well as with the commitments undertaken
by the Russian Federation upon accession”, and that they are such
as to substantiate and justify the requested sanction.
3.1. Precedents
14. It will be recalled that, to date, the Assembly has
decided on only one occasion to suspend the voting rights of the
members of a delegation, whose credentials had been challenged on
substantive grounds. The Russian delegation was sanctioned in this
way in April 2000, in connection with the conflict in Chechnya;
it recovered all its participation and representation rights in
January 2001 (Resolution
1241 (2001)).
15. It is also interesting to note, looking back a little further
into the past, that the Assembly, faced with the situation in Greece
following the 1967 military coup d’état and the installation of
the “colonels’ regime”, took the decision “not to recognise the
credentials of any Greek delegate purporting to represent the Greek
Parliament until such time as the Assembly is satisfied that freedom
of expression is restored and a free and representative parliament
is elected in Greece” (Recommendation
547 (1969), January 1969). This decision was taken a few months
before Greece’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe (December
1969 – November 1974).
16. Similarly, bearing in mind the situation in Turkey following
the 1980 coup d’état, the Assembly decided in May 1981 not to “envisage
the prolongation of the term of office of the Turkish delegation”
(Order 398), and then, in September 1983, that the elected parliament
“will not be able to be considered as representing the Turkish people
in a democratic manner, and could not therefore validly constitute
a delegation to participate in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly”
(Resolution 803).
17. These two decisions are doubtless atypical but illustrate
the Assembly’s ability to react to the violation by a member State
of its obligations under the Statute and to sanction the parliamentary
delegation of the member State in question, even where the latter
breaks off all links in practice and withdraws from the Assembly
(as was the case with Greece).
3.2. Points for further clarification
18. At its meeting on 9 April 2014, the committee noted
that questions relating to the understanding and interpretation
of the rules on challenging or reconsidering a delegation’s credentials
had been raised, in particular the admissibility of amendments to
a draft resolution which proposes to deprive members of the delegation
concerned of their right to vote. More specifically, the question
has been raised whether an amendment allowing members deprived of
their voting rights to take part in the election of the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe during the Assembly’s June 2014 part-session
is in order. The Committee on Rules of Procedure was informed that
the President of the Assembly decided to rule out any such amendment, considering
that the right to vote of members of the Assembly is indivisible
and that depriving members of a delegation of their right to vote
applies to all votes in the Assembly and its bodies.
4. Conclusion
19. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs considers that the draft resolution contained
in the report submitted by the Monitoring Committee (Doc. 13483) meets the requirements of Rule 9 and complies with
the Assembly's Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council
of Europe.
20. Finally, the Committee on Rules of Procedure points out that
the credentials of the Russian parliamentary delegation shall be
submitted to the Assembly for ratification, together with all delegations
of the Assembly, at the opening of the next ordinary session in
January 2015 and, if necessary, could be challenged in application
of Rules 7 and 8.