Print
See related documents
Report | Doc. 12044 | 29 September 2009
Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
Summary
On 28 September 2009, at the opening of the part-session, the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova were challenged on procedural grounds (Rule 7 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure), on the grounds that its composition did not comply with the principles set out in Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure to the effect that national parliamentary delegations must be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their parliaments.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, these credentials were referred to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs. The Committee proposes that the Assembly should ratify the credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Moldova.
A. Draft resolution
(open)1. On 28 September 2009, at the opening of the part-session,
the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation
of Moldova were challenged on procedural grounds (Rule 7 of the
Assembly’s Rules of Procedure), on the grounds that its composition
did not comply with the principles set out in Rule 6.2 of the Rules
of Procedure to the effect that national parliamentary delegations
must be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political
parties or groups in their parliaments.
2. The Parliamentary Assembly has examined the objection made
and found that the appointment of the Moldovan delegation to the
Parliamentary Assembly was effected in compliance with Rule 6 of
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
3. The Assembly decides therefore to ratify the credentials of
the parliamentary delegation of Moldova.
4. It invites the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee), under its dialogue with the Moldovan authorities, to
ensure that the Moldovan Parliament is properly informed of the
requirements set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary
Assembly and that it will take due account of them in the subsequent
changes made to the composition of its delegation to the Parliamentary
Assembly.
5. Furthermore, it invites the Monitoring Committee to ask its
co-rapporteurs for Moldova to ask the relevant Moldovan parliamentary
authorities, as a matter of urgency, to specify their intentions
in regard to the four vacant seats for substitutes on the Moldovan
delegation.
B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr John Greenway, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. At the Assembly’s opening sitting on 28 September
2009, Mr Kox (The Netherlands, UEL) challenged the still unratified
credentials of the delegation of Moldova to the Parliamentary Assembly
on procedural grounds (Rule 7.1.b.
of the Rules of Procedure). In accordance with Rule 7.2, the Assembly
referred the credentials to the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs for report.
2. This draft report will consider whether the procedure for
appointing the Moldovan delegation respected the provisions set
out in Rule 7.1.b, of the
Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
2. Conformity of the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation with Rule 7 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
3. Rule 7.1.b. of the Assembly Rules of Procedure states
that “Credentials may be challenged by any member of the Assembly
present in the Chamber on stated procedural grounds based upon (...)
the principles in Rule 6.2, that national parliamentary delegations
should be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the
political parties or groups in their parliaments and should include
in any case one representative of each sex”.
4. In accordance with Articles 25 and 26 of the Statute of the
Council of Europe, the Moldovan parliamentary delegation comprises
five representatives and five substitutes. The report by the President
of the Assembly on the examination of credentials of Representatives
and Substitutes for the fourth part of the 2009 Ordinary Session
of the Assembly (Doc. 12027) mentions that following the parliamentary
elections in April and July 2009, the composition of the Moldovan
parliamentary delegation is as follows:
Representatives
- Mrs Ana GUŢU (Liberal Party of Moldova)
- Mr Vitalie NAGACEVSCHI (Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova)
- Mr Vladimir ŢURCAN (Communist Party of the Republic of Moldova)
- Mr Veaceslav UNTILĂ (Alliance “Moldova Nostra”)
- Mr Vladimir VORONIN (Communist Party of the Republic of Moldova)
Substitute
- Mrs Stela JANTUAN (Democratic Party of Moldova)
5. Clearly, the challenge to the credentials of the
Moldovan delegation is based not on a misreading of the provision
on equal representation of the sexes – since the current delegation
comprises four men and two women i.e. at least one representative
of each sex, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6.2.a, second sentence,
of the Rules of Procedure – but on an alleged imbalance in its political
representation.
6. In his letter of 25 September 2009 to the President of the
Assembly transmitting the composition of the new delegation, the
President of the Moldovan Parliament, Mr Mihai Ghimpu, specified
that the delegation was appointed on the basis of a political agreement, after lengthy consultations
with all the parliamentary groups, and that the four vacancies in the delegation will be
filled at a later date in agreement with the political groups in
parliament.
7. The Chair of the Committee on Rules of Procedure was sent
a letter by three members of the outgoing Moldovan parliamentary
delegation, namely Ms Postoico, Mr Petrenco and Mr Turcan (the latter
remaining in the new delegation). They opined in particular that
the decision taken by the Moldovan Parliament to appoint a delegation
which was incomplete, since four substitute seats had not been filled,
and provisional, in order to enable Moldovan parliamentarians to
attend the present part-session, was contrary to Rule 6 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly and Article 6 (1) of
the Statutes of the Moldovan Parliament. The latter provides that
parliamentary delegations must be formed from the parliamentary
groups on the basis of proportional representation.
8. At its meeting on 29 September 2009, the Committee on Rules
of Procedure had an exchange of views with the Chairperson of the
Moldovan delegation, Mrs Gutu, who expressed the view that the new
Moldovan delegation was in order. In reply to questions, she indicated
that the credentials of a complete delegation will be presented
in time for the opening of the 2010 Assembly session.
9. The Committee does not intend, in this report, to go back
over the current situation of political transition in Moldova, for
which it would explicitly refer the reader to the reports presented
during the present part-session on the subject 
.
We might just recall that the Communist Party of Moldova, now in
the opposition, holds 48 seats in Parliament out of the total of
101, while the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (LDPM), the Liberal Party
(LP), the Democratic Party (DP) and the Alliance “Moldova Nostra”
(AMN) managed to secure altogether 53 seats (distributed as follows:
LDPM: 18 seats, LP: 15 seats, DP: 13 seats, AMN: 7 seats).
.
We might just recall that the Communist Party of Moldova, now in
the opposition, holds 48 seats in Parliament out of the total of
101, while the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (LDPM), the Liberal Party
(LP), the Democratic Party (DP) and the Alliance “Moldova Nostra”
(AMN) managed to secure altogether 53 seats (distributed as follows:
LDPM: 18 seats, LP: 15 seats, DP: 13 seats, AMN: 7 seats).10. There are very few precedents for the Assembly pronouncing
on similar cases, to which the Committee might refer here .
. 11. For instance, in 1998 and 1999, the Committee on Rules of
Procedure pronounced on the composition of the Armenian special
guest delegation, where the main opposition party in Parliament,
holding 50 seats out of a total of 149, had not been given any of
the four seats on the delegation.
The Committee concluded that “a delegation
which omitted from its ranks a representative of the main opposition
faction could not be considered to reflect the various currents
of opinion of that parliament”. It recommended that
the Assembly ratify the credentials of the special delegation of
Armenia “subject to one seat of the delegation
remaining vacant for a representative of the [opposition]”.
The Committee concluded that “a delegation
which omitted from its ranks a representative of the main opposition
faction could not be considered to reflect the various currents
of opinion of that parliament”. It recommended that
the Assembly ratify the credentials of the special delegation of
Armenia “subject to one seat of the delegation
remaining vacant for a representative of the [opposition]”.12. There is nothing to suggest that the principles guaranteed
by Rule 7.1 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure have not been respected
by the Moldovan Parliament. By granting the Communist Party two representatives’
seats out of the five to be filled, the Moldovan Parliament has
complied with the requirements of Rule 6.2 of the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure.
13. The Committee recalls its longstanding position according
to which “the rigorous representation of all political forces can
never be ensured in member parliaments, which have a limited number
of seats in the Assembly […] and possess more political groups than
there are seats to be filled” . It is for this reason that
Rule 6.2.a. stipulates that national delegations should be composed
so as to ensure a fair representation of political parties “insofar
as the number of their members allows”.
. It is for this reason that
Rule 6.2.a. stipulates that national delegations should be composed
so as to ensure a fair representation of political parties “insofar
as the number of their members allows”.14. As regards the objection that the composition of the Moldovan
delegation is incomplete, the Committee has to point out that there
is no rule requiring the credentials of a complete delegation to
be remitted. Indeed, the Statute of the Council of Europe stipulates,
in Article 25 c, that “Each Representative
may have a Substitute”. Furthermore, it is by no means
an exceptional situation, and the Assembly has ratified the credentials
of incomplete delegations on several occasions .
It is not for the Committee on Rules of Procedure to analyse the
reasons for this situation, which is an internal matter for the
Moldovan parliament. The Committee emphatically stresses, however,
that any future change in the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary
delegation must comply fully with the principle set out in Rule
6.2.a of the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure.
.
It is not for the Committee on Rules of Procedure to analyse the
reasons for this situation, which is an internal matter for the
Moldovan parliament. The Committee emphatically stresses, however,
that any future change in the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary
delegation must comply fully with the principle set out in Rule
6.2.a of the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure.15. Whilst noting that occasionally some national parliaments
do not fill all their seats of representatives and substitutes in
the delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee expresses
its concern that the parliaments of the Council of Europe member
states should, whenever possible, take up all seats of representatives
and substitutes available to them according to Article 25 of the
Statute. This is particularly important for countries under monitoring
and would also ensure that there would be full representation from opposition
parties on the respective delegations.
16. The Committee would also be concerned if any delegation did
not take its whole quota of seats on the Assembly for budgetary
reasons. The Committee recalls that it will continue to monitor
the attendance of national delegations at Assembly sessions and
committee meetings and analyse the reasons of poor attendance, in
the framework of the follow-up to Resolution 1583 (2008).
3. Conclusions
17. Having examined the objections raised in this case,
the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs considers that the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary
delegation complies with Rule 6 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
The list of members of the Moldovan delegation ensures a fair representation
of the political groups in the Moldovan parliament. The Committee
proposes that the Assembly ratify the credentials of the parliamentary
delegation of Moldova.
18. However, given the provisional nature of the Moldovan parliamentary
delegation, and since new credentials will in any case be presented
at the opening of the Assembly’s 2010 session, it is important that
the Moldovan Parliament takes full account of the requirements set
out in the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure in the future, in order
to guarantee balanced political representation within its delegation.
19. The Committee therefore considers that this matter might be
dealt with by the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee as part of the
dialogue which it maintains with the Moldovan authorities. The Committee
proposes that the Monitoring Committee make an urgent request to
the Moldovan Parliament concerning its intentions to fill the four
vacant seats of substitutes on the delegation.
* * *
Reporting committee: Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
Reference to committee: Decision of the Assembly on 28 September 2009, Rule 7.2
Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 29 September 2009
Members of the committee: Mr John Greenway (Chair), Mr Rudi Vis (1st Vice-Chair), Mr Lintner (2nd Vice-Chair), Mr Agius, Mrs Bemelmans-Videc, Mrs Benaki, Mr Cebeci, Mr Chope, Mrs Err, Mr Gross, Mr Haibach, Mr Höfer, Mr Holovaty, Mr Huseynov, Mr Islami, Mr Kumcuoğlu, Mrs Lilliehöök, Mrs Mendonça, Mrs Pernaska, Mr Rowen, Mr Rustamyan, Mr Saar, Mr Schram, Mr Van Overmeire and Mr Vareikis.
N.B.: The names of the members who took part in the meeting are printed in bold
Secretariat of the committee: Mr Heinrich, Mrs Clamer