For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 10494

8 April 2005

Challenge of credentials of individual members of a national delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly on substantive grounds

Report

Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities

Rapporteur: Mr Karim Van Overmeire, Belgium, NR

Summary

The report examines the pros and cons of introducing a possibility in the Parliamentary Assembly's Rules of Procedure to ban individual members of national parliaments having expressly identified themselves with the activities and programmes of parties opposing the Council of Europe values from becoming Assembly Representatives and Substitutes. It also analyses the existing safeguards preventing the Assembly from becoming a forum for debates or activities conflicting with the values of the Council of Europe. Furthermore, the report considers how similar problems were dealt with by other international organisations.

In conclusion, the draft resolution proposes that the Assembly should instruct the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to consider inserting a provision in the Rules stating that the credentials of a national delegation can only be accepted upon the making or signing of a solemn statement by the individual members affirming to subscribe to the aims and basic principles of the Council of Europe, mentioned in Article 3 of and the Preamble to the Statute of the Council of Europe.

I.       Draft resolution

1.       In the Parliamentary Assembly sitting of 26 April 2004, Mr Jakič challenged the credentials of the Serbia and Montenegro delegation on substantial grounds in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Jakič based his concerns on the fact that two parties represented in the delegation were led by persons being tried for war crimes and genocide at the International Criminal Tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) based in The Hague.

2.       Following the report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 10155) and the oral opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1370 (2004) by which it ratified the credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Serbia and Montenegro. It considered it inappropriate not to ratify the credentials of the whole delegation of Serbia and Montenegro because of individual members of this delegation. Such a decision would penalise all members and parties in the delegation. However, in Resolution 1370, the Assembly also regretted that, in their current wording, Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure do not allow for challenging the credentials of individual members of national delegations on substantial grounds, such as a serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe, by one or more members of a delegation.

3.       In Resolution 1370 the Assembly resolved to adapt its Rules of Procedure as quickly as possible in order to allow the credentials of individual members to be contested on substantial grounds so that democratic forces in a given delegation do not suffer from restrictions on credentials.

4.       As a consequence of Resolution 1370 the present report was prepared which examined how this problem was dealt with by other Council of Europe bodies and European institutions. This report discussed the pros and cons of introducing a possibility to ban individual members of national parliaments, having expressly identified themselves with the activities and programmes of parties opposing the Council of Europe's values, from becoming Parliamentary Assembly Representatives and Substitutes.

5.       In point of fact, there already exist a number of safeguards preventing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from becoming the forum of activities conflicting with the values of the Council of Europe. Moreover, the exclusion of individual members of national parliaments, opposing the values of the Council of Europe and who are appointed to the Assembly, should only be the last resort.

6.       In the light of the report, the Assembly considers that if new Rules of Procedure were introduced allowing to compose the national delegations in another way than on the basis of a fair representation as provided in Rule 6.2, or to challenge credentials of individual members of national parliaments who are accused of activities or statements persistently violating the basic principles of the Council of Europe, there would be a danger of abuse. The Assembly cannot have an interest in becoming the forum for political infighting. In addition, such a modification of rules may lead to difficulties of interpretation and, in particular, of proof.

7.       The Assembly resolves to consider inserting a provision in the Rules of Procedure stating that the credentials of members of a national delegation can only be accepted upon the making or signing of a solemn statement by the individual members affirming to subscribe to the aims and the basic principles of the Council of Europe, mentioned in Article 3 of and the Preamble to the Statute of the Council of Europe. The undertaking shall not make any reference to membership of any political party. This kind of modification of the Rules of Procedure would by-pass a number of almost unsolvable problems. At the same time, it would indeed send out a strong political message.

8.       The Assembly instructs the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities to elaborate the practical modalities and to report within a year after the adoption of the present resolution.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur, Mr Van Overmeire

A.       INTRODUCTION

1.       In the Assembly sitting of 26 April 2004, Mr Jakič challenged the credentials of the Serbian and Montenegrin delegation on substantial grounds in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Jakič based his concerns on the fact that two parties represented in the delegation were led by persons being tried for war crimes and genocide at the International Criminal Tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) based in The Hague.

2.       According to Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, the Assembly decided to refer the contested credentials to the Political Affairs Committee for report and to the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities for opinion.

3.       Following the report of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 10155) and the oral opinion of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1370 (2004) by which it ratified the credentials of the parliamentary delegation of Serbia and Montenegro. It considered it inappropriate not to ratify the credentials of the whole delegation of Serbia and Montenegro because of individual members of this delegation. Such a decision would penalise all members and parties in the delegation.

4.       In Resolution 1370, “the Assembly notes with regret that, in their current wording, Rules 8 and 9 do not allow for challenging the credentials of individual members of a national delegation on substantial grounds, such as a serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe by one or more members of a delegation. The Assembly resolves to adapt its Rules of Procedure as quickly as possible in order to allow the credentials of individual members to be contested on substantial grounds, so that democratic forces in a given delegation do not suffer from restrictions on credentials."

5.       The present report has been prepared accordingly.

B.        HISTORIC RETROSPECTIVE

6.       On 6 April 1949 the Conference of Ambassadors, which prepared the draft Statute of the Council of Europe, had recommended desisting from a mandatory regulation concerning extremist political delegations in favour of the discretion of the member states. However, at the same time the Conference found it desirable that the member states excluded representatives of political parties being against the formation of a united and democratic Europe (Ugo Leone: “Le origini diplomatiche del Consiglio d’Europa”, Milano 1966, p.157, fn.92 no 5).

7.       The recommendations of the European Movement regarding the composition of the “European Assembly” (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe), made in December 1948, and April 1949 concluded that it “would not be practical to attempt to lay down any precise rules regarding the selection of delegations, but the Assembly should reserve to itself, in the last resort, the right to ask for reconsideration in cases where the above principles have been ignored.” Among these principles was the adequate representation of the vital forces in the country by the delegation, whereas certain parliaments “may, however, decide to exclude from their delegations representatives of political parties which are actively hostile to the creation of a united Europe.”

8.       On the one hand, these two recommendations had in the past, during many years, been regarded as guidelines for the parliaments of the member states not to send delegates to the PACE whose attitude conflicts with the basic principles of the Council of Europe, in particular with its fight for human rights, fundamental freedoms and genuine democracy.

9.       On the other hand, there is the principle stating that national delegations should be composed so as to ensure a fair representation of the political parties or groups in their parliaments, a principle mentioned as such since 1989 in Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly. This provision puts in concrete form the general principle stating that the composition of parliamentary assemblies of international organisations should take into account the balance of power of the political parties in the national parliaments. (Source: Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern and Gerhard Loibl, Das Recht der internationalen Organisationen einschliesslich der supranationalen Organisationen, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Köln, 2000, p.169).

10.       The national delegations have to be the political reflection of the composition of the national parliaments (Joern Stegen, ‘Die Rolle der Parlamentarischen Versammlung als Motor des Europarates’, in: Uwe Holtz (Hrsg.), 50 Jahre Europarat, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2000, (79-90), p. 79).

C.       EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS

11.       Inspiration and ideas for a solution of this area of tension may be found within other European institutions, in the guidelines developed by the Venice Commission concerning the prohibition and dissolution of political parties, the pertinent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and analogous measures. Furthermore the Parliamentary Assembly itself has on several occasions dealt with this issue, e.g. in Resolutions 1308 (2002) and 1344 (2003)).

European Parliament

12.       Article 191 paragraph 2 EC-Treaty enables the European Community to regulate the status of European parties, whereas paragraph 1 only codifies their importance as a factor for integration within the Union without making demands on the content of their political programme.

13.       The Decision and Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage (20 September 1976) remains silent on this issue and leaves the electoral procedure widely to the member states.

14.       It is none the less possible for the Bureau of the European Parliament to deny financial support to any party which does not “not observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law”1.

Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE

15.       The Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE leave it to the member states and their national parliaments to choose their delegates freely (Art. 3 paragraph 2.).

Venice Commission of the Council of Europe

16.       In its ‘Guidelines of prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogue measures’, the Venice Commission2 states that:

” - In a democratic society, freedom of expression, assembly and association are of major importance. However, democracies must also be able to defend themselves and introduce safeguards against the activity of extremist groups flouting democratic principles and human rights. As a last resort the prohibition of a political party may be necessary if convincing and compelling reasons justify the restriction.

- Restrictions are only legitimate if a party threatens the democratic order or civil peace of the country by using or advocating violence and thereby undermines the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the constitution. Advocating violence includes specific demonstrations of it such as racism, xenophobia and intolerance.

- All measures must be appropriate, prohibition and dissolution being only a last resort used with utmost restraint. Actions must stay within the frame set by Art.10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and be based on concrete evidence that a party is engaged in activities threatening democracy and fundamental freedoms."

The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

17.       The European Court of Human Rights has on several occasions expressed itself on restrictions on political parties and also on sanctions against their members. This was the case for example in the judgments of 31 July 2001 (and of the Grand Chamber on the same matter of 13 February 2003) concerning the Refah Partisi (Welfare Party) and Others against Turkey, of 10 December 2002 concerning Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP) against Turkey and of 12 December 2003 concerning the Socialist Party of Turkey (STP) and Others against Turkey.

In the judgement of 11 June 2002 concerning the case of Selim Sadak and Others against Turkey, the Court held that a member of parliament could only be banned from exercising his parliamentary functions on the basis of his own activities and not of his party’s programme and action and that the principle of proportionality had to be taken into account.

Parliamentary Assembly resolutions

18.       In its Resolutions 1344 (2003) and 1308 (2002) the Parliamentary Assembly dealt with the threat posed to democracy by extremist parties and movements in Europe and the restrictions on political parties in the Council of Europe member states. The Assembly stated that the question of restrictions on political parties presents democracies with a dilemma. On the one hand, they must guarantee freedom of expression, assembly and association, allowing all political groups to exist and to be politically represented. On the other hand, democracies must defend themselves and introduce safeguards against the activity of some extremist groups which flout democratic principles and human rights.

19.       The Assembly also observed that the dissolution of extremist parties and movements should always be regarded as an exceptional measure. It was justified in the case of a threat to a country’s constitutional order and should always be in conformity with the country’s constitutional and legislative provisions

E.       CURRENT SAFEGUARDS AT ASSEMBLY LEVEL

20.       As stated in Resolution 1344 (2003), there is no doubt that democracies and also the PACE must guarantee freedom of expression, assembly and association to the utmost extent possible. However, democracies and their parliamentary institutions also have to be able to defend themselves against extremism, which undermines these freedoms, and to introduce safeguards against the activity of extremist groups.

21.       On different levels a number of safeguards have been introduced preventing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from becoming a forum of activities and statements conflicting with the basic principles of the Council of Europe.

22.       In the constitution and/or the national legislation of a number of member states of the Council of Europe, restrictive measures apply to political parties, even including the prohibition of parties and their exclusion from elections to the national parliament and the European Parliament. In Resolution 1308 (2002), the Assembly considers that the issue of restrictions on political parties is by nature a very complex one. The Assembly notes that the historical development of each individual country and differences in the level of tolerance result in a diverse range of sanctions, varying from one country to another, for identical situations. These national measures prevent a number of parties from gaining access to the national parliaments and thus also to the national delegations composing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

23.       Not all the parties represented in the national parliaments are represented in the national delegations sent to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Only the parties that are represented in sufficient strength in the national parliaments, can have representatives and/or substitutes in the national delegations and thus in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Although a lot of national parliaments count between their members parties having a radical programme - which is quite often the result of very specific circumstances - one can not but conclude that the electorate of member states of the Council of Europe only exceptionally supports parties that seriously and persistently violate the basic principles of the Council of Europe.

24.       As an additional safeguard, Rules 8 and 9 of the Assembly’s Rules allow for the challenge of unratified credentials, and for the reconsideration of ratified credentials of a national delegation. The distinction between a challenge of credentials on technical or political grounds was introduced in connection with the general revision of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly which entered into force in January 2000 (Resolution 1202 (1999)). However, the report on which Resolution 1202 is based (Doc. 8361), does not give any reason why, with respect to political grounds, only the credentials of a whole delegation may be challenged. One possible reason could be that the above-mentioned change of the rules aimed in particular at giving the Assembly an autonomous possibility of sanction in case:

-       of a serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe and in its preamble

-       of a persistent failure to honour obligations and commitments and lack of co-operation with the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.

As these violations are of a most serious character it was probably assumed that the whole delegation should be made responsible for it.

25.       Last but not least, the Assembly's Rules of Procedure allow certain sanctions to be taken against members whose words spoken, expressions or documents tabled violate the values of the Council of Europe. Accordingly, Rule 20 stipulates that words or expressions which affront human dignity or which may prejudge orderly debate may not be used. Furthermore, according to Rules 23.2. and 53.2., motions and written declarations shall not contain racist, xenophobic or intolerant language or words and expressions which bear an affront to human beings. Finally, Assembly members who persistently cause disturbance during proceedings may be subject to sanctions (Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure).

F.       POSSIBLE MODIFICATION OF THE RELEVANT RULES OF THE ASSEMBLY’S RULES        OF PROCEDURE

a.       General considerations

26.       Further measures encounter major practical problems. During the meeting of the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities on 10th December 2004 in Stockholm, the Rapporteur declared to be rather hostile to the second option, then contained in the relevant committee document (i.e. the modification of Rules 8 and 9 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure), which would be in contradiction with Rule 6.2 emphasising that the composition of the national delegation should reflect a fair representation of the political parties in the national parliament. It is not up to the Parliamentary Assembly to decide whether or not somebody is to be considered an extremist. The cure could be worse than the disease I also stated that the first option, i.e. a resolution to be addressed to national parliaments, would only shift the problem without solving it. M. Einarsson, member of the committee, stated that it was a very delicate issue which had to be handled with care. The notion of an “extremist” is very difficult to define. Even though it is obvious that a certain number of parties represented in the Parliamentary Assembly employ a language or perform actions violating the fundamental values of the Council of Europe, it does not mean that their members have to be excluded from the Parliamentary Assembly: have they not been democratically elected to sit in the parliament of their country? Even when considering the first option, one has to be careful in order to avoid abuse, concluded M. Einarsson.

27. The exclusion of parliamentarians should only be the last resort. Moreover, Resolution 1308 (2002) on restrictions on political parties in the Council of Europe member states points out that a common feature of all democracies is that the prohibition of political parties is the responsibility of the judicial authorities. In most countries, it comes under the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court, or much less frequently the Supreme Court or ordinary courts. Even the rights of the individual members of parliament, among which the right to be part of a national delegation when his or her political group is strong enough in the national parliament, can only be restricted in this way.

28.       There are also pragmatic considerations. Experience shows that it is often better not to isolate and victimise representatives of political tendencies which are opposing the Council of Europe's values but to fight them in public debate by the force of arguments. Moreover, the presence of representatives of these parties in the national parliaments and the parliamentary assemblies of international institutions, can have a softening effect on the points of view of these parties. Besides, it is perhaps not very sensible to alienate their electorate from the Council of Europe and the values it stands for, by excluding representatives of such parties from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

b.       Proposals

29.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities examined different options, among which the modification of the relevant rules of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure:

- (A). modification of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, to allow the credentials of individual members of a national delegation to be contested on substantial grounds.

- (B). modification of Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, to allow member states to ignore members of a political party/group for the composition of the national delegation, despite their national relevance.

- (C). the preparation of a draft resolution in which the national parliaments are urged not to select for the national delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly representatives and substitutes belonging to political groups which have through their action and their statements seriously and persistently violated certain basic principles.

- (D). modification of the Rules of Procedure of the Assemble, to insert a paragraph stating that the credentials of the members of a national delegation only can be accepted after having made a solemn declaration whereby they subscribe to the basic principles of the Council of Europe.

OPTION A.

30.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities examined the possibility to complete Rules 8 and 9 of the Assembly’s Rules by new paragraphs allowing the challenge of unratified credentials, and the reconsideration of ratified credentials of individual members of a national delegation on substantial grounds.

31.       However, such new Rules imply the danger of them being abused for political battles. In case a national parliamentary delegation to the Assembly could only be composed after difficult negotiations, those members who feel that their political party is inadequately represented on the delegation, could try to provoke a conflict in the Parliamentary Assembly. They could challenge the credentials of other members of the same delegation on the ground that they defend extremist opinions. If there were controversies among political parties of one or several countries concerning the compatibility of their action with European standards, it could be tried to prolong them in the Parliamentary Assembly by challenging credentials of members belonging to the respective parties.

Especially when different sections of the population of one country or different countries are facing each other, qualifications such as “extremist”, “racist” and ‘xenophobic’ will often be used back and forth. The Assembly cannot have an interest in becoming the forum for such battles.

32.       In addition, challenges of credentials on the ground that the Council of Europe’s values were violated by the action and statements of members appointed to the Assembly could lead to difficulties of interpretation and, in particular, of proof.

33.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities therefore did not support this option.

OPTION B.

34.       Another possibility would be to invite national parliaments not to take into account for the composition of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly parties or groups whose activities or statements seriously and persistently violate the basic principles of the Council of Europe, despite the national relevance of these parties or groups. The basic principles are mentioned in Article 3 of, and the Preamble to, the Statute of the Council of Europe.

35.        However, this is not possible without coming into conflict with the current wording of Rule 6.2. of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly. According to Rule 6.2. the national delegations sent to the Assembly should reflect the composition of the national parliaments with regard to the political parties and groups and their proportions. It is left to the member states’ discretion to choose their representatives. The second sentence of Rule 6.2. of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly even stipulates that each parliament shall inform the Assembly of the method used to apportion seats on its delegation. This is aimed at allowing the Assembly and the Table Office to check if the composition of a delegation ensures a fair representation of the political parties and groups in their parliament. The logical consequence of Rule 6.2. is that all parties that are represented in sufficient strength in the national parliaments, can have representatives and/or substitutes in the national delegations and thus in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

36.       One must admit that referring to national parliaments the problem of Assembly members who are opposing the Council of Europe's values, is - to a certain extent - shifting that question without resolving it. It implies that the solution becomes dependent upon the judgement on the contents of the programme of a political party by political competitors. This does not offer any guarantee at all. One could perfectly imagine that a party or group whose activities or statements seriously and persistently violate the basic principles of the Council of Europe, will be included in the national delegation because the party in question belongs to the majority or supports the government. Conversely a modification of Rule 6.2 will open the door to abuses, as parties belonging to the opposition will be excluded from the national delegations, even though their activities or statements are not violating the basic principles of the Council of Europe.

37.       This option does not prevent the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from being confronted with the issue, since, at the moment of the acceptance of the credentials, the Table Office and the Assembly will have to judge whether there are sufficient reasons to deviate from the principle of ‘fair representation’.

38.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities did not support this option.

OPTION C.

39.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities also considered the preparation of a draft resolution to be addressed to national parliaments. Such a draft resolution should refer to the incident which happened in April 2004 and to the Assembly's Resolution 1370 (2004) on this matter. It should then underline that national parliaments should not select for the national delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly representatives and substitutes belonging to parties/political groups which are seriously and persistently violating certain basic principles and who have themselves expressly identified through their action and their statements with the activities and programmes of such parties and political groups.

40.       Admittedly such a resolution is not compatible with the existing Rule 6.2 which clearly states that all the political formations that are strong enough, should be represented in the delegation. This resolution would not have any binding effect. It would not prevent national parliaments from disregarding it. In some national parliaments the resolution would simply be used in order to by-pass Rule 6.2. The Rapporteur also considers that in practice, the strong political message that could emanate from such a resolution, could lead to the unequal application of Rule 6.2 in several member states of the Council of Europe.

41.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities finally did not support this option.

OPTION D.

42.       In many national parliaments, regional parliaments and also in municipal councils, the persons elected can only sit after having sworn an oath or having made a solemn declaration. The refusal of such an oath or declaration has as consequence that the person elected can not assume the function.

43.       The committee examined and approved the proposal to insert a paragraph in the Rules of Procedure stating that the credentials of the members of a national delegation can only be accepted after having made a solemn declaration whereby they subscribe to the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of and the Preamble to the Statute of the Council of Europe.

44.       It agreed that such a modification of the Rules of Procedure would by-pass a number of almost unsolvable problems. At the same time it would send out a strong political message.

45.       The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities agreed to invite the Assembly to approve this proposal and to instruct the committee to elaborate the practical modalities and to report within a year.

G.       CONCLUSIONS

46.       The Committee unanimously approved the preliminary draft resolution contained in this report and invites the Assembly to adopt it.

Committee responsible for the report: Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities

Reference to committee: Resolution 1370 (2004)

Draft resolution unanimously adopted on 17 March 2005

Members of the committee: Mr Andreas Gross, (Chairperson), Mr Andrea Manzella, Mrs Ganka Samoilovska-Cvetanova, Mrs Lene Garsdal (Vice-Chairpersons), Mr Sándor Albert, Mr Gulumhuseyn Alibeyli, Mr Ioannis Bougas, Mrs Anne Brasseur, Mr Aslan Cebeci, Mr Jonas Cekuolis, Mr Manlio Collavini (alternate: Mr Giuseppe Mulas), Mrs Helen D'Amato, Mrs Krystyna Doktorowicz, Mr Miljenko Dorić, Mr Vangjel Dule, Mr Mats Einarsson, Mr Herbert Frankenhauser, Mr Tihomir Gligorić, Mrs Arlette Grosskost, Mr Gerd Höfer, Mr Serhiy Holovaty, Mr Tomáš Jirsa, Mr Armand Jung, Mr Erik Jurgens, Mrs Mojca Kucler-Dolinar, Mr Markku Laukkanen, Mr Per Erik Monsen, Mrs Nóra Nagy, Mr Ionel Olteanu, Mr Alexey Ostrovsky, Mr Julio Padilla, Mr Ivan Pavlov, Mrs Sólveig Pétursdóttir, Mr Christos Pourgourides, Mrs Valentina Radulović Šćepanovic, Mr Armen Rustamyan, Mr Fernando Santos Pereira, Mr Peter Schieder, Mr Yuri Sharandin (alternate: Mr Valeriy Fedorov), Mr Christophe Spiliotis-Saquet, Mr Victor Stepaniuc, Mr Karim van Overmeire, Mr Rudolf Vis, Mr David Wilshire, Mr G.V. Wright.

NB: The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in bold.

Secretary of the committee: Mr Mario Heinrich.


1 Art.8 lit.c. of the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (2004/C 155/01) and Art.3 lit.c of the Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding.

2 Guidelines of prohibition and dissolution of political parties and analogue measures, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 41st plenary season, 10.-11.12.1999, Doc. CDL-INF (2000) 1; see also Doc CDL-AD (2004) 007 rev.