B Explanatory memorandum
1 Introduction
1. On 11 September 2009, Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen and
71 other Parliamentary Assembly members tabled a motion for a resolution
contesting the previously ratified credentials of the Russian delegation
on substantive grounds in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of
Procedure (
Doc. 12014).
2. At its meeting on 28 September 2009, the Bureau decided to
refer this motion to the Monitoring Committee for report and, in
accordance with Rule 9.2 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, to
the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional
Affairs for opinion. This decision was ratified by the Assembly
the same day.
3. This is the fourth time in a year that the Assembly has had
before it a request to annul the credentials of a parliamentary
delegation.
Note The procedure provided for in Rule
9 had hitherto remained unused since its introduction in 1996. The
challenge of the Russian delegation’s credentials in October 2008
set a precedent and was the opportunity for the Committee on Rules
of Procedure to clarify certain procedural issues at the request
of the President of the Assembly.
2 General remarks concerning the procedure for reconsideration
of a national parliamentary delegation’s credentials
4. When examining the previous requests, the Committee
on Rules of Procedure provided a detailed statement of its position
concerning the conditions for implementing the procedure for reconsideration
of a delegation’s previously ratified credentials. In this connection
it therefore refers to the opinions which it approved in 2008 and
2009 in these procedures (see footnote 2).
5. It will also be recalled that, in October 2008, the Bureau
of the Assembly referred several questions to the committee concerning
the procedures for challenging and reconsidering credentials. At
its meeting on 7 September 2009, it adopted a report on the amendment
of various provisions of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure (rapporteur:
Mr Holovaty), which sets out in detail the committee’s thoughts
on these procedures, with particular reference to the following
points:
- the differences between
the procedure for challenging still unratified credentials (Rule
8) and the procedure for reconsidering previously ratified credentials
(Rule 9);
- the possibility of withdrawing a signature from, or adding
a signature to, a motion, or of withdrawing a motion or any other
document in its entirety;
- the procedure for examination of amendments by the Assembly
in plenary and questions related to amendments that are out of order;
- the interpretation of the final vote of the Assembly on
a resolution presented in accordance with Rule 8.5 or Rule 9.4.
6. The committee notes, however, that on the occasion of this
part-session and the debate on the war between Georgia and Russia,
questions relating to the understanding and interpretation of the
rules on challenging a delegation’s credentials have once again
been raised. For example, some Assembly members have expressed the
view that the provisions of Rule 9 should be strengthened. The committee
is therefore ready to examine any new request for clarification
of the Rules of Procedure which it might receive from the Bureau.
Such request may include the conditions of tabling a motion for
a resolution to annul ratification of credentials on substantive
grounds.
3 Compliance of the motion calling for reconsideration
of the credentials of the Russian delegation with the Rules of Procedure
7. The committee points out that a motion calling for
reconsideration of a delegation’s credentials must comply with certain
formal conditions in order to be admissible.
8. Rule 9.2 states that “A motion for a resolution to annul ratification
shall be tabled by at least twenty members, belonging to at least
two political groups and five national delegations (…).”, and that
“A motion for a resolution to annul ratification shall (...) be
distributed at least two weeks before the opening of a Part-Session (...)”).
The motion meets these criteria.
9. When examining the previous requests in 2008 and 2009, the
committee was particularly concerned that any procedure for reconsideration
of credentials should be based on a duly substantiated request “as
the procedure in question [was] of major political importance and
[needed] to be conducted with rigour because of its implications,
it [could not] be used as a mere means of exerting pressure”.
Note It therefore welcomes the fact that
the present motion contesting credentials (
Doc. 12014) contains a detailed statement of the grounds on which
it is based.
4 Examination of the proposal made by the Monitoring
Committee
10. The Committee on Rules of Procedure has considered
whether the proposal made in the draft resolution contained in the
Monitoring Committee’s report is consistent with the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, particularly Rule 9, and the Statute of the
Council of Europe.
11. Rule 9.4 provides as follows:
“Reports
submitted to the Assembly or the Standing Committee under paragraphs
2 and 3 shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative
part:
– confirmation of the ratification of the credentials;
– annulment of the ratification of the credentials;
– confirmation of the ratification of the credentials
together with 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.”
12. The proposal by the Monitoring Committee in paragraph 6 of
the draft resolution is “to confirm the ratification of the credentials
of the Russian delegation, on the understanding that this will enable
the Russian authorities to engage in a meaningful and constructive
dialogue with a view to addressing all the issues mentioned in the
Assembly resolutions on the consequences of the war between Georgia
and Russia”, in accordance with Rule 9.4.
13. The Committee on Rules of Procedure also notes that the Monitoring
Committee’s report includes a detailed analysis of the facts and
circumstances leading the rapporteur and the Monitoring Committee
to support the proposal to confirm ratification of the Russian delegation’s
credentials.
5 Conclusion
14. The Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and
Institutional Affairs considers that the draft resolution contained
in the report submitted by the Monitoring Committee (
Doc. 12045) meets the requirements of Rule 9 and complies with
the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Council
of Europe.
__________
Reporting committee:
Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member
States of the Council of Europe
Committee for opinion:
Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs
Reference to committee:
Reference 3590 of 28 September 2009
Draft opinion unanimously
approved on 30 September 2009
Secretariat of the committee: Mr Heinrich, Mrs Clamer
