AA17CR20

AS (2017) CR 20

2017 ORDINARY SESSION

________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twentieth sitting

Monday 26 June 2017 at 3 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk

3.        The text of the amendments is available at the document centre and on the Assembly’s website.

      Only oral amendments or oral sub-amendments are reproduced in the report of debates.

4.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

5.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the report.

(Mr Gutiérrez, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.10 p.m.)

      The PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Address by Mr Pavel Filip, Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova

      The PRESIDENT – The first item of business this afternoon is an address by Mr Pavel Filip, Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova. After his address, Mr Filip will take questions from the floor.

      Prime Minister, welcome to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is an honour to receive you. We want you to know that your visit to Strasbourg is very important for us. First, the Parliamentary Assembly is and remains the largest pan-European platform for political dialogue, and it is important for the Heads of State and Government of our member States to use it to share their vision of European affairs. Therefore, we are most interested to hear your views on the various challenges the Republic of Moldova – as well as the wider region – is facing. Secondly, the Republic of Moldova is one of our solid co-operation partners. During your country’s 22 years of membership, the Council of Europe has been actively co-operating in crucial reforms in your country, including major institutional and constitutional transformations, the reform of the judiciary and of the prosecutor’s office, the freedom of the media and freedom of assembly, as well as the protection of minority rights, to give only a few examples.

      During our bilateral meeting earlier today, we discussed the state of co-operation in a number of these areas – in particular, electoral reform and the reform of the judiciary, as well as the fight against corruption. We stressed the need to ensure the broadest possible consensus about these reforms, as well as their strict compliance with Council of Europe standards. Council of Europe expert bodies, especially the Venice Commission, are providing valuable support. The recently adopted new action plan covering the period 2017 to 2020 provides a strategic framework for developing this co-operation further, and I would like to assure you that our Assembly supports it.

      Prime Minister, you have the floor.

      Mr FILIP (Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova)* – It is a great honour for me to speak before the prestigious Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I make this speech at a time that is full of challenges, both for my country and for the European continent as a whole. A number of norms and rules that were applied in the past are no longer applicable today and a new world order is being shaped. In addition, there are new, very sophisticated instruments that governments and citizens have to deal with. The nature of this period – a period full of challenges – has been very well captured in the annual reports of the Secretary General and the Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe, with a special focus on the rise of populism.

      That annual report is an in-depth assessment of the democratic deficiencies of Europe, which require immediate response. It is certain that that response does not depend on the reaction just of one party but requires an integrated approach. If there is one lesson that we have learned over the years, it is that treaties, including more than 200 treaties of the Council of Europe, and national laws are the catalysts for transformation and the continuation of the European construction. In this context, a special role is played by parliamentary diplomacy and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

      In the case of my country, the profound impact of democratic transformations is confirmed by our adherence to the values and principles of the Council of Europe. We are connected by a shared history – 22 years of co-operation and 25 years of independence for my country. Those 22 years of co-operation have seen many radical transformations, including the reform and adjustment of the normative framework, the constitutional framework, changes in institutions and changes in mentality. Moreover, the Council of Europe contributes to the realisation of the big dream of my country, which is integration with Europe.

      After accession to the Council of Europe, our country took on a number of commitments, which we are constantly delivering on. Since our government took office in January 2016, we have gone through a very difficult period with many challenges, and this period required a lot of courage, dedication and hard work. We have mobilised our resources to achieve specific results. It was not easy, but we managed to relaunch the reform of the country with a strategic aim, which was formulated in the government programme 2016-18. Also, we have set about implementing the provisions of the association agreement between the Republic of Moldova and the European Union.

      At the same time, the presidential elections of 2016 have created a new political context. I have communicated to our President that, if I were to choose between co-operation and co-existence, I would prefer co-operation. It is clear that on many issues, particularly on many foreign policy issues, we will have different opinions and we will be in different camps, but we have to work together on the other projects.

      In our activity, we focus on strengthening the functional capacities of the institutions of the State, in order to regain public trust in national institutions by making the government more transparent and opening up a constructive dialogue between the government and society. In this context, we have taken into consideration the recommendations of PACE and of the monitoring committees of the Council of Europe. For instance, the PACE recommendations have been enshrined in the action plan of the parliament regarding the honouring by the Republic of Moldova of its commitments to the Council of Europe.

      There has also been support for the implementation of the justice sector reform strategy for 2011-16. This strategy has been extended by one more year and it aims to ensure sustainable development in the entirety of the judiciary. Together with the parliament, we managed to promote the law on reorganising the judiciary. We have introduced severe penalties for defrauding European funds, we have created a national integrity authority and we have established two specialised prosecutorial services. One prosecutorial office deals with the fight against corruption and the other deals with the fight against organised crime.

      The new legislation and the new measures allowed the prosecution office to become more efficient. I will give an example by citing some statistics for the past two years. Of the 1,100 prosecutors and judges that we have in the country, 36 have been prosecuted and convicted for acts of corruption, thanks to the know-how and expertise of the Council of Europe. From 1 August 2016, we have enacted the new law on reforming the prosecution service.

      We have to speak about the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, but we also need to look at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Considering the relevant statistics and the case law of the ECHR, the government has undertaken, with the support of the World Bank, to build a new penitentiary institution, because respect for human rights is a priority for us and we would like to address the deficiencies that exist as soon as possible.

      In accordance with the recommendation of the Group of States against Corruption, we have adopted and are currently implementing a law on the financing of political parties and election campaigns. In the context of the current round of assessments, which provides for the prevention of corruption among MPs, judges and prosecutors, a code of ethics for MPs is being developed. Shortly, a joint project of the Council of Europe and the European Union will be launched, which aims to prevent money laundering and assist the fight against corruption.

      Following the recommendations of the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, the Republic of Moldova has put in place an efficient mechanism for policy co-ordination, which provides for good practice at both national and international level. The mechanism operates through the national committee for combating trafficking in human beings, under the leadership of the ministry of foreign affairs and with the support of the permanent secretariat. We benefit from the support of the whole anti-trafficking community, which includes national and international experts, the diplomatic community and civil society.

      Having considered the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, we have adopted a strategy for consolidating inter-ethnic relations, covering 2017 to 2027. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities’ recommendations on decentralisation are set out in the road map that was signed in July 2016. With the support of the Council of Europe, we have developed a new law on local public finance that is being implemented nationally. Because there has been a delay, the implementation period for the decentralisation strategy has been extended to 2018.

      In accordance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, we have set up a working group to deal with the special status and autonomy of the Gagauz. The group brings together members of the Moldovan Parliament and the People’s Assembly of Gagauzia, and it has made more than 21 recommendations to the public authorities. The recommendations concern the changes to the legislation on the country’s administrative and territorial organisation, and they also deal with the separation of powers and competencies. The group has prepared four Bills. Around a year ago, we organised a special government session in Gagauzia, focusing on the social and economic development of the region in the context of its autonomy.

      At the national level, in December 2016 we approved the government decision and action plan on the social and economic development of Gagauzia between 2016 and 2019. Among the actions already taken are the development and implementation of a programme for the simultaneous learning of the Romanian and Gagauz languages in 10 kindergartens, and the initiation and development of the technical infrastructure in the industrial park in Comrat. Several Bills on the special ethno-cultural status of Taraclia have been prepared. We consulted the Venice Commission, which gave its opinion in December 2016 and recommended the consideration of Taraclia’s concerns.

      For the period 2016-18, the government have proceeded with their efforts to increase the efficiency of public administration so as to provide the highest-quality services to our citizens. That commitment is reflected in our public administration reform strategy for 2016-20. We have also embarked on a broad process of government restructuring, aiming to streamline the number of ministries and agencies. It will be the most profound and ambitious reform of central public administration ever initiated in the Republic of Moldova, but it will also be the most complicated reform and require huge capacity. We have implemented the reform process not only to increase the efficiency and functionality of public administration, but to deliver better public services. We are intent on launching a comprehensive programme of local public administration reform. We have taken action to reduce the amount of red tape and the number of permits and authorisations – since the start of 2016, we have reduced the number of permits from 412 to 115.

      We have also taken action to improve the legal framework to diversify financial instruments for small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have introduced a flat 7% tax for IT park residents. We are making efforts to implement our national strategy for the development of the information society, Digital Moldova 2020. We have support from the Council of Europe to help Internet companies. We believe that the Internet, alongside co-operation with all actors, including in the private sector, will provide new opportunities for organisations and member States. The IT sector in the Republic of Moldova is recording rapid growth, and the country is among the top 10 for fast Internet speeds. Unfortunately, the Republic of Moldova is one of the countries that is most vulnerable to cyber-attacks, particularly on the electoral and economic systems. The provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and the Lanzarote Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse are extremely relevant, so we would like to develop a mechanism for the prevention of online abuse. We are interested in the Council of Europe’s good practice in the field.

      We are happy to say that the reforms we have launched are reflected in the Council of Europe’s action plan for the Republic of Moldova 2017-20, which was officially launched in Chișinău on 30 May 2017. We thank you, Mr Secretary General, for your continued support and for your presence in Chișinău. The previous action plan for 2013-16 brought about several tangible results at national level. For example, we adopted a package of laws on the judiciary, the status of judges and their selection and evaluation, and we strengthened lawyers’ capacities and developed the monitoring capacity of the broadcasting co-ordinating council. We have received Council of Europe support on electoral matters, as well as to reform the ombudsman institution and the anti-discrimination council. We worked with the Council of Europe on a confidence-building project for people on the two sides of the Dniester river. I am sure that, together with the Council of Europe, we will achieve good results on such fundamental issues.

      It is essential for the Republic of Moldova to have the joint mechanism known as the programmatic co-operation framework. After two years of implementation, the framework has proven its usefulness and efficiency in the implementation of regional and bilateral projects. It is a true model of co-ordination. When the Council of Europe and the European Union co-ordinate, it avoids duplication.

      The European Convention on Human Rights plays a special role. The maturity of our Convention system should be supported by shared responsibilities and the principle of subsidiarity. The Republic of Moldova will continue to support the reform process and the four interlocking Interlaken, Izmir, Brighton and Brussels Declarations, including any action needed to strengthen democratic security. In that context, we will continue to support the European Court of Human Rights secondment programme for lawyers. In 2017, our country will mark the 20th anniversary of our accession to the Convention.

      The role of the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights has never been more complex or more difficult. The future depends not only on the activity and visibility of the Council of Europe but on the responsibility of each member State to guarantee the protection of human rights at national level. Here we are speaking not just about the adoption of laws that will comply with European and international standards, but about seriously implementing and enforcing those laws. In that context, I remind the Assembly about the ECHR judgement Catan and others v. Moldova and the Russian Federation concerning schools in Transnistria. The rights of children should be excluded from a political context, and children should not become collateral victims of the process of settlement. A pragmatic approach, and channelling our efforts towards the educational dimension of the problem, will help us to achieve good results. The focus should be on the expertise of the Council of Europe, on the dialogue between parties, and on small-steps policies.

      It would not be an exaggeration to say that, over the past two decades, our continent has faced a number of turbulences and challenges, as it continues to do. The system of international law is continuously being challenged, and significantly so. Europe has experienced profound geopolitical changes. Regrettably, those changes have been accompanied by conflicts that remain unresolved and act as factors of regional instability. The contribution of the Council of Europe, through its political attention, its mechanisms of monitoring and expertise, and its confidence-building measures, is more than necessary in managing those conflicts. There is no perfect or universal model for the settlement and resolution of conflicts, but we are firmly convinced that conflicts in Georgia, Azerbaijan and the Republic of Moldova, and the profound crisis in the eastern part of Ukraine, should be settled with respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of those countries. I should also highlight the need to learn lessons and take responsibility for future actions.

      The security and prosperity of the Republic of Moldova are further undermined by the unresolved Transnistrian conflict, which impedes economic development and divides our society. The conflict stops development and places the Republic of Moldova unfairly in a grey area of history. The key parameters for settling the conflict are well known – all the international actors know what they are. They are respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the recognition of the international boundaries of the Republic of Moldova and giving the Transnistrian region a special status as part of the integrated State. Recently, a joint position of the Moldovan authorities was presented on the prospects for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict between the two sides of the Dniester river.

      The only way to settle the conflict is dialogue. We are convinced that it is possible to make progress if the needs of the people are placed at the top of the agenda, higher than ideology, and if all the partners have a shared agenda. There are no realistic impediments to solving the Transnistrian conflict, but it will not be easy or fast. We need to identify functional mechanisms in all areas, so that the Transnistrian region has a comfortable level of self-administration. Our State will then be fully functional, integrated and efficient. The solution will have to be supported by the people, and we will need a period of transition. We very much hope that, ultimately, we will build a reintegrated State that works for the welfare of all its citizens. I express my belief that the confidence-building measures project creates a favourable environment for identifying specific solutions to address concrete problems.

      We highly appreciate the support of the Council of Europe and other international partners, and the existing negotiation platforms should be used to achieve tangible results and real progress. The Council of Europe has become a catalyst for democratic changes in the Republic of Moldova. I am speaking not just about standards, but about implementation. We are fully aware that our European prospects are directly proportionate to how well we deliver on our commitments. We understand how important it is that the Republic of Moldova delivers on its commitments before the Council of Europe – that will have a great impact on our European prospects and a key impact in ending the monitoring procedure by PACE. It is a priority in the government programme and our action plan from 2016 to 2018 to put an end to the monitoring process. I believe we are ready to end it, and that we have the capacity and ambition to achieve that.

      We count further on the support of PACE in the implementation of reforms that will be needed in the post-monitoring dialogue. I assure you that the time has come for the Republic of Moldova to move to the post-monitoring stage. The Republic of Moldova has the potential to achieve that. Our citizens should be assured that they have a place in the European space of democratic values. We are expecting the next visit of the PACE co-rapporteurs for the Republic of Moldova. I am convinced that they will see first hand the progress achieved by our country in delivering on our commitments. That idea has been confirmed in PACE Resolution 1955 of October 2013.

      The Republic of Moldova is a young democracy that is going through transformations and a process of consolidation. Our transformations are largely due to the expertise and support of the Council of Europe. Those results represent a clear mandate for us to continue with a process of integration and adaptation to European values, which are the bedrock for ensuring sustainable development and modernisation of the country. We will continue to promote a clear vision for Moldovan citizens in respect of our European prospects. We adhere to European values. It is important to continue those activities for the benefit of our citizens and our society, and to ensure the irreversibility of European standards. As I have said many times, the Republic of Moldova does not have a plan B. It has only one political ideal: European integration. We are convinced that the realisation of that ideal will bring better living standards for every Moldovan citizen.

      As I said, we are experiencing global transformations, crises and challenges. Solutions can be found as long as there is firm commitment and responsibility. The best option is to act together in an environment in which we share the same values. History has proved to us that Europe is capable of overcoming its difficulties when it is based on co-operation, human rights and the rule of law. Despite the uncertainties and fears, the European path and project continues to inspire and mobilise. That is our country’s project. The capacity of Europe to adapt to changes without giving up principles offers a guarantee of a better future in an ever-changing world. My country, the Republic of Moldova, and its citizens, need a strong European family.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Filip, for your most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have questions to put to you. I remind them that questions must be limited to 30 seconds and no more. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches. The first question is from Mr Vareikis.

Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania, Spokesperson for the Group of the European People’s Party) – Thank you, Prime Minister, for highlighting the role of your country’s monitoring procedure. On behalf of the monitors, I have a question concerning the possible changes to your electoral code. Can you list the democratic benefits that the new election law will give the people of your country?

Mr FILIP* – Sure. Thank you for your question which is, in fact, a question that has been at the centre of attention lately. There are many discussions about changes to the electoral law. Last week, we had meetings in Brussels to discuss the issue. I draw your attention to the fact that the draft is the result of the demands of the people. The opinion polls show that the majority of the people – more than 60% – would like to see a change in the electoral system. They want that change because they want the political elites to change. We need to keep that in mind. The draft law to change the electoral system comes in response to people’s desires and demands. There was discussion and broad consultation, with both civil society and the political class.

I draw your attention to the fact that it was we who requested the opinion of the Venice Commission, to get recommendations on improving the draft. I would like to confront and stop the speculation – which I have heard – that we will push through the law. Let me tell you this from the very beginning: we requested the opinion of the Venice Commission for the good reason that we want to consider any recommendations for improvement of the draft law. In our opinion, the draft law should secure all the democratic rights of the voters. The law should not allow for any abuse of the election process.

The issue has been highly politicised. I understand that we need to build a broad consensus, but broad consensus is a relative term because, unfortunately, our country has been polarised from the very beginning. Some of our citizens look towards the East and others towards the West, so it is difficult to achieve a broad consensus. You cannot have an absolute consensus, and we need to keep that in mind because the Republic of Moldova has been polarised for a long time. We have not been able to achieve consensus on some very important issues, even when the Republic of Moldova had to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union.

To conclude, we intend to put the draft law up for further debate and consultation. We will take on board all the proposals and recommendations of the Venice Commission so that we ultimately end up with a good quality law.

Ms MIKKO (Estonia, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – the Republic of Moldova of has been the first among neighbouring Eastern countries to receive visa liberalisation with European Union countries. Moldovan workers can freely go abroad, and come back without complications. The question from the Socialist Group is about separated families. What measures has your government recently taken to bring Moldovans home, not so much the labour force but, more importantly, mothers and fathers of divided families?

Mr FILIP* – Thank you for that question. Offering a liberalised visa regime and providing Moldovan citizens the possibility of travelling freely means a lot. Freedom of movement is a fundamental freedom, which our citizens have now gained. The visa-free regime is just one of the incentives the European Union is providing to the Republic of Moldova. Besides that regime, we are getting support from the European Union for the renovation of hundreds of kindergartens and nursery schools. I can speak about hundreds of kilometres of road and highway that have been rebuilt with European money. I can speak about the strong support we have received for the development and implementation of much-needed reforms. At the same time, I want to point out that, since the Republic of Moldova was granted the visa-free regime, more than 1 million people have benefited from it. Although more than 2.7 million citizens have travelled outside the country using biometric passports, only 0.5% of them have violated their stay regime in the European Union, with very few of them being returned. That is testimony to the fact that it is a good regime and to the fact that Moldovan citizens are very disciplined.

On the government’s efforts to encourage people who are abroad to come back, it is not a simple issue; the solution is very complex. I assure you that we are fully aware of what should be done. There are many populist declarations inside the country, with many populists calling people back, but they will come back only when they get decent salaries and good quality public services. They will be encouraged to come back when they see good hospitals and good infrastructure. They want good services – good schools and good kindergartens for their children. It is not, therefore, a simple issue. We are not resorting to populist declarations. I mentioned that we have a comprehensive reform agenda, and that agenda aims to solve this issue as well. For instance, it includes reform of the judiciary and of the business environment, and all the reforms are being done to make the Republic of Moldova more attractive, offering people good salaries. We also need to make public and social investment, and that needs financial capacity. But how do you build financial capacity? The government does not have its own money; it has to borrow money. The government collects money through taxes, fees and investments. Investments are extremely important to us.

      I spoke about reducing the number of permits, and I could talk a lot about regulatory reform. We have reduced the number of inspection authorities from 39 to 13. All such reforms are designed to make the Republic of Moldova more attractive to investors. We believe that the solution is to make the Republic of Moldova more attractive to our citizens who were forced to go abroad, so we have introduced many economic initiatives for Moldovans who would like to come back and invest in business. For example, in our co-financing schemes, every leu invested is matched by the same amount of co-funding. Those are our most important initiatives.

      Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – Prime Minister, more than a year ago you said that you had a last chance to regain trust. How much trust have you regained among the people of the Republic of Moldova, particularly when it comes to sorting out the dispute between the pro-European and the pro-Russian groups?

      Mr FILIP* – That is a short question, which requires a complex answer. It is true that early last year when we took office, we were in a critical situation. Early 2016 was a difficult time. In 2015, we had a political crisis, which gradually became an economic crisis. The situation was deplorable, and the political elite lost credibility in the eyes of their citizens and our development partners. We had a daunting task ahead of us. We had to stabilise the economy, because we had to pay salaries and pensions. In order to unlock external finance, we had to take action to regain trust with our external partners, who suspended their funding in 2015.

      I have heard criticism: some said that the government was like a punch bag, and others that it did not enjoy any trust. Our critics say that 70% of the people do not trust the government. It is true that we face many problems, but we need to look at the other side of things. A pollster that has been quite critical of our government conducted opinion polls in April 2016 and again in April 2017. Truth be told, in April 2016 only 7% of people trusted the government. However, in April 2017, the percentage of people who trust the government had risen to 21%, and the proportion of people who trust the police had increased from 24% to 41%. The percentage of people who have confidence in the judiciary increased from 7.8% to 24%. The proportion of people who trust the prosecution office even increased, from 12% to 34%.

      Why am I giving you these numbers? In April 2016, when asked whether they would prefer to be members of the European Union or the Eurasian Union, the majority of respondents – 46% – favoured the Eurasian Union and only 35% the European Union. That was because people were disenchanted with the political elite, so the popularity of the European Union fell. By April 2017, however, the proportion of people who favoured the European Union had increased to 40%, while the popularity of the Eurasian Union had fallen from 46% to 40%. That gives me hope that we are on the right track. The cabinet and I have a simple goal: by the end of our term in office, our European path should be irreversible. No matter who comes to power after this government, there should be no turning back.

      Ms RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ* (Spain, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – the Republic of Moldova has unfortunately become known for some cases of corruption in banking, such as the Laundromat case. Not only have those responsible not been imprisoned, but they continue in their previous roles. What is your government doing about corruption?

      We are also worried about your proposed electoral law, which appears to be designed to remove rights from other entities in your parliament. How can citizens trust your country’s institutions if you send out such an authoritarian message?

      Mr FILIP* – Your question is in two parts. The theft of $1 billion, in which three Moldovan banks were defrauded, created the economic crisis in 2015. You also mentioned Laundromat, a different case, in which, unfortunately, more than $23 billion was laundered through the Republic of Moldova. That money originated in the Russian Federation, so we should make a clear distinction between the two cases. We focused our efforts on the bank fraud case immediately after we took office, because it was a sensitive and much-debated issue in our society.

      I draw your attention to the steps that we have taken. Not all the powers rest with the government, but because this was a sensitive issue, we set three priorities. First, we have taken action to ensure that such fraud will never happen again, and that was the key issue in our discussions with the International Monetary Fund. We enacted a package of laws to strengthen the powers of our national bank, and I can confirm that it is no longer possible to commit such fraud in the Republic of Moldova. Secondly, we have taken action to recover the money that was stolen from the banks. We signed a contract with an international investigation company, which published its draft report about a month ago. The company has already identified $600 million that left the Republic of Moldova and never returned, and it has told us where the money went, so we are now in a position to recover it while the investigation continues. The third step is to investigate and prosecute all who participated in the bank fraud, and some have already been convicted. The bank fraud has given rise to a lot of populism. Certain political forces have grown as a result of speculation on the fraud. You know that such frauds cannot be solved easily or quickly. Therefore, we will persevere, and once the recovery strategy is in place, we will act swiftly to make sure the money returns to the country.

      Recently, by the way, a key player in the fraud has been convicted. There are different voices. Even the president of the country has initiated a referendum on the bank fraud, because the president is not happy that this money should be recovered from taxes. We believe this is a populist move. It was necessary to take that action in order to have a programme with the International Monetary Fund; it was necessary to put that money under the public debt. At the same time, as the government has undertaken to do that, we have to deliver on it. I give an assurance that ultimately all those responsible will be prosecuted and will be convicted in court

      Mr HUNKO (Germany, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left)* – I want to raise the case of Grigore Petrenco and his group. He was a member of this Parliamentary Assembly, a well-known rapporteur and now an honorary member. For the past two years, he has been subjected to a law suit in the Republic of Moldova as a result of peaceful protests against the oligarchisation of the country. The judgment is due tomorrow and he is due to be sentenced to four years in prison. A number of members have visited him and our feeling is that he is being treated as a political prisoner. What are your views on this; would you like to be a prime minister who has political prisoners?

      Mr FILIP* – First, he is not a political detainee. In the Republic of Moldova we do not have that term, whether for the Petrenco case or anyone else’s; we do not have any political prisoners in the country. I have to admit that I do not know all the details on this case or the other pending cases before the court. I know there are some high-profile cases being discussed, even here at the Council of Europe, but they are very few in number compared with the 220 000 pending cases before the Moldovan courts.

      We are fighting corruption in the Republic of Moldova, and when we started our fight, we were accused of not having high-profile cases and of not prosecuting high-ranking officials. Now, with the support of the Council of Europe, we have designed and implemented a strategy for justice sector reform, and over the last year and a half, dozens of prosecutors, judges, magistrates, prime ministers, ministers, deputy ministers, presidents of regional councils and heads of agencies have been detained, prosecuted and convicted. Now, after having done that, we are being accused of selective justice. We are confused: on the one hand Europe tells us we should fight corruption and this is a condition for the release of funding; but on the other hand, for example, even before Mr Shor – one of the key players in defrauding the banks – was convicted I have heard some voices in the European Parliament saying maybe he is a political detainee. We are confused because of that. There were other high-profile cases, including the case of a former prime minister who has been convicted but then after the court decision was made public all those questions have disappeared.

      There is one principle here: the principle of not interfering with the judicial powers. We are sticking to that principle: the government is not interfering with the judiciary. We are waiting to see what the courts are going to decide. Of course, after that, if appropriate and necessary, we will use the instruments available to us. Those instruments include proposing legislative changes to make sure that the Republic of Moldova is a country with independent and impartial courts.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – the Republic of Moldova has a lot of positive capital in this Assembly, and also some doubt, a lot of it to do with the problem of corruption, but I have to say that the fact that you have come to meet our Assembly has helped dispel some of the doubts, and I thank you. Some of the things you have said are a good omen for the future of the Republic of Moldova. What are the last obstacles in terms of your reforms, as far as you can tell? Also, we need to address the issue of the media, because there is so much money – and possibly even the Russian Federation – controlling the media. What do you intend to do about that?

      Mr CORLĂŢEAN (Romania) – Thank you, Mr Filip, for the report you have distributed today. I read in Romanian and English about your government’s achievements in promoting democratic reforms and the rule of law and combatting corruption, and also the implementation of your country’s European commitments. These are positive developments. On the rule of law, how does your government intend to promote concrete means to guarantee the implementation of the decisions of the Moldovan constitutional court, for example on the official state language of the country having been recognised in December 2013 as the Romanian language according to historical truth? Is the current President of the Republic not obliged to respect this decision, which is legally binding on everyone?

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – The newly adopted Council of Europe action plan for the Republic of Moldova should address pending issues of concern, such as fighting corruption, increasing transparency of party funding and improving the independence of the judiciary. In your opinion, which decisive actions should be undertaken as a matter of priority to depoliticise state institutions?

      Mr FILIP* – Thank you for your questions. I have already talked about what we are doing to combat corruption. I am fully aware that in order to achieve good results – good economic development and welfare for our citizens – it is necessary not just to provide tax incentives and make our country attractive to business people and investors, but also to make sure there is no corruption. Corruption can be at the top or at the very bottom, so it comes in different shapes and forms. We know that there are still problems and that there is room for improvement in fighting corruption. At the same time, we have achieved good results which make me hopeful about the future. We have implemented a strategy for justice reform. We have adopted a strategy for reforming the prosecution service. Under the reform, we saw high-profile cases, with high-ranking officials prosecuted for corruption.

      This year, budget revenues have been 30% higher, with the same GDP – the same trade. That is a positive result. We achieved higher revenues because we managed to put in place a good strategy, which has partially been implemented. Of course we are just at the beginning of the road; we need genuine reform of the judiciary and the prosecuting office. That is not a simple process but one thing is sure: we are moving in the right direction.

      I know that there have been discussions in Europe about the fact that some media institutions are being repressed. We cannot say that there is no media freedom in the Republic of Moldova; we have TV channels where the opposition are quite critical of the government. I did not respond or react to those criticisms. What would you do if one TV channel were to criticise you and your family harshly, using words that I cannot even pronounce in this Chamber? Would you take the media to court? Yes. I did not take the media to court; I did not file any lawsuits. I did not want to be accused of putting pressure on them. However, there have been complaints that TV channels have been shut down, but once those channels received funding, they reopened. It is very nice to portray yourself as a victim until you receive financing. I assure colleagues that we have freedom of the media in the Republic of Moldova, and we will do our utmost to maintain it. We have set up a group in the Moldovan Parliament which works on improving our audiovisual law. We would like to thank the Council of Europe for its support of that exercise.

      With respect to the ruling of the constitutional court about the Romanian language. Mr Corlăţean, I respect this decision; I have spoken Romanian all my life, and I continue to speak it in my family. Since I took office as Prime Minister, Romanian has been the official language on our website. However, we do not discuss the rulings of the constitutional court; we enforce and implement them. I assure you that this government implements the rulings of the constitutional court. At the same time, important values such as language and national identity have unfortunately been used by politicians to divide our society. I have always called on Moldovan politicians to focus on things which unite our society and help our country develop.

      As for depoliticising institutions, the latest and best example is the reform of the government that we have embarked on. We will no longer have the distribution of functions in the government based on political affiliation, but by the end of July this reform will be fully launched. Only ministers will be political appointees; otherwise we will have State secretaries who will ensure continuity and keep the institutional memory. The position will not depend on parliamentary elections. We did the same when we adopted the law on the prosecution office; before doing so we wanted to make the prosecution office independent from politics.

      There is one more problem regarding the media in the Republic of Moldova: the influence of propaganda. We have prepared a draft law to combat propaganda. I hope that we will solve this problem soon because propaganda is further dividing our society. Please understand me: we will have serious discussions about that and we will request the expertise and know-how of the Council of Europe. We are not speaking about closing down any TV channels but about replacing their news bulletins. We should not be importing news bulletins from other countries but should produce them locally.

      The PRESIDENT – Mr Filip, I thank you most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for your statement and your answers this afternoon. The Republic of Moldova is one of our solid partners. In your statement you describe a number of areas of success and mutual co-operation. This has been an opportunity to discuss concrete initiatives in support of ongoing reform relating to the implementation of the commitments and obligations of a member State. Prime Minister, I wish you, your government and the people of the Republic of Moldova every success.

2. Questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

      The PRESIDENT – The next item on the agenda is questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland.

      I remind the Assembly that questions must be limited to 30 seconds. Colleagues should be asking questions and not making speeches. The first question is from Ms Strik.

      Ms STRIK (Netherlands, Spokesperson for the Socialist Group) – I draw your attention to the alarming and aggravating human rights situation in Turkey. The recent tension and accusations against Amnesty chair Kiliç, without any evidence, demand firm denunciation. The same goes for the aggressive police response to gay pride in Istanbul yesterday. These are not incidents, but symptomatic of the ever worsening situation in Turkey; people are in a precarious situation and have become outlawed. About 90 000 people have been imprisoned since the coup and more than 110 000 have been dismissed. Our group urges more visible and vigorous condemnation of Turkish policy by the Council of Europe. What will be undertaken to substantially improve fundamental rights, guarantee a fair process and ensure the effectiveness of the state of emergency inquiry commission?

      MR JAGLAND – Thank you for your question, which gives me the opportunity to expand on everything that we are doing. I am also very concerned about the situation in Turkey, but do not think that making condemnations every day will help. What can help is applying all the instruments we have in the Council of Europe. It is increasingly important to understand what we have done, as I have explained before. It is important for all those who have been affected by the attempted coup. First of all, the more than 100,000 who have been dismissed from the public sector have had no possibility of judicial review. They were mentioned in a decree, so they were guilty per se. That was our first concern. We said to the Turkish authorities that it was unacceptable, and we got them to establish a commission that will review all those dismissals. If that had not happened, as I said, those people would have had no judicial avenue at all.

      Somebody else asked why those people could not go directly to the European Court of Human Rights. The only result would have been the Court saying to the Turkish authorities that they must establish a judicial review. That comes from the Convention itself: domestic remedies must be exhausted before a case can be dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg. Therefore, it was incredibly important for us to be able to establish a domestic remedy for all those dismissed in order to save time. Now the commission can start to work.

As for those who have been arrested – concerns have been raised about journalists and parliamentarians in particular – many of them have already applied to the European Court of Human Rights, but they must also go first through the domestic courts. Journalists have complained that they have been held in pre-trial detention for too long, so they have come to the European Court of Human Rights, which has already started to communicate about their cases, saying that they are a priority. So there is also a judicial safeguard for all those arrested after the attempted coup.

We have also, of course, deployed all the other instruments that we have in our hands to deal with the situation. I think that there is full agreement in Europe that these are now the most forceful tools that we have for safeguarding the rights of people living in Turkey who have been affected after the attempted coup and getting justice, but we have to follow the procedures in the Convention itself, as well as the principles of the rule of law. I assure you that we are following them very carefully.

Upon the arrest of Amnesty International’s representative in Turkey, I immediately called the minister of justice to urge him to look into this and remind him that I recently established a special mechanism to protect human rights defenders, on whom we always keep a close eye. I have also requested a call with the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr Yıldırım, about the situation of the people on hunger strike. Those two people are among the many dismissed from the public sector whom I have spoken about. I will urge him to release those two people and press for the commission to deal urgently with their applications, so that justice can be done soon.

Lady ECCLES (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for the European Conservatives Group) – The Russian Federation announced through media channels that it refuses to pay the full amount of its contribution to the Council of Europe budget. The figure mentioned in the press is about €11 million, which was calculated to be the Russian Federation’s share of the work of the Parliamentary Assembly. On behalf of the European Conservatives, may I ask whether you have received the full amount due by the Russian Federation? If not, what actions do you plan to take, and could this eventually lead to the Russian Federation’s expulsion from the Council of Europe?

Mr JAGLAND – Thank you for that question. I have not had any notification about this from the Russian authorities. I have seen comments in the press from the State Duma and the Federation Council, but I have not heard anything from the Russian authorities. As a matter of fact, the Russian Federation has paid its first share of its contribution to the Council of Europe as usual, and the full share is due by the end of this month. I have no other information about it.

Ms LUNDGREN (Sweden, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – President Erdoğan has been very vocal in calling for the reintroduction of the death penalty, which was abolished in 2004, and has mentioned a referendum on its reintroduction. The European Union’s position is a very clear red line. Does the Secretary-General view a reintroduction of the death penalty in Turkey as a clear red line for membership of the Council of Europe?

Mr JAGLAND – This is already stated in the Convention, so although what the European Union says is important, it is the Convention that is most important. The Convention includes certain articles that can never be derogated, even in a state of emergency, including Article 2 on the right to life, Article 3 on ill-treatment and torture in prisons, Article 4 on forced labour and Article 7 on punishment without law. These articles are absolute and cannot be derogated under any circumstances. For me, it goes without saying that the death penalty, torture and forced labour have no place in the Council of Europe area. Countries that want to have the death penalty cannot be members here. For me, that is absolutely clear.

I add that issues affecting people’s lives and minority rights should not be put to a referendum. It is for the majority to defend such rights, not to decide about them in a referendum. This is my clear personal opinion, and I have a clear backing for it in the Convention itself.

      Mr KÜRKÇÜ (Turkey, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – In Turkey, two young academics, Nuriye Gülmen and Semih Özakça, both of whom were dismissed under emergency rule decrees, are close to death in prison after spending some 100 days on hunger strike to reclaim their jobs. What undertakings have you sought from the Turkish authorities to save the lives of those young academics? How will you respond to the ongoing inactiveness of the so-called emergency case commission, about which we heard questions in the previous question session?

      Mr JAGLAND – I have already answered this question. I have requested a call with Prime Minister Yıldırım to talk about those two people, because their cases concern us. They are in very ill health, and I will convey to him that they should be released. They were put in jail because they started a hunger strike against the authorities as no judicial review was open to them. After that, they were charged with being members of a terrorist organisation.

      What is important now is that justice starts to work in Turkey. As I have said, we have in place a mechanism for those who were dismissed from the public sector, and that commission must start to work. If those who are affected are not satisfied with the outcome of the commission, they have a judicial avenue, which may end up in the Court of Human Rights here in Strasbourg. The Court’s last decision states clearly that it will review whether the commission works according to the standards. If it does not, the Court will of course start to hand down judgments.

      It is important that we all understand the procedures. The Court cannot take in applications without judicial review having taken place at the domestic level. The Convention itself states that one has to exhaust domestic remedies before coming to the Court. That is the mechanism we have in place. If we did not, we would have lost a lot of time, because in the first case that the Court had to deal with, it would have ruled, “Please establish this domestic remedy,” and the Committee of Ministers would have started collectively to implement that judgment. That would have taken a long, long time. We have that mechanism in place so that we do not lose time. It is important to get everyone to understand and support that mechanism, because it is now the only tool in Europe to safeguard the rights of the people affected by the attempted coup. I will say to the prime minister that it has to start working immediately.

      With regard to those who are now on hunger strike, one has to do whatever one can to see to it that no lives are lost, and therefore, of course, the only solution is to release them. That is the first step.

      Ms BLONDIN (France)* – Will you indicate where we stand with the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, which seems to have been completely blocked since the judgment of the European Court of Justice in December 2014? The Court and the Council of Europe have made a number of proposals to overcome the obstacles, but there seems to have been no response to those. What are the prospects?

      Sir Roger GALE (United Kingdom) – The Committee of Ministers, which the Secretary General attends, has given overwhelming, if not unanimous, support to the establishment of a committee of inquiry into corruption in the Parliamentary Assembly. Will the Secretary General please use his good offices to ensure that all member States represented in the Committee of Ministers co-operate fully with that inquiry?

      Ms KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR (Turkey) – Has the Council of Europe made any undertaking or communication regarding the jailed HDP deputies and co-chairs in the last three months? What is your opinion about the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reports that have been prevented from being published by the objection of related governments? Please take more urgent action for the two teachers from Turkey before they die in prison.

      Mr JAGLAND – I agree that European Union accession can be said, in a way, to be stalled. On the other hand, there have been indications that things are moving a little on the European Union side. However, I have no reason to say that accession will happen soon, although the European Union recently acceded to other important conventions, which is a good development. I assure you, Ms Blondin, that that issue will continue to be at the top of our agenda.

      With regard to the inquiry mechanism that the Parliamentary Assembly recently adopted, I assure you, Sir Roger, that I will do everything I can to get all member States to co-operate with the investigatory body. It is incredibly important that that investigation happens. That is why the Committee of Ministers gave its full support to the establishment of that body and asked member States to co-operate with it. There is considerable concern in the Committee of Ministers about the situation in the Assembly, for several reasons. That of course comes from the fact that the high contracting parties have given the Assembly certain prerogatives. The high contracting parties that sit in the Committee of Ministers are watching this issue very carefully, and therefore the support of the Committee of Ministers was very important. I will do everything I can to have a proper investigation.

      When it comes to the arrested deputies in Turkey, I have already referred to the fact that the Court has many applications from journalists and parliamentarians. The Court has started to communicate about the journalists’ cases. Of course, I cannot speak for the Court with regard to the parliamentarians, but it goes without saying that parliamentarians and journalists are priority groups for the Council of Europe. We are of the opinion that the CPT report should be made public, but as it says in the convention on which the CPT bases its work, it is up to the State party to decide on publication. I am always in favour of full transparency with regard to CPT reports, but it is also important that the CPT is able to have a confidential exchange of views with the State party in question before the report is made public. However, it is important that the report is published after that exchange of views is held.

      Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – What is the current status of the European Union’s ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you think that the European Union will eventually ratify it?

      Mr Rafael HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) – Mr Secretary General, your latest report on the state of democracy, human rights and the rule of law referred to the increase in the level of intolerance, discrimination and hatred towards various groups, including the rise of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment. Muslims living in Council of Europe member States are increasingly stigmatised and held responsible for attacks committed by terrorists. The upsurge of Islamophobia and the growing number of manifestations of anti-Muslim hatred, as attested in the Secretary General’s report, demand a more resolute and systematic approach by the Council of Europe. What measures is the Secretary General taking to keep the issue of combating intolerance and discrimination – in general, and in its various manifestations – high on the agenda of the Organisation?

      Mr ÇAĞLAR (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community)* – As you know, Mr Secretary General, Cyprus was established in 1960 and the country has had significant problems for the past 50 years. 28 June is an important day because there will be a meeting about Cyprus in Crans-Montana. The parties – the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots – are represented at the Council of Europe, and the Council of Europe is the only place where both communities are represented. As that meeting will be very important, will the Council of Europe make an announcement to motivate and encourage those involved in the talks? Are you considering making such an announcement, which would be welcomed by the communities on the island?

      Mr JAGLAND – I have already touched on Ms Christoffersen’s question about whether the European Union will ratify its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. There is an agreement between the European Commission and the 47 State parties to the Convention, and that agreement is now being dealt with on the European Union side. As has been said, the opinion of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has created some problems, but the reality is that the Lisbon Treaty states that the European Union will accede to the Convention. I therefore believe that that will happen, but I am not so clear about when it will be. As I have said, I hear that there has been some movement or some new thinking on the European Union side, and I hope that that will materialise.

      I agree with Mr Rafael Huseynov that we must do as much as we can to reduce tensions, particularly with regard to Muslims. We are doing everything we can to stop hate speech through the campaign against hate speech. Education, in which the Council of Europe traditionally plays an significant role, is also very important. We are now drawing up manuals for schools in Europe on how they can deal with this problem and help young people understand what it means to live in a European democracy, with instruction about religion, how to live together and the basic values of the European family. What we can do in the field of education is very important, and we have a good record to build on there.

      If I can help the parties in Cyprus to embark on an agreement for reunification of the island by making an announcement, I will of course happily do so. At the same time, however, I am always very cautious about intervening in a resolution-making process to which we are not a party, because that may do more harm than good. I assure you, Mr Çağlar, that the Council of Europe is in favour of finding a resolution to this problem. We urge the parties to reach a solution, and if we can help them in any way, we will gladly do so. The negotiations are in good hands, but we understand that some political problems still have to be sorted out.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands) – I want to follow up on the questions asked by our Turkish colleagues: when we will get the CPT report on the visit to Turkish prisons last summer? I want to ask a second question: 3 673 judges have been dismissed in Turkey, most of them by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, but the Council of Europe spends money on the Strengthening Judicial Ethics in Turkey programme – together with the European Union, it gives the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors in Turkey a subsidy every year to strengthen judicial ethics – so are there any minimum standards, or can it continue to dismiss judges while getting money from this Organisation?

      The PRESIDENT – The next questioner, Mr Villumsen, is not here, so I call Mr Troy.

      Mr TROY (Ireland) – In relation to the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the Louise O’Keeffe v. Ireland case in 2014, what recourse do member States have if they are not happy with how the government of the relevant member State has interpreted such a judgment? Is there anything to which another party or person in that member State can have recourse to ensure that the interpretation of such a judgment is not overly restrictive?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Mr Secretary General, based on your recent visit to the Republic of Moldova – I regret that I missed you, but I was on a fact-finding visit to “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” – will you underline one good thing you discovered and one worrying thing that you observed there?

      Mr JAGLAND – I have already answered the question about the CPT report on Turkey. I hope that the report will be made public soon. On the general situation of the judiciary in Turkey, it is of course of great concern that so many judges and prosecutors have been replaced. However, I still believe that we must continue to work with the Turkish authorities on reforms to the judiciary, as well as many other areas. Such a programme is not at all a waste of money. To say so is for Europe to give up, and I do not think we should give up. There are many things that we have done and can do in Turkey, and together with the European Union, we need to work with Turkey. I hope that the European Union also sees it that way.

      With regard to implementation of judgments, I would say in general, and this also applies in the particular case involving Ireland, that the Committee of Ministers has collective responsibility for implementing judgments from the Court and there is always a dialogue between the State party in question and the whole Committee of Ministers, in order to come to a good conclusion. That is the only tool we have to proceed with a judgment of the Court.

      With regard to the Republic of Moldova, I was asked to name one good thing. Actually, there are many good things about the Republic of Moldova. I can mention one in particular, namely that, after the disappearance of $1 billion from Moldovan banks, I have seen that many people have been arrested; the Republic of Moldova has started to go after those who were responsible. I cannot say whether that action goes far enough, but the issue was taken very seriously. Reforms to the judiciary have been implemented, but today the Moldovan Prime Minister said to me that that process must continue. There was a plan for reform of the judiciary that was supposed to end by 2017, but now the implementation of these reforms has been extended by one year. That is also a good thing.

      One concern I have is that in the Republic of Moldova it is very difficult to come to an agreement between the different political parties on the fundamental issues. For instance, I have said again and again – I will try to reiterate it here today – that things such as the constitution and the electoral law should have the broadest possible support. That is the best way to secure political competition for power and to build state institutions. If there is not a broad agreement on these things – possibly even a consensus – it is very difficult to build a solid state. I also discussed this matter with the Prime Minister earlier today. Now, for instance, with regard to the electoral law, one should look carefully at the advice of the Venice Commission in order to build the broadest possible support for the law, so that one can have elections on a basis that everybody recognises as fair.

      The PRESIDENT – We must now conclude the questions to Mr Jagland. I thank you most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for the answers you have given this afternoon. Thank you very much, Mr Jagland.

      Sir Roger Gale, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Gutiérrez.

      3. Free Debate

      The PRESIDENT – We now come to the free debate, which will be split in two parts. The second part will take place on Friday morning.

      I remind members that this debate is for topics not already on the agenda agreed this morning. May I also remind the Assembly that at this morning’s sitting it was agreed that speaking time in all debates would be limited to three minutes?

      This part of the free debate will finish at 5.30 p.m.

      Mr ROUQUET (France, Spokesperson for Socialist Group)* – I will take advantage of this part-session of our Assembly, which is the last one during which I will have the honour of presiding over the French delegation, to stress the fact that the principles and values that bind our States and our national parliaments through the Council of Europe and its Parliamentary Assembly are more topical and more important than ever before. I think that all of us are well positioned to know that fighting to defend human rights and the rule of law is a long-term commitment and that whatever you achieve in that regard is never definitive. It is to the honour of the members of our Assembly that they are the conscience vis-à-vis their national counterparts and their public opinion, and that that they are also vigilant guardians of these values vis-à-vis their States.

      Today, unfortunately, the Council of Europe and its institutions are on the defensive. Accession by the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights is still a long-term objective; the Strasbourg Court is being challenged; some member States of the Council of Europe do not always fulfil the commitments that they made on joining the Organisation; and finally the resources of the Council as a whole and of the Parliamentary Assembly in particular are too small, given the needs that exist.

      None of this is new; we all know this. Nevertheless, if we just sit back and regularly deplore the situation without trying to start some initiatives that could provide an initial answer to these problems, the justification of our work within this body will lose any meaning, at the very time when the need for and the usefulness of the Council of Europe, when it is confronted by a European Union that is doubting itself, have never been so great.

      The first thing to be done in this respect is to give back to the Parliamentary Assembly its pan-European dimension, so that it can go beyond the specifically nationalist considerations that delegations often insist are considered. We are, of course, representatives of the citizens of our respective countries. At the same time, however, we are not the spokespersons of our governments but rather the guarantors of the values and rights to which the people who voted for us are very attached.

      The second, and I believe urgent, initiative is to work collectively on the organisation and success of the next summit of heads of State and government of the Council of Europe on the occasion of the 70^th  anniversary of its inception in 2019. As you know, the French authorities are in favour of celebrating this occasion and have said so through our former President, François Hollande. Our colleague, Michele Nicoletti, has already started some very interesting thinking on this issue on the occasion of the last meeting of the Standing Committee in Prague. He set out some ideas that could result in this occasion being a genuine success and I do not doubt that in the months to come the Parliamentary Assembly will participate in the preparation for such an event. In any case, I exhort all colleagues to do so.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom, Spokesperson for European Conservatives) – Bonne chance, Mr Rouquet.

      A tower block called Grenfell in the west of London caught fire. It was a 24-storey tower block and 79 people lost their lives that night – the final figure may well be higher – and many people were hospitalised. It had been renovated in 2016 with some cladding that was highly flammable. Somehow or other, a fridge-freezer caught fire and started the blaze that led to so many deaths. An inquest and full inquiry will follow.

      The Council of Europe stands for human rights and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” We have had tests done on 60 more tower blocks in the United Kingdom, all of which have failed, and indeed hundreds of people have already been moved out of some tower blocks as a precautionary measure. More tower blocks are yet to be tested.

      Can you just imagine how many tower blocks there are throughout Council of Europe countries that might be in a similar situation, whereby some people are now living in fear of their lives simply because they do not know whether they are safe or not? Indeed, some know that they are not safe. I believe that the Council of Europe should look at bringing this issue to the forefront of all member States’ attention, and ensuring that best practice is shared and testing of all tower blocks is carried out by member States as a matter of urgency.

      We need to ensure that every member State shares best practice on the steps necessary to make these blocks absolutely safe. As an institution, we should not stand idly by and allow possible death traps to become actual death traps. If Article 3 means anything, we should all work together to make absolutely certain that best practice is not only known throughout all member States, but that, after the blocks have been tested, each member State takes action to ensure that sprinklers are retrofitted, that there are proper alarm systems, and that no inflammable materials whatsoever are used on tower blocks. Our institution could be a driving force to ensure that the peoples of the Council of Europe live in safe accommodation. We should not stand idly by; this disaster should be seen as an opportunity for us to have our say and make sure that our citizens have exactly what Article 3 says: the right to life.

      Mr TROY (Ireland, Spokesperson for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) – On behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I express our condolences to the UK delegation after that horrific loss of life.

      I want to address freedom of expression in Turkey. I thank ALDE for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. Yesterday evening, I was deeply disappointed to read media reports on how Turkish authorities dealt with approximately 40 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists in Istanbul. The police presence outnumbered the activists. Rubber bullets were used, roads were closed and some activists were detained. That is totally contrary to the idea of freedom of expression and to what we expect from a functioning democracy. It is perhaps more worrying if we think back to three years ago, when tens of thousands of people marched freely in the Istanbul pride parade. We are witnessing in Turkey a total regression with regard to freedom of speech. Perhaps the greatest human right is a person’s right to their own identity. Part of our identity is our ability to express who we are as human beings. We are unique individuals, and it should not matter whether we are bi, straight, gay or transgender.

      The events this weekend showed that we must never become complacent about the benefits of a true, functioning democracy, in which freedom of speech is acceptable and diversity, inclusion and equality are normal. What happened on Saturday in Istanbul is further proof that Turkey is a dysfunctional democracy, as we heard from speakers earlier. We must now see greater oversight of and intervention in that country. My girlfriend and I had the pleasure of participating in the Paris pride parade on Saturday. We saw the colour and vibrancy, and felt the sense of people being able freely to express who they are. Although my own country has come a long way in the past few years – it became the first country to recognise gay marriage by way of popular referendum, and we have enshrined that right in our constitution – we saw elements of bigoted commentary on the gay pride parade in Dublin, too, albeit on a much smaller scale than in Turkey. We must remain vigilant against racism, bigotry, and some people’s refusal to respect others.

      Ms GUNNARSDÓTTIR (Iceland, Spokesperson for the Group of the Unified European Left) – I wish to speak about tax evasion and tax havens. Last year, the massive leak of documents called the Panama Papers shocked the political system in Iceland to its core. As the Assembly will remember, it was revealed that Iceland’s Prime Minister and Finance Minister had both kept assets in tax havens. Public protests eventually led the government to call an early election last October.

      Tax havens and the creation of shell companies allow people to hide anonymous wealth from tax authorities, and they have also been tied to the financing of criminal activities and terrorism. The issue is of grave importance to all developed nations. The European Commission estimates that every year billions of euros of public money are lost in the European Union due to tax avoidance. Those additional funds would make a big difference to European countries’ welfare systems, and could be used to fund schools, health care and other government programmes.

      Tax evasion is not new to the international agenda. The European Commission’s 2012 action plan, which called on large companies and groups to make public how much tax they pay and in which country, was endorsed by the European Council, and the OECD has issued various recommendations on avoiding tax evasion. Nevertheless, the Panama Papers show that we have made only limited progress. We need more transparency and a clearer international legal environment. It might be more difficult to face the challenges posed by tax havens with right-wing governments in office, as they have historically been more connected with the ownership of capital.

      I welcome the Assembly’s work in the wake of the Panama Papers leak last year, particularly Resolution 2130 (2016), which stressed the importance of protection for whistle-blowers and urged member States to promote “an appropriate policy on tax havens”. I urge members of parliament to continue to work together to combat tax evasion.

      Mr GOLUB (Ukraine)* – We find ourselves in a period when many countries are less secure. International terrorism is a worldwide scourge that is becoming more violent. Today, all someone needs to become a terrorist and take lives is a vehicle or a kitchen knife. Terrorists’ main objective is to kill people, thereby undermining the civilised world using sophisticated means. But it is not only extremists and fanatics who are using terrorist means; some States that do not intend to follow international law use cyber-attacks to undermine other States’ independence. A Scottish author said that those who use terror to gain power will continue to use it once they have done so. That description fits many aggressive leaders.

      Since Ukraine decided not to live under the leadership of criminals and to reject Yanukovych’s oligarchic regime, the Russian Federation has incited war in the Donbass. It is not only doing that in Ukraine; we have seen the Kremlin’s hand in Syria, and we have even seen cyber-attacks against the United States. With his usual cynicism, Putin called the hackers patriots who had contributed to the common cause of attacking anyone who says anything negative about the Russian Federation.

      It is highly likely that the same group of computer pirates and hackers that was involved in attacking the United States was involved in attacking Ukraine. There have been attempts to enter the computers of all the politicians in Ukraine. Attempts to spread propaganda and disinformation through social networks are becoming more frequent. We cannot deny that reality.

      We have not yet found an appropriate common response. Countries that are prepared to use such means to achieve their imperial objectives are no less criminal than the individual terrorists who were responsible for taking lives in Brussels, London and other world cities. We must always keep it in mind that pirating hackers who attack IT systems may tomorrow send actual soldiers to attack the peace and security of our countries, as happened in the east of Ukraine.

      Lord FOULKES (United Kingdom) – Monsieur Rouquet has left already but I wish him well, wherever he goes. I want to follow what he said about the importance of international organisations – the United Nations and the European Union, but above all the Council of Europe. They have been invaluable in maintaining peace and security, in helping to create prosperity, in defending human rights, and in advocating and advancing democracy, but no international organisation has an automatic right to exist, and they all depend on their member States. As individuals, we do not have an automatic right to be here, however high the office we hold in this Organisation. We are here on behalf of the people we represent.

      Holding that position requires trust, which in turn requires honesty and integrity. Corruption undermines that trust, whether financial or institutional corruption. This institution is now on a knife-edge. One act could tip us over. Nigel Evans spoke about the fire on the Grenfell estate, which exposed the lack of fire protection. Corners were cut, perhaps for private gain, and we can see the worldwide reaction and the action that has to be taken. We need to be equally as vigilant as those protecting people in those tower blocks against fire – we need to be vigilant to protect against the fire that might engulf this Organisation. We must restore trust in international organisations collectively, but above all we must restore trust in the Council of Europe.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Lord Foulkes. I gently remind members that subjects already on the agenda, or that have been touched upon on the agenda, should not be raised in the free debate.

      Ms GERASHCHENKO (Ukraine)* – For more than three years now, the Russian Federation has practised aggression against Ukraine. Crimea and part of the Donbass are under Russian occupation; the security and humanitarian situation in the east of Ukraine is unfortunately very painful; the cease-fire is constantly violated; and towns, villages and civilians are subject to gunfire. More than 100 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and dozens of civilians have lost their lives this year alone.

      The pro-Russian separatists have detained 132 Ukrainian prisoners. That number increases from one day to the next because the prisoner liberation process has been completely blocked for a year. In recent days, the separatists imprisoned Stanislav Agueev, a well-known Ukrainian journalist who wrote for many major national newspapers. The Russian Federation is holding other captives of war, including Roman Souchenko, a Ukrainian journalist, and dozens of other Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars. The Russian Federation has implemented not a single point of the Minsk agreements, nor any resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which has called on Russian authorities to free prisoners and respect the provisions of international law.

      The security and humanitarian situation is still very complex in the Donbass, which threatens the ecological situation in the region. The pro-Russian separatists have flooded mines in the occupied territories, and prohibited international experts from gaining access. That could turn into a major technological disaster. On a daily basis, the separatists are setting the Donetsk filtering station on fire. The technicians who try to repair it have been subject to gunfire on several occasions. Consequently, almost 600 000 people may find themselves without drinking water, but even worse, if the reservoirs are affected, they could end up poisoning people over hundreds of square kilometres of territory. The situation is very complicated for infrastructure and business, because their water distribution systems and the electricity grid are often damaged.

      Ukraine appeals to its international partners to support its initiative of sending a United Nations blue helmet mission to the Donbass that could contribute to demilitarising those territories, stopping their occupation and re-establishing peace.

      Ms DURRIEU (France)* – I am not going to deal with any specific subject in this free debate. I am just going to say, as René Rouquet just said, that I am taking the floor in the hemicycle perhaps for the last time; in September, I will be leaving the Council of Europe having been here for 25 years. I will be leaving not just with regret, but with a lot of nostalgia.

      Let me stress the fact that this is a beautiful and excellent institution. The values that we defend – peace, democracy, the rule of law and human rights – are so important. All we have as a tool is moral prestige or suasion. For that to be strong, we must all rise to the occasion. I am speaking to the crisis at the top, where an individual may have forgotten that a moral conscience is essential in a successful political life, and especially in the Parliamentary Assembly. Perhaps that individual needs to be reminded of that and quietly leave. Each and every one of us must understand that the values we impose on ourselves have to be very high.

      Over the past few years and months, I have been very bothered by what is going on in this Parliamentary Assembly. It is moving us towards impotence and moving us away from essential things. I am reassured because we have spoken openly about our weakness. We can hope that the situation will not be the same tomorrow as it is today.

      I am leaving with a lot of regrets, but also with a sense of serenity. Unlike René, I have no major ideas to share with you. We are the guarantors of values. Let us carry those values high in our hearts and high above our heads.

      The PRESIDENT – Thank you, Josette. When I introduced you, I was not certain that this would be your last speech. If that is your swansong, let me say that 25 years of service to the Assembly is a tremendous achievement. I think I am right in saying that you are the longest-serving member of the Assembly, but by no means the oldest. Bonne chance for your future.

      Mr MELKUMYAN (Armenia)* – Mr Agramunt has encouraged the Government of Azerbaijan to implement its anti-democratic policies and politics, so it will continue to avoid any peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. How can it be that we are confronted with such a phenomenon in our democratic organisation?

      It is clear that Mr Agramunt could not ensure an appropriate balance. Through his partial activity, he has served the interests solely of the Government of Azerbaijan, and not of Armenia. Ten days ago, on the Armenian side, we had four victims on the border of Nagorno-Karabakh following military operations triggered, as usual, on the Azerbaijani side. Who, in law, will be responsible for that? Mr Aliyev? The Government of Azerbaijan? We have carried out a legal and political assessment of the situation to exclude the possibility of such cases occurring in the future. Unfortunately, our Assembly and Mr Agramunt are responsible for this. I have no doubt that Mr Agramunt is a good manager but he is also a missionary at the service of the authorities of Azerbaijan. He should leave his position immediately. He cannot reasonably continue his activities and I am very pleased to see that he is not in the Chamber.

      Ms SOTNYK (Ukraine) – My speech will be devoted to the continuous Russian aggression and the new threats to our territory. Just two days ago, our military stopped a Russian military operation on Ukrainian territory and arrested six people, two of them Russian Federation soldiers. Every day, we lose soldiers and civilians. The Russian Federation wants the comprehensive destabilisation of Ukraine by so-called smart power. It wants to disrupt Ukraine’s European and Euro-Atlantic integration and to get Ukraine effectively back into its orbit. Do not be deluded by the Russian narrative about Russian aggression in Donbass being an internal Ukrainian conflict or Crimea’s occupation by the Russian Federation being self-determination by the people. The Russian Federation keeps violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The security situation in Donbass remains extremely difficult, due to the constant attacks and provocation by Russian militants. Since 1 April, there have been about 2 900 registered cease-fire violations, with 24 Ukrainian soldiers killed and 227 wounded. Donetsk and Luhansk militants are making further attempts to expel the OSCE from the region and the Russians are continuing to disrupt the economic potential of Donbass, for example Moscow’s consistent steps throughout 2016-17 to ensure further alienation of the occupied part of Donbass from Ukraine, with recognition of the documents of the so-called DNR and LNR, the quasi-taxation system, the border decree and the expropriation of Ukrainian property. That should be condemned and responded to by all European countries, by increasing their pressure and sanctions.

      My colleague mentioned the environmental situation. It really is a disaster, because it is not a threat to just Donbass but to the whole European continent. The natural environment is polluted as a result of wars, the direct impact of combat operations and the indirect effects of outages in large industrial enterprises, with disruptions in the work of critical infrastructure facilities. That is why we call for a monitoring mission of experts on ecological threats in occupied territories to prevent an ecological catastrophe in the whole European continent.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. As Mr Badea is not here, I call Mr Fridez.

      Mr FRIDEZ (Switzerland)* – In 2016, our Assembly adopted Resolution 2099 on stateless children in European States, and Switzerland is on a list, together with three other countries, as an example of a nation that does not have sufficient legislation to deal with the issue. In the Swiss Parliament, I put a question to the federal government, to find out whether that was really true. On the basis of the explanation provided by my government, I am now a spokesperson for the Swiss delegation, in defence of my country’s honour. Yes, certain conventions have not been ratified, but the case of stateless children is dealt with properly, in accordance with international conventions.

Stateless children are provided with the same financial assistance as recognised refugees. They have the right to a passport, in accordance with our law on providing travel documents to such people. In the past few years, several hundred children have been recognised as stateless and afforded such protection. There is fast-track naturalisation for such children, so that they can quickly become fully-fledged Swiss citizens.

Yes, it would be good if my government ratified the international conventions concerning such cases. We are working on a major law on naturalisation and on dealing with refugees and stateless children and, once that is done, Switzerland will consider the possibility of ratifying those international conventions it has not yet ratified. I hope I have convinced you that it might not have been opportune to include Switzerland in that list of four countries in Resolution 2099.

      Mr VAREIKIS (Lithuania) – As the last speaker, I will not tackle any topic in particular but speak in general terms. Whenever I come here, I meet a few hundred clever people from European countries. My dream is to have a part-session in which we are all in agreement on everything, because we are all clever, sensitive and rational. On the Friday of each part-session, my question is always, “Why do we disagree on so many things?” Are our minds lacking, or do we lack responsibility? What do we lack? At some point – I do not know when – we need to produce a report not on a formal code of conduct, but on why we often misunderstand each other. We are here to make decisions, not to fight each other. I like football, because it is very simple and everybody agrees on the rules. We do not insist that big countries can have 16 players but small countries can have only seven.

      Why do we disagree on so many things here? I have a few suggestions. At the moment, we talk a lot about crisis in Europe, but can we define that crisis? Is it a crisis of comfort? Do we have lives that are too straightforward, with too much freedom and too little responsibility? Perhaps it is a crisis of authority; many people have written about that. Perhaps the crisis comes from the misuse of our institutions. Or perhaps it is a crisis of morality; we do not understand what our moral background should be. Frequently, we seem to view democratic rules in the same way as we view traffic rules. Those rules determine who is guilty and who is not, but we cannot really explain what is at their heart. So we bend the rules, in small ways, because we are in a hurry or we want to help someone. At times, our democracy can be more like a bureaucracy. We need to think about these things and, at some point, write a report. I am ready to do so, but I do not know which committee will take it on. Why can we not find a clever rational, or perhaps spiritual, solution to our problems?

      The PRESIDENT – To allow members to attend their group meetings, I must now interrupt the list of speakers. We will return to the free debate on Friday.

4. Next public business

      The PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda that was approved this morning.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 5.30 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Address by Mr Pavel Filip, Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova

Questions: Mr Vareikis (Lithuania), Ms Mikko (Estonia), Mr Howell (United Kingdom), Ms Rodríguez Hernández (Spain), Mr Hunko (Germany), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Corlăţean (Romania) and Ms Christoffersen (Norway),

2. Questions to Mr Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Questions: Ms Strik (Netherlands), Lady Eccles (United Kingdom), Ms Lundgren (Sweden), Mr Kürkçü (Turkey), Ms Blondin (France), Sir Roger Gale (United Kingdom), Ms Kerestecioğlu Demir (Turkey), Ms Christoffersen (Norway), Mr Rafael Huseynov (Azerbaijan), Mr Çağlar (Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community), Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands), Mr Troy (Ireland) and Mr Ghiletchi (Republic of Moldova)

3. Free debate

Speakers: Mr Rouquet (France), Mr Evans (United Kingdom), Mr Troy (Ireland), Ms Gunnarsdóttir (Iceland), Mr Golub (Ukraine), Lord Foulkes (United Kingdom), Ms Gerashchenko (Ukraine), Ms Durrieu (France), Mr Melkumyan (Armenia), Ms Sotnyk (Ukraine), Mr Fridez (Switzerland) and Mr Vareikis (Lithuania)

4. Next public sitting

Appendix / Annexe

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the register of attendance in accordance with Rule 12.2 of the Rules of Procedure.The names of members substituted follow (in brackets) the names of participating members.

Liste des représentants ou suppléants ayant signé le registre de présence, conformément à l’article 12.2 du Règlement.Le nom des personnes remplacées suit celui des Membres remplaçant, entre parenthèses.

AHMED-SHEIKH, Tasmina [Ms]

AMON, Werner [Mr]

ANDERSON, Donald [Lord]

ANTTILA, Sirkka-Liisa [Ms]

ARENT, Iwona [Ms]

ÁRNASON, Vilhjálmur [Mr]

AST, Marek [Mr] (TARCZYŃSKI, Dominik [Mr])

BADEA, Viorel Riceard [M.] (BRĂILOIU, Tit-Liviu [Mr])

BAK, Osman Aşkın [Mr] (TORUN, Cemalettin Kani [Mr])

BALÁŽ, Radovan [Mr] (PAŠKA, Jaroslav [M.])

BALIĆ, Marijana [Ms]

BARTOS, Mónika [Ms] (CSÖBÖR, Katalin [Mme])

BATRINCEA, Vlad [Mr]

BAYKAL, Deniz [Mr]

BERNACKI, Włodzimierz [Mr]

BĒRZINŠ, Andris [M.]

BEUS RICHEMBERGH, Goran [Mr]

BİLGEHAN, Gülsün [Mme]

BILLSTRÖM, Tobias [Mr]

BÎZGAN-GAYRAL, Oana-Mioara [Ms] (PRUNĂ, Cristina-Mădălina [Ms])

BLONDIN, Maryvonne [Mme]

BRASSEUR, Anne [Mme]

BRUYN, Piet De [Mr]

BULIGA, Valentina [Mme]

BUTKEVIČIUS, Algirdas [Mr]

ĆATOVIĆ, Marija Maja [Ms]

CEPEDA, José [Mr]

CERİTOĞLU KURT, Lütfiye İlksen [Ms] (DİŞLİ, Şaban [Mr])

ČERNOCH, Marek [Mr] (MARKOVÁ, Soňa [Ms])

CHITI, Vannino [Mr]

CHRISTOFFERSEN, Lise [Ms]

CHUGOSHVILI, Tamar [Ms]

CILEVIČS, Boriss [Mr] (LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Inese [Ms])

CORLĂŢEAN, Titus [Mr]

COZMANCIUC, Corneliu Mugurel [Mr] (CIOLACU, Ion-Marcel [Mr])

CROZON, Pascale [Mme] (KARAMANLI, Marietta [Mme])

CRUCHTEN, Yves [M.]

CSENGER-ZALÁN, Zsolt [Mr]

DAMYANOVA, Milena [Mme]

DESTEXHE, Alain [M.]

DOKLE, Namik [M.]

DURANTON, Nicole [Mme]

DURRIEU, Josette [Mme]

DZHEMILIEV, Mustafa [Mr]

EATON, Margaret [Baroness] (DAVIES, Geraint [Mr])

EBERLE-STRUB, Susanne [Ms]

ECCLES, Diana [Lady]

EVANS, Nigel [Mr]

FAZZONE, Claudio [Mr] (BERGAMINI, Deborah [Ms])

FIALA, Doris [Mme]

FINCKH-KRÄMER, Ute [Ms]

FOULKES, George [Lord] (WINTERTON, Rosie [Dame])

FOURNIER, Bernard [M.]

FRIDEZ, Pierre-Alain [M.]

GAFAROVA, Sahiba [Ms]

GALE, Roger [Sir]

GAMBARO, Adele [Ms]

GATTI, Marco [M.]

GERASHCHENKO, Iryna [Mme]

GHILETCHI, Valeriu [Mr]

GILLAN, Cheryl [Ms]

GIRO, Francesco Maria [Mr]

GJORCHEV, Vladimir [Mr] (ZZ...)

GOGUADZE, Nino [Ms] (KVATCHANTIRADZE, Zviad [Mr])

GOLUB, Vladyslav [Mr] (BEREZA, Boryslav [Mr])

GORGHIU, Alina Ștefania [Ms]

GOY-CHAVENT, Sylvie [Mme]

GÜNAY, Emine Nur [Ms]

GUNNARSDÓTTIR, Bjarkey [Ms] (JAKOBSDÓTTIR, Katrín [Ms])

GUNNARSSON, Jonas [Mr]

GUTIÉRREZ, Antonio [Mr]

HAJIYEV, Sabir [Mr]

HALICKI, Andrzej [Mr]

HAMOUSOVÁ, Zdeňka [Ms] (NENUTIL, Miroslav [Mr])

HEER, Alfred [Mr]

HOFFMANN, Rózsa [Mme] (VEJKEY, Imre [Mr])

HOPKINS, Maura [Ms]

HOWELL, John [Mr]

HÜBINGER, Anette [Ms]

HÜBNER, Johannes [Mr]

HUNKO, Andrej [Mr]

HUOVINEN, Susanna [Ms] (GUZENINA, Maria [Ms])

HUSEYNOV, Rafael [Mr]

IONOVA, Mariia [Ms] (ARIEV, Volodymyr [Mr])

JACQUAT, Denis [M.]

JENIŠTA, Luděk [Mr]

JENSEN, Mogens [Mr]

JOHNSEN, Kristin Ørmen [Ms] (JENSSEN, Frank J. [Mr])

JORDANA, Carles [M.]

KALMARI, Anne [Ms]

KANDELAKI, Giorgi [Mr] (BAKRADZE, David [Mr])

KANDEMİR, Erkan [Mr]

KASIMATI, Nina [Ms]

KATSARAVA, Sofio [Ms]

KAVVADIA, Ioanneta [Ms]

KERESTECİOĞLU DEMİR, Filiz [Ms]

KESİCİ, İlhan [Mr]

KLEINBERGA, Nellija [Ms] (LAIZĀNE, Inese [Ms])

KOÇ, Haluk [M.]

KÜRKÇÜ, Ertuğrul [Mr]

L OVOCHKINA, Yuliya [Ms]

LE BORGN’, Pierre-Yves [M.]

LE DÉAUT, Jean-Yves [M.]

LESKAJ, Valentina [Ms]

LEŚNIAK, Józef [M.] (MILEWSKI, Daniel [Mr])

LIASHKO, Oleh [Mr]

LIDDELL-GRAINGER, Ian [Mr]

LOGVYNSKYI, Georgii [Mr]

LOMBARDI, Filippo [M.]

LOUCAIDES, George [Mr]

MADEJ, Róbert [Mr]

MAHOUX, Philippe [M.]

MARAS, Gordan [Mr] (MESIĆ, Jasen [Mr])

MASIULIS, Kęstutis [Mr] (ŠAKALIENĖ, Dovilė [Ms])

MASSEY, Doreen [Baroness] (SHARMA, Virendra [Mr])

MAURY PASQUIER, Liliane [Mme]

MEALE, Alan [Sir]

MELKUMYAN, Mikayel [M.] (FARMANYAN, Samvel [Mr])

MESTERHÁZY, Attila [Mr]

MIGNON, Jean-Claude [M.]

MIKKO, Marianne [Ms]

MİROĞLU, Orhan [Mr]

MULARCZYK, Arkadiusz [Mr]

MULLEN, Rónán [Mr] (CROWE, Seán [Mr])

MÜLLER, Thomas [Mr]

MUNYAMA, Killion [Mr] (TRUSKOLASKI, Krzysztof [Mr])

NÉMETH, Zsolt [Mr]

NOVIKOV, Andrei [Mr]

OMTZIGT, Pieter [Mr] (MULDER, Anne [Mr])

ÖNAL, Suat [Mr]

PACKALÉN, Tom [Mr]

PALLARÉS, Judith [Ms]

PASHAYEVA, Ganira [Ms]

PECKOVÁ, Gabriela [Ms] (KOSTŘICA, Rom [Mr])

POLIAČIK, Martin [Mr] (KAŠČÁKOVÁ, Renáta [Ms])

POMASKA, Agnieszka [Ms]

POPA, Ion [M.] (KORODI, Attila [Mr])

POSTOICO, Maria [Mme] (VORONIN, Vladimir [M.])

PREDA, Cezar Florin [M.]

PSYCHOGIOS, Georgios [Mr] (ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Athanasia [Ms])

REICHARDT, André [M.] (GROSDIDIER, François [M.])

REISS, Frédéric [M.] (ZIMMERMANN, Marie-Jo [Mme])

RODRÍGUEZ HERNÁNDEZ, Melisa [Ms]

ROJHAN GUSTAFSSON, Azadeh [Ms] (OHLSSON, Carina [Ms])

ROUQUET, René [M.]

RUSTAMYAN, Armen [M.]

SANTA ANA, María Concepción de [Ms]

SCHENNACH, Stefan [Mr]

SCHOU, Ingjerd [Ms]

SCHWABE, Frank [Mr]

SCULLY, Paul [Mr] (CRAUSBY, David [Mr])

SILVA, Adão [M.]

SOBOLEV, Serhiy [Mr]

SOTNYK, Olena [Ms]

STRIK, Tineke [Ms]

SUTTER, Petra De [Ms] (DUMERY, Daphné [Ms])

THIÉRY, Damien [M.]

TOPCU, Zühal [Ms]

TROY, Robert [Mr] (COWEN, Barry [Mr])

USTA, Leyla Şahin [Ms]

VÁHALOVÁ, Dana [Ms]

VAREIKIS, Egidijus [Mr]

VARVITSIOTIS, Miltiadis [Mr] (BAKOYANNIS, Theodora [Ms])

VERDUCCI, Francesco [Mr] (CORSINI, Paolo [Mr])

VIROLAINEN, Anne-Mari [Ms]

VITANOV, Petar [Mr] (JABLIANOV, Valeri [Mr])

WENAWESER, Christoph [Mr]

WOJTYŁA, Andrzej [Mr]

WOLD, Morten [Mr]

XUCLÀ, Jordi [Mr] (BILDARRATZ, Jokin [Mr])

YAŞAR, Serap [Mme]

ZECH, Tobias [Mr]

ZINGERIS, Emanuelis [Mr]

ZOHRABYAN, Naira [Mme]

ZOTEA, Alina [Ms] (GHIMPU, Mihai [Mr])

Also signed the register / Ont également signé le registre

Representatives or Substitutes not authorised to vote / Représentants ou suppléants non autorisés à voter

BESELIA, Eka [Ms]

BONET, Sílvia Eloïsa [Ms]

BÜCHEL, Roland Rino [Mr]

EFSTATHIOU, Constantinos [M.]

GENTVILAS, Simonas [Mr]

LUNDGREN, Kerstin [Ms]

RIBERAYGUA, Patrícia [Mme]

WILSON, David [Lord]

Observers / Observateurs

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

MALTAIS, Ghislain [M.]

OLIVER, John [Mr]

SIMMS, Scott [Mr]

Partners for democracy / Partenaires pour la démocratie

ALQAWASMI, Sahar [Ms]

SABELLA, Bernard [Mr]

Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community (In accordance to Resolution 1376 (2004) of

the Parliamentary Assembly)/ Représentants de la communauté chypriote turque

(Conformément à la Résolution 1376 (2004) de l’Assemblée parlementaire)

Mehmet ÇAĞLAR

Erdal ÖZCENK