|
|
Doc. 8953
24 January 2001
Credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation to the Parliamentary Assembly
Opinion1
Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Rapporteur: Ms Akgönenç, Turkey, EDG
I. Conclusions of the Committee
The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities is of the opinion that the draft decision contained in the report of the Political Affairs Committee on the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation is in conformity with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly and the Statute of the Council of Europe.
II. Explanatory memorandum by the rapporteur
A. Introduction
1. At the opening of the current part-session on Monday 22 January 2001, Mr Atkinson, (United Kingdom, EDG), supported by more than nine representatives belonging to more than four other national delegations, challenged the credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation, as reproduced in document 8926. In accordance with Rule 8, paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure, these credentials were referred without debate to the Political Affairs Committee for report, and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and the Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities for opinion (Reference no. 2561).
B. Credentials of the delegation of the Russian Federation
2. The relevant parts of Rule 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 provide as follows:
"The unratified credentials of a national delegation as a whole may be challenged on the substantial grounds set out in paragraph 2 by at least ten members of the Assembly present in the chamber, belonging to at least five national delegations...
The substantial grounds on which credentials may be challenged are:
"a. serious violation of the basic principles of the Council of Europe mentioned in Article 3 of, and the Preamble2 to, the Statute; or
b. persistent failure to honour obligations and commitments and lack of co-operation with the Assembly’s monitoring procedure.”
3. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities, meeting on 24 January 2001, considered the conclusions of the Political Affairs Committee’s report adopted on 23 January 2001 (AS/Pol (2001) 07, rapporteur Mr Eörsi (Hungary, LDR)). It considered the proposals contained in the report in order to take a position on their conformity with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council of Europe. In effect, Rule 8.5 provides that there is a choice of three proposals:
- ratification of the credentials,
- non-ratification of the credentials, or
- depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation of members of the delegation concerned in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies.
The Political Affairs Committee recommends that the Assembly, at its sitting on 25 January, should ratify the credentials of the Russian Federation, thus making a clear choice between the three options under Rule 8.5. This recommendation by the Committee is also in conformity with the Statute of the Council of Europe which allows the Assembly to decide on the time and manner in which the names of representatives and their substitutes shall be notified and related matters (Article 28.a and 28.c.iv of the Statute).
C. Admissibility of amendments during the discussion by the Assembly or the Standing Committee of the conclusions of reports on challenged credentials and voting procedures
5. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities wishes to point out that during the debate on the ratification of credentials of the members of the delegation of the Russian Federation in April 2000, certain problems as to the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure had been raised and the following position had been adopted3:
- amendments to the recommendation of the Political Affairs Committee which were aimed at ratifying the credentials of the new delegation of the Russian Federation were in order, even if they replaced it entirely, since the recommendation contained only one paragraph (in application of the footnote to Article 34.3 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure)4;
- amendments containing a time element were admissible since the word “suspending” used in Rule 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure implied a notion of time;
- an amendment which replaced the Political Affairs Committee’s recommendation to ratify the credentials with the following text “The Assembly declines to ratify the credentials of the Russian delegation” was declared inadmissible. In the view of the President of the Assembly, who is competent to decide on the admissibility or inadmissibility of amendments and sub-amendments (Rule 34.5 of the Rules of Procedure), it was sufficient for the Assembly to vote against the Political Affairs Committee’s recommendation to achieve the same result. It was not necessary to table an amendment to that effect. Moreover, if such an amendment were declared in order, it would mean that the Assembly would be required to resort to two identical votes: first of all on the amendment and then on the recommendation.
6. It should also be noted that at the April 2000 part-session, following the adoption of the amendment which deprived the members of the Russian delegation of their voting rights, there was a degree of confusion among certain members of the Assembly. For some of them who did not wish to ratify the credentials of the members of the delegation of the Russian Federation, it was not clear whether they should reject the amended recommendation in order to achieve this result. Those members who had wished to ratify the credentials and who had, accordingly, voted against the suspension of voting rights, found it difficult to understand that they should vote “in favour” when voting on the Political Affairs Committee’s recommendation.
7. The Political Affairs Committee now has presented a draft resolution and this will clarify the situation. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities is supporting this presentation which is in conformity with Rules 33 and 49 of the Rules of Procedure.
D. Conclusions
8. The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities notes that the draft decision contained in the report of the Political Affairs Committee is in conformity with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure. The final decision will have to be taken by the Assembly.
*
* *
Committee for report : Political Affairs Committee
Committee for opinion : Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities
Reference to the Committee : Assembly decision of 22 January 2001 (Reference N° 2562)
Opinion adopted by the Committee on 24 January 2001
Secretary of the Committee : Mr Heinrich
See Doc. 8949 of the Political Affairs Committee
2 Preamble to the Statute, third paragraph: “Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy.”
Article 3 of the Statute: “Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.”
3 See Report AS (2000) CR 15 of the sitting of Thursday 6 April 2000, p.40 et seq.
4 "The whole of a text" is the complete draft recommendation, opinion, resolution, or order submitted to the vote of the Assembly or the Standing Committee. There may be cases where an amendment formally speaking does not entirely replace a draft text but in substance does. It is up to the President to declare such an amendment admissible or not (Rule 34.5.). The Committee on Rules of Procedure and Immunities considers that in any case an amendment should not replace all paragraphs (sub-paragraphs) nor the great majority of the operative part of a draft text unless it consists of a single point (Doc.7418).