Print
See related documents
A. Draft resolution
(open)
Report | Doc. 13962 | 26 January 2016
Challenge on procedural grounds of the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
Summary
On 25 January 2016, at the opening of the Parliamentary Assembly session, the still unratified credentials of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova were challenged on the grounds that the incomplete composition of the delegation, as well as the absence of one of the main political parties in the delegation, did not allow fair representation of the political parties or groups represented in the Moldovan Parliament.
Bearing in mind the assurances provided by the Moldovan Parliament, the Committee on Rules of Procedure proposes to ratify the credentials of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation, but provide for the automatic suspension of the voting rights of its members in the Assembly and its bodies in accordance with Rule 10.1.c of the Rules of Procedure, with effect from the April 2016 part-session, if the composition of the delegation has not been brought into conformity with Rule 6.2.a of the Rules of Procedure by then and new credentials presented, since it is a matter of appointing three members to the vacant seats.
The procedure for verifying delegations’ credentials at the start of each annual session allows national parliaments to update their political representation, taking into account any party-political developments that may have occurred within those parliaments. Parliaments must therefore be diligent and make the necessary changes so that their delegation remains politically representative. This particularly applies to a parliament where majorities come and go in a context of significant governmental instability.
A. Draft resolution 
(open)1. On 25 January 2016, at the
opening of the Parliamentary Assembly session, the still unratified credentials
of the parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova were
challenged on procedural grounds, in accordance with Rule 7.1 of
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, namely on the grounds that the
incomplete composition of the delegation did not allow fair representation
of the political parties or groups represented in the Moldovan Parliament.
2. The Assembly examined the objection raised and established
that the composition of the Moldovan delegation did not comply with
the principles set out in Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure under
which national parliamentary delegations should be composed so as
to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups
in their parliaments, and that the challenge to its credentials
was valid. It notes that the delegation has indicated that the parliament
was unable to meet the condition laid down in the Rules of Procedure
within the deadline and it undertook to comply as soon as possible.
3. Consequently, the Assembly decides to ratify the Moldovan
parliamentary delegation's credentials but, in accordance with Rule
10.1.c of the Rules of Procedure,
it decides to suspend its members' right to vote in the Assembly
and the Assembly's bodies as from the beginning of the Assembly's
April part-session 2016 if, by that date, the delegation's composition
has not been brought into line with Rule 6.2.a of
the Rules of Procedure.
4. It invites the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and
Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring
Committee) and the co-rapporteurs concerned to ensure, within the
framework of dialogue with the Moldovan authorities, that the Moldovan
Parliament is properly informed of the requirements laid down in
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure and that it will take due account
of them in subsequent changes to the composition of its parliamentary
delegation, particularly when filling the three remaining vacant
seats on the delegation.
B. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Vareikis, rapporteur
(open)1. Introduction
1. At the opening sitting of the
Parliamentary Assembly's 2016 session, on 25 January 2016, Mr Xuclà (Spain,
ALDE), backed by at least 10 other members belonging to five national
delegations, challenged the still unratified credentials of the
parliamentary delegation of the Republic of Moldova on procedural
grounds in accordance with Rule 7.1.b of
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, namely on the grounds that, for
the second consecutive year, the Moldovan Parliament was presenting
an incomplete delegation that did not allow fair representation
of the political parties or groups represented in that Parliament.
The delegation comprised only seven members instead of ten, which
did not allow full representation of all the political tendencies
in the Moldovan Parliament, notably the Liberal party. 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. The committee must therefore examine whether the composition
of the Moldovan delegation and the procedure for appointing the
delegation itself:
- was consistent with the principles set out in Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe taken together with Rule 6 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure; and
- was consistent with principles laid down in Rule 6.2.a
3. Rule 7.1.b of the Assembly's
Rules of Procedure states that “Credentials may be challenged by
at least ten members of the Assembly present in the Chamber, belonging
to at least five national delegations, 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 …”.
4. Under Rule 7.2 of the Rules of Procedure, “if the Committee
concludes that the credentials should be ratified, it may submit
an opinion to the President of the Assembly, who shall read it out
in the plenary sitting of the Assembly or the Standing Committee,
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
within the prescribed deadlines”.
2. Conformity of the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation with Rule 6 of the Assembly's Rules of Procedure
5. 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 first part
of the 2016 ordinary session of the Assembly (Doc. 13953) mentions that the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation
is as follows:
Representatives
Mr Valeriu GHILETCHI (Liberal Democratic Party)
Mr Andrei NEGUTA (Socialist Party)
Ms Liliana PALIHOVICI (Liberal Democratic Party)
Mr Vladimir VORONIN (Communist Party)
ZZ...
Substitutes
Ms Valentina BULIGA (Democratic Party)
Mr Igor DODON (Socialist Party)
Ms Violeta IVANOV (Communist Party)
ZZ...
ZZ...
2.1. The applicable statutory provisions and rules
6. According to Article 25 of
the Statute of the Council of Europe, the members (representatives
and substitutes) of parliamentary delegations are “elected by its Parliament from among the members
thereof, or appointed from among the members of that Parliament,
in such manner as it shall decide”.
7. For its part, Rule 6.1. of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
stipulates that “the credentials of the representatives and substitutes,
elected within the national or federal parliament or appointed from
among the members of the national or federal parliament, shall be
sent to the President of the Assembly by the President (Speaker)
of the national parliament or the President (Speaker) of a national
parliamentary chamber or any person delegated by them. …”.
8. The present challenge to the credentials of the Moldovan parliamentary
delegation is based on the fact that its composition would not meet
the criterion of fair representation of political parties or groups
laid down in the Rules of Procedure. In this connection, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure will no doubt also refer to the “principles
to be used to assess the concept of fair representation of political
parties or groups in national delegations to the Parliamentary Assembly”,
established by the Assembly in 2011 .
.2.2. The Moldovan delegation's credentials sent on 21 January 2016
9. The Moldovan delegation's credentials
were sent to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly on 21 January
2016. There was no accompanying letter from the Speaker of the Moldovan
Parliament to explain the situation. However, the Assembly's Table
Office was told that nominations had not been received from certain
political parties and, since Parliament had no longer been in session
when they had been sent in to the Bureau of the Parliament, it had
not been possible to ratify them in time in plenary session.
10. The form transmitting the composition of the Moldovan delegation,
signed by the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Andrian Candu and dated
21 January 2016, shows that the representation of the political
groups in the Moldovan Parliament (which comprises 101 seats) was
configured as follows:
- Socialist party of the Republic of Moldova faction, comprising 24 deputies (belonging to the opposition);
- Democratic party of Moldova faction, comprising 19 deputies (belonging to the majority);
- Liberal Democratic party of Moldova faction, comprising 11 deputies (belonging to the opposition, the Moldovan Parliament's internet site mentions representation of 19 deputies);
- Liberal party faction, comprising 13 deputies (belonging to the majority);
- Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova faction, comprising 7 deputies (belonging to the opposition);
as well as 27 non-affiliated deputies (the internet site indicates 19 non-affiliated deputies).
11. It should be borne in mind
that these five parliamentary factions were formed following the
parliamentary elections of 30 November 2014 and that, since then,
Moldova's political and parliamentary landscape has evolved remarkably.
The information posted on the Moldovan Parliament's official internet
site indicates that the representativity of one of the five factions
has changed somewhat and they therefore seem outdated.
12. While it is not within the committee's remit, in the framework
of the present report, to make a detailed analysis of the complex
political context currently prevailing in Moldova, which may appear
somewhat muddled, it would nevertheless seem that the information
provided by its Parliament when transmitting the delegation's credentials
is not fully up to date, owing to recent political upheavals when
the government under Pavel Filip was set up.
13. In the 2014 elections, the Alliance for European integration
formed by the Liberal Democratic party of Moldova (PLDM, 23 seats),
the Democratic party (PD, 19 seats) and the Liberal party (LP, 13
seats) won 55 seats out of 101, with the opposition comprising two
factions: the Socialist party (25 seats) and the Party of Communists
of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM, 21 seats). However, the dividing
lines between majority and opposition have continually shifted,
firstly with the withdrawal of the Liberal party from the government
coalition and then the alliance of the Liberal party and the Democratic
party. In December 2015, 14 deputies of the PCRM, including Ms Violeta
Ivanov, left that party and became non-affiliated members of parliament,
lending their support to the new liberal government of Pavel Filip.
In January 2016, 7 members of the Liberal Democratic party broke
away from their party.
14. It was a somewhat diverse coalition of 57 deputies that gave
its vote of confidence to the Filip government on 21 January this
year; among others, it comprises 19 democrats, 13 liberals, 14 ex-communists, 7
ex-liberal democrats and one liberal democrat (Mr Ghiletchi).
15. So the composition of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation
is odd to say the least, as three of the four representatives' seats
filled are occupied by members of the opposition … and no members
of the liberal party in power feature at all!
16. The information passed on by the chair of the parliamentary
delegation reveals that two of the three vacant seats are allocated
to the Liberal party, which was slow to put forward the names of
its candidates. The Bureau of the Parliament would have confirmed
them but, as Parliament is not in session until 1 February 2016, it
is technically impossible to validate these nominations in plenary
session straight away.
17. Finally, it should be noted that, last year, two substitutes'
seats, already allocated to the Liberal party, remained vacant within
the delegation and were left unfilled during the 2015 session, without
this prompting in the Assembly a challenge to the credentials submitted
at the April 2015 part-session to complete the delegation following
the parliamentary elections of November 2014.
3. Precedents in the Parliamentary Assembly concerning challenges to credentials based on Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure and the rulings of the committee
18. There are few precedents where
the Assembly has been asked to take a position on a challenge to credentials
on the ground of a lack of fair political representation of political
parties or groups, and to which the committee can refer here, in
the present context:
- In January 2012, the still unratified credentials of the Ukrainian parliamentary delegation were challenged. The list of members of the Ukrainian delegation contained erroneous information in that three members were listed as members of the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc, when in fact they actually sat in the parliament under other political labels. Taking the view that the composition of the delegation did not violate the principle of the fair representation of political parties or groups, the committee concluded that the credentials should be ratified.
- In January 2010, the committee was asked to take a position on the challenge to the still unratified credentials of the Armenian parliamentary delegation, relating to the alleged under-representation of opposition parties or groups. The challenge claimed that the Armenian parliament had “manipulated its internal rules in order to exclude a member of the EPP group”. The committee concluded that the credentials should be ratified, insofar as the list of delegation members ensured a fair representation of the political groups in the Armenian National Assembly and included a representative and substitute belonging to the opposition.
- In 1998 and 1999, the Rules Committee considered the composition of the special guest delegation from Armenia, as the main opposition party, accounting for 50 out of a total of 149 members of the Armenian parliament, had not been granted any of the delegation’s four seats.
19. In the examination of previous challenges to credentials,
it was pointed out that the Assembly must avoid any interference
in the internal political affairs of a member state. The Assembly
must, in principle, simply ensure that the main political currents
present in a parliament are represented and, in particular, that
the delegation includes opposition parties. It is this position
that is reflected in the above-mentioned Assembly decisions and
which has been enshrined among the principles to be used to assess
whether political parties or groups in national parliaments are
fairly represented in the Parliamentary Assembly delegations, as
laid down in Resolution
1798 (2011).
It is this position
that is reflected in the above-mentioned Assembly decisions and
which has been enshrined among the principles to be used to assess
whether political parties or groups in national parliaments are
fairly represented in the Parliamentary Assembly delegations, as
laid down in Resolution
1798 (2011).20. As to the objection to the effect that the Moldovan delegation
is incomplete, it is not for the Committee on Rules of Procedure
to analyse the political or party-political reasons for this state
of affairs, which is an internal matter for the Moldovan Parliament,
if there is nothing to indicate that a breach of the regulatory procedure
occurred when appointing the delegation. It is precisely because
the formalities were observed that three seats remain vacant.
4. Assessment and conclusions
21. In the absence of reliable
data regarding the exact number of parliamentarians who currently
belong to the majority and opposition factions, it is difficult
for the Committee on Rules of Procedure to ascertain to what extent
the requirements laid down in the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure
on fair political representation have been observed. Given the complex
nature of the political situation in Moldova, there is no evidence
that the principles enshrined in Rule 6.2 of the Assembly’s Rules
of Procedure have not been observed by the Moldovan Parliament.
22. For the political labels assigned to members of the Moldovan
parliamentary delegation are, despite appearances, no guarantee
of their actual and, above all, long-term allegiance to the majority
or the opposition. It seems that the majority currently holds 1
representative’s seat out of the 4 seats filled, and 2 substitutes’ seats
out of the 3 filled. The Moldovan Parliament has not, therefore,
failed to comply with the requirements laid down in Rule 6.2 of
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure insofar as 3 seats remain vacant,
including notably for the benefit of the Liberal Party which is
not represented. The composition of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation
will, however, need to be completed as soon as possible, in keeping
with the principle of fair representation set out in Rule 6.2.
23. As it stated when considering a similar challenge to credentials,
it is not for the Committee on Rules of Procedure to become involved
in party politics when verifying the credentials of delegations.
This is why it is not the committee’s role to take a position on
the merits of the decision by the ruling Liberal Party not to submit in
time its candidatures for the seats allocated to it. Although it
affects the balance of political representation in the delegation,
in this case for the benefit of the opposition, such decision was
a political choice on the part of the Liberal Party and no doubt
deliberate.
24. At its meeting on 26 January 2016, the Committee on Rules
of Procedure heard the observations made by Ms Palihovici, Chairperson
of the Moldovan delegation and member of the Committee on Rules
of Procedure
25. Accordingly, having considered
the objections raised, and in accordance with Rule 10.1 of the Rules
of Procedure, the Committee on Rules of Procedure
concluded that the credentials of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation
have been validly challenged and that it is not in a position to
confirm that these credentials are in compliance with Article 25
of the Statute of the Council of Europe and Rule 6 of the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, insofar as the delegation is incomplete and
one of the main parties is not represented.
the Committee on Rules of Procedure
concluded that the credentials of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation
have been validly challenged and that it is not in a position to
confirm that these credentials are in compliance with Article 25
of the Statute of the Council of Europe and Rule 6 of the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, insofar as the delegation is incomplete and
one of the main parties is not represented.26. In view of the prevailing political situation in Moldova,
and bearing in mind the assurances provided by the Moldovan Parliament,
the committee proposes that the Assembly ratify the credentials
of the Moldovan parliamentary delegation, but provide for the automatic
suspension of the voting rights of its members in the Assembly and
its bodies in accordance with Rule 10.1.c of
the Rules of Procedure, with effect from the April 2016 part-session,
if the composition of the delegation has not been brought into conformity
with Rule 6.2.a of the Rules
of Procedure by then and new credentials presented, since it is
a matter of appointing three members to the vacant seats.
27. Moreover, according to several members of the committee, the
fact that a majority political party failed to submit in time the
names of the candidates for the seats allocated to it in the Moldovan
delegation should not be deemed to constitute a violation of the
principle of fair representation of political groups in the Moldovan Parliament.
28. It is for the committee to
remind the Moldovan Parliament that, like all Council of Europe
member state parliaments, it has an obligation to promote political
pluralism in the Assembly delegations, ensuring balanced political
representation of its constituent parties or groups. The procedure
for verifying delegations’ credentials at the start of each annual
session allows national parliaments to update their political representation,
taking into account any party-political developments that may have
occurred within those parliaments. Parliaments must therefore be
diligent and make the necessary changes so that their delegation
remains politically representative. This particularly applies to
parliaments where majorities come and go in a context of significant governmental
instability.
29. The committee considers that it is in the interest of Council
of Europe member state parliaments to fill, as soon as possible,
all the representatives’ and substitutes’ seats allocated to them
under Article 25 of the Statute. This is especially important for
countries which are under a monitoring procedure, so as to ensure
that the political spectrum of national political representation,
including notably the opposition parties, are fully represented
in the parliamentary delegations concerned. The political parties
represented in the Moldovan Parliament must therefore ensure that
internal politicking does not interfere with the proper functioning
of the Assembly.
30. The committee therefore considers that this matter could be
monitored by the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee, as part of the
regular dialogue that it conducts with the Moldovan authorities.