Logo Assembly Logo Hemicycle

Activities of the Assembly’s Bureau and Standing Committee (25 January 2016)

Progress report | Doc. 13945 Addendum I | 25 January 2016

Author(s):
Bureau of the Assembly
Rapporteur :
Ms Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, ALDE

1 Decisions of the Bureau of 25 January 2016 requiring ratification by the Assembly

1.1 Vice-Presidents of the Assembly in 2016

The Bureau took note of the list of candidates for Vice-Presidents of the Assembly (Appendix 1).

1.2 References and transmissions to committees

The Bureau considered and approved the following references:

1.2.1 References to committees

  • Doc. 13927, motion for a recommendation, Genetically engineered human beings, reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for report;
  • Bureau decision, The activities of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2016-2017, reference to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report.

1.2.2 Modification of a reference

Doc. 13569, motion for a resolution, Drafting social indicators and issuing an annual report on social rights (Ref. 4077 of 3 October 2014 – validity: 3 October 2016), reference to the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development for report and to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for opinion.

1.3 Election observation

1.3.1 Kazakhstan: early parliamentary elections (20 March 2016)

The Bureau decided to observe the early parliamentary elections and constituted an ad hoc committee to this effect composed of 11 members (EPP/CD: 3; SOC: 3; ALDE: 2, EC: 2 and UEL: 1- in accordance with d’Hondt system) and the rapporteur of the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy on The relations of Council of Europe with Kazakhstan, Mr Axel Fischer (Germany, EPP/CD).

1.4 Composition of the Monitoring Committee, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs and the Committee on the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights

On the basis of proposals by the political groups, the Bureau nominated members of these committees and decided to submit them to the Assembly for ratification (Commissions (2016) addendum 1).

1.5 Resolution 1376 (2004) relating to Cyprus

The Bureau took note of the letters from the two Turkish Cypriot political parties informing the President of the Assembly of the names of the “elected representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community” entitled to sit in the Assembly in 2016, namely Mr Özdemir Berova and Mr Mehmet Çaglar.

The Assembly is invited to ratify the above proposals made by the Bureau.

2 Other decisions of the Bureau

2.1 First part-session of 2016 (25 to 29 January)

2.1.1 Credentials of the Russian delegation for the Ordinary Session 2016

The Bureau took note of the letter jointly signed by Ms Valentina Matvienko, Chair of the Council of Federation of the Russian Federation, and Mr Sergey Naryshkin, Chair of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, explaining that the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation “did not consider it possible at this very moment to approach the Assembly for ratification of Russian delegation credentials during the January 2016 Assembly session”, as well as of the reply by Ms Anne Brasseur, President of the Assembly that “in line with Article 25 of the Statute of the Council of Europe and Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliamentary Assembly, this means that there will be no delegation of the Russian Federation taking part in the work of the Assembly throughout the whole of 2016, or at least until the next parliamentary elections take place in Russia”.

2.1.2 Requests for debates under urgent procedure and current affairs debate

The Bureau decided to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on Combating international terrorism while protecting Council of Europe standards and values on Wednesday 27 January in the afternoon, and to refer this matter to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report and to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights and to the Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination for opinion.

The Bureau also decided to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on The functioning of democratic institutions in Poland, to be held on Thursday 28 January in the morning, and to refer this matter to the Monitoring Committee for report.

Finally, the Bureau decided not to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on The Protection of Women and the honest reporting of unpalatable truths but to hold a current affairs debate on Recent attacks against women in European cities - the need for a comprehensive response, to be held on Thursday 28 January in the afternoon, with Sir Roger Gale as first speaker.

2.1.3 Draft agenda

The Bureau updated the draft agenda.

2.1.4 Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Cyprus

The Bureau took note of the report drawn up by the Committee on the election of judges following interviews with candidates for the post of judge to the Court in respect of Cyprus. This report had been already declassified by the Committee and submitted to the attention of all members of the Assembly (Doc. 13945 Addendum II).

2.2 Election observation

2.2.1 Armenia: referendum on constitutional reforms (6 December 2015)

The Bureau took note of the memorandum by the Chairperson of the ad hoc committee (Appendix 2).

2.2.2 “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”: early parliamentary elections (24 April 2016, to be confirmed)

The Bureau approved the composition of the ad hoc committee and appointed Mr Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC) as its Chairperson (Appendix 3).

2.2.3 Meeting of the Chairpersons of ad hoc committees for the observation of elections (27 January 2015)

The Bureau took note of the draft agenda of the meeting to be chaired by Ms Meritxell Mateu (Andorra, ALDE).

2.2.4 Schedule of elections for 2016

The Bureau took note of the elections calendar for 2016 as presented in the memorandum prepared by the Secretary General of the Assembly.

2.3 References and transmissions to committees

2.3.1 Extension of a reference

Bureau decision, The nature of the mandate of members of the Parliamentary Assembly (Ref. 4018 of 27 January 2014 – validity: 27 January 2016): extension until 31 December 2016.

2.4 Meetings elsewhere than Strasbourg and Paris

The Bureau authorised the following meetings:

  • Sub-Committee on the European Social Charter (Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development) to meet in Turin, Italy, on 17-18 March 2016;
  • Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons to meet in Tbilisi on 21-22 March 2016;
  • Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy to meet in Reykjavik on 26 September 2016.

2.5 Communications

The Bureau took note of communications by the President, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Appendix 1 – Vice-Presidents of the Assembly in 2016

AS/Inf (2016) 01

25 January 2016

Candidatures

GROUPS /GROUPES

COUNTRY / PAYS

CANDIDATES / CANDIDATS

GROUP I /

GROUPE I

France

M. René Rouquet

Germany / Allemagne

Mr Axel E. Fischer

Italy / Italie

Ms Adele Gambaro

Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie

 

Turkey / Turquie

Mr Talip Küçükcan

United Kingdom / Royaume-Uni

Sir Roger Gale

GROUP II /

GROUPE II

Poland / Pologne

Mr Włodzimierz Bernacki

Spain / Espagne

 

GROUP III /

GROUPE III

Denmark / Danemark

Mr Michael Aastrup Jensen

Finlande / Finlande

Ms Maria Guzenina

Georgia / Géorgie

Mr Tedo Japaridze

Greece / Grèce

Ms Anneta Kavvadia

Hungary / Hongrie

Mr Zsolt Németh

Republic of Moldova / République de Moldova

Ms Liliana Palihovici

Netherlands / Pays-Bas

Ms Ria Oomen-Ruijten

Norway / Norvège

Ms Ingjerd Schou

GROUP IV /

GROUPE IV

"The former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia" / "L'ex-Rép. yougoslave de Macédoine"

Mr Aleksandar Nikoloski

Albania / Albanie

Ms Valentina Leskaj

Andorra / Andorre

Ms Meritxell Mateu

Armenia / Arménie

Ms Hermine Naghdalyan

Appendix 2 – Observation of the referendum on constitutional reforms in Armenia (6 December 2015) – Memorandum by Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC), Chairperson of the ad hoc committee

AS/Bur (2016) 04

22 January 2016

Bureau of the Assembly

1. Introduction

1. The Bureau of the Assembly, at its meeting of 26 November 2015, decided to observe the referendum on constitutional reforms in Armenia, constituted an ad hoc committee consisting of one member per political group and the co-rapporteur of the Monitoring Committee on Armenia, appointed Mr Andreas Gross (Switzerland, SOC) as its Chairperson, and approved the composition of the ad hoc committee (Appendix 1).
2. The ad hoc committee was present in Armenia from 4 to 7 December 2015 to observe the referendum which led to a new constitution. It had meetings with leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups and parties, the Chairperson of the Central Election Committee (CEC), representatives of civil society and the media as well as the experts from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR). The programme is set out in Appendix 2.
3. The ad hoc committee operated outside the usual framework of an International Election Observation Mission, as, out of its usual partners (OSCE/ODIHR, OSCEParliamentary Assembly, European Parliament), only the OSCE/ODIHR was present in the country with a reduced Referendum Expert Team.
4. Following the referendum day, the ad hoc committee made a statement, which appears in Appendix 3.

2. The drawing-up of the new constitution, political context, legal framework and inclusiveness of the process

1. The referendum concerned the quasi total revision of the Constitution and the adoption of a series of draft amendments to the Constitution, intended to change the political system from a presidential to a parliamentary system and to substantially change the electoral system. In the new Constitution, the powers of the President are drastically reduced and are almost only ceremonial. The role of the opposition will be strengthened with the new Constitution.
2. The proposals were considered contentious by some in the country and the debate on the constitutional reform process dominated the political landscape in Armenia over the last few months.
3. In June 2013, the President of Armenia established a Specialised Commission for Constitutional Reforms (“Constitutional Commission”) and its Coordinator requested the assistance of the Venice Commission in the process of revising the Constitution.
4. Many efforts were made to include all interested citizens, groups and parties in the debate over the constitutional reforms. In different regions, public debates, round table discussions and talk shows were held throughout the whole process of the making of the new Constitution. The President of the Republic invited all political parties, even those not present in the parliament, for consultations over the proposed amendments.
5. The Venice Commission prepared two opinions on the draft amendments to the Constitution. It noted that the work carried out by the Constitutional Commission was of a high quality. It also stressed that the exchanges between the Constitutional Commission and the Venice Commission had enabled the production of a text, which was in line with international standards.
6. The Venice Commission stressed furthermore the importance of an open and continuous dialogue with all political forces and with civil society in Armenia in order for the constitutional amendments to be adopted by the parliament and subsequently by referendum.
7. The draft amendments were sent to the National Assembly on 21 August 2015. On 5 October, the National Assembly voted 104 to 10 and with three abstentions to put the proposals to a vote. The Republican Party of Armenia, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Prosperous Armenia party voted in favour, whilst the Armenian National Congress and the Heritage party voted against. The three abstainers were members of the Rule of Law party, with two of the party's MPs voting against the proposals.
8. The campaign seemed to be somewhat low-key, although many debates were aired on the three major TV-channels. Marathon debates were aired during many hours and the proponents of the reform considered that they had reached 40 percent of the viewers.
9. Nevertheless, the ad hoc committee had the impression that shortly before referendum day, political forces were still split concerning the reply to be given to the referendum and that citizens showed little interest in the exercise and seemed not to be well informed about the nature of the changes and their implications.

3. Referendum administration

1. The Central Electoral Commission set up 1 997 polling precincts for the referendum. Citizens of Armenia residing abroad were not able to cast their vote, with the exception of those serving diplomatically and their families, who had the possibility to vote via the internet. The Chairperson of the CEC informed the ad hoc committee that this concerned only 265 persons, mainly diplomats.
2. The electoral commissions included representatives of all parties present in the National Assembly. As for the Chairs and Secretaries of the 1997 electoral commissions, 888 positions were allocated to the Republican Party, all the others to opposition parties.

4. Referendum campaign and media environment

1. After approval of the draft amendments to the Constitution by the President of Armenia on 21 August 2015, they were submitted to the National Assembly and approved on 5 October.
2. The campaign for the referendum was considered by some as being low-key, with little public debate. According to some interlocutors of the ad hoc committee, it was also marred by misuse of administrative resources to campaign in favour of constitutional changes. The ad hoc committee was also told of attempts to influence the electoral administration at territorial and local level, by means of intimidation and/or corruption, a factor reported to the Prosecutor’s office, which subsequently led to the arrest of one person. The delegation also heard allegations of organised, large-scale, vote buying.
3. The inaccuracy of the voter list remained the most crucial issue, in particular in correlation to the confidentiality of voter participation, which some considered left room for manipulation and contributed to a lack of confidence in electoral processes in Armenia.
4. These allegations have been made regularly during all the recent elections in Armenia. Partly, this comes from the system of voter registration, which implies that voters should inform on voluntary basis the relevant authorities of changes of their residence, including permanent residence abroad. In the absence of such notification the authorities stress, that they have no right to remove the voters from the lists, they have to respect the right to vote.
5. As for the names of deceased persons, we were informed that once the death certificate is issued by the relevant authorities, the name of the deceased person is now automatically erased from the voters list. However, this is not the case if a person dies abroad. In this case, the authorised person should inform the relevant authorities of the fact so that the name of the deceased person can be removed from the voters list.

5. Referendum day

1. The referendum day was calm. The ad hoc committee split into three teams who observed the voting in Yerevan and its outskirts, as well as in the Ararat and Armavir regions.
2. One team noticed the presence of groups of persons in the close proximity to some polling stations, one of them being visibly disturbed by the presence of the observer team and disappearing after a short conversation with a member of the polling station commission, only to re-appear when realising that the team was leaving. It also witnessed evidence of vote-buying in the polling stations where it observed the voting (many “yes” ballots had one or more than one corners folded, a well-known technique allowing voters to “prove” to a person present during the vote counting and responsible for buying a certain number of votes for the respective polling station that the voter had indeed fulfilled the promise made when receiving the money). The Chairperson of the polling station commission (belonging to an opposition party), who was unfolding each ballot paper, did not seem to notice this unusual folding pattern.
3. The second team reported that a person who had only a biometric passport and not also a national ID card was not allowed to vote. In a polling station, a poster of the Republican Party asking voters to vote “yes” was displayed at the door next to the entry for the polling station. In the polling station where this team observed the counting, voting was overwhelmingly in favour of “no”.
4. The third team was informed by local NGO observers that carousel voting had earlier taken place in the polling station they were observing. This team were present when a woman came to vote only to discover that somebody else had already voted on her behalf, then, when she announced she would go to the police to file a report, she was allowed to vote anyway. During the counting, the polling station commission decided to take a 30 minute break to have dinner (during the counting process - supposed to take place without any kind of interruption). We recommend that further training be carried out and better awareness of the rules be ensured for future elections so as to eradicate such practices.
5. The lack of mobile voting and the location of some polling stations on upper stories of buildings with no lift effectively excluded some disabled citizens from the process. The matter of the exclusion of many citizens living abroad from exercising their vote should be addressed by the political authorities so as to avoid anyone being deprived of the right to express their views.
6. According to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, there were cases of obstruction and threats against journalists covering the referendum. A number of journalists were reported to be hindered in carrying out their duties on the day of the referendum.

6. Official complaints and how they were treated

1. After referendum day, the Ombudsman of Armenia wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General, the Head of the Police, the Head of the Investigation Committee and the Head of the Special Investigation Service regarding possible violations during the referendum. The letter stated that 67 emergency calls regarding possible violations during the referendum had been received by the Ombudsman and that there was information on further, similar, violations the credibility of which had not yet been verified. The Ombudsman presented a list of suspicious incidents (many with links to youtube videos showing irregularities) and asked that the cases be investigated and relevant measures be taken.
2. On 11 December, the Prosecutor General of Armenia announced a total of 461 claims of possible violations during the referendum. He announced that 143 reports were prepared on the basis of these claims, 12 of which had been transmitted to the police for examination, with criminal cases having been initiated on the basis of 214 claims. Criminal cases will not be instigated for 189 claims. The Prosecutor General also announced that 82 claims of violations were received from citizens, 55 from human rights activist organisations, 30 from observers and another 300 from mass media. He gave assurances that law enforcement bodies would take all necessary steps to investigate these crimes.
3. Recounts were carried out in 53 precincts, and ended on 11 December. On 14 December, the Central Electoral Commission made public the final results of the constitutional referendum. According to the CEC, the turnout was of 50.74% of the 2 566 998 voters (thus meeting the quorum of 25% of registered voters needed to approve the changes). 63.37% voted in favour of the constitutional amendments and 32.36% said 'no' to the new Constitution. The number of invalid ballots was 53 435. The number of stamped ballots at the district electoral commissions was 1 337 670.

7. Conclusions and recommendations

1. The relatively low turn-out, around 50% of the population, perhaps reflects either a general disinterest in constitutional matters, or a general feeling that political interests were taking precedence over the needs of the Armenian public. The referendum may have also been perceived by some as a vote of confidence in the government/President rather than on proposals for change. Some argued that the two-and-a-half-year reform process was not inclusive enough, with only a few weeks being given to discuss the text and that limited public debates made it difficult for an agreement to be reached. Thus, the core of the constitutional change - the shift from a presidential to a parliamentary system - was seen by many as simply a means for the current president to remain in power after the end of his second (and what would have been final) term - even though he repeatedly stated that he had no intention of doing so.
2. Concerning the voting process, the ad hoc committee regrets that the authorities were not more concerned by the integrity of the process leading to a new Constitution and that it must mention several problems, many of them already mentioned in previous PACE, Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommendations:
  • the inaccuracy of the voting lists containing the names of many people residing permanently abroad or even deceased, leading to claims that these identities were usurped by people who then voted several times;
  • allegations of large-scale organised vote buying and carousel voting as well as pressure on voters;
  • the media playing field was once again not a level one and the political parties were not able to fulfil their duties of informing and motivating the public;
  • the misuse of administrative resources by executive bodies;
  • allegations of pressure on, and attempts to corrupt, election officials;
  • shortcomings in the training of precinct election officials, particularly during counting;
  • the lack of mobile voting effectively excluded disabled citizens from the process.
3. The ad hoc committee urges the authorities to address these issues in order to build trust in the voting process and in politics in general to ensure a genuinely democratic future for Armenia.

Appendix 1: Ad hoc Committee for the observation of the referendum on constitutional reforms in Armenia

(6 December 2015)

List of members

Chairperson: Andreas GROSS (Switzerland, SOC)

Socialist Group (SOC)

  • Andreas GROSS, Switzerland

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

  • Doris FIALA, Switzerland

Rapporteur AS/MON (ex officio)

  • Mr Alan MEALE, United Kingdom

Secretariat

  • Bogdan TORCĂTORIU, Administrative Officer, Election observation and Interparliamentary co-operation Division
  • Anne GODFREY, Assistant, Election observation and Interparliamentary co-operation Division / Assistante

Appendix 2: Programme

Friday, 4 December 2015

13:30-14:30 Council of Europe Office

Delegation meeting with the participation of Ms Natalia Voutova, Head of the Council of Europe Office in Yerevan

14:30-15:45 Meeting with representatives of NGOs (round table):

  • Armenian Helsinki Committee: Mr Avetik Ishkhanyan (Chair)
  • Helsinki Citizens' Assembly: Mr Arthur Sakunts (Chair)
  • Transparency International: Ms Sona Aivazyan (Vice-Director)
  • Open Society Institute: Ms Larisa Minasyan (Executive Director)

15:45-17:00 Meeting with media representatives (round table):

  • Yerevan Press Club: Mr Boris Navasardyan, Chair, Mr Mikayel Zolyan, Project Co-ordinator
  • RFE / RL (Radio Liberty): Ms Hegine Buniatyan
  • A1 Plus: Ms Karine Asatryan, Editor-in-Chief
  • Aravot Daily: Ms Nelli Grigoryan

17:00-18:00 Meeting with experts from the OSCE/ODIHR:

  • Mr Douglas Bruce Wake (Leader of the Referendum Expert Team)
  • Mr Alexey Gromov (Election Adviser)
  • Mr Egor Tilpunov (Media Expert)

Saturday, 5 December 2015

10:00-12:00 (at the Parliament) Meetings with:

10:00-11:00 leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups and/or parties in favour of “YES”: Ms Hermine Naghdalyan and Mr Koryun Nahapetyan, Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), Mr Armen Rustamyan, Armenian Revolutionary Federation - Dashnaktsutyun (ARF-D), Ms Naira Zohrabyan, Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP)

11:00-12:00 leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups and/or parties in favour of “NO”: Heritage, Armenian National Congress (ANC) (including People's Party of Armenia), “Rule of Law”: Mr Levon Zourabian (ANC)

15:30-16:30 (at the CEC) Meeting with Mr Tigran Mukuchyan, Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Observation of the referendum

Monday, 7 December 2015

9:00 Meeting of the delegation: discussion of a draft press release

Appendix 3: Statement of the ad hoc committee

Observation of the referendum on the new constitution in Armenia

07/12/2015

A cross-party delegation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) was present in Armenia from 4 to 7 December 2015 to observe the referendum on constitutional reforms which took place on 6 December and led to a new constitution.

After a somewhat low-key campaign with little public debate and a calm referendum day, according to preliminary results, around 64% of those who voted did so in favour of the changes, thus meeting the quorum of 25% of the registered voters needed to approve the changes.

The relatively low turn-out, around 50% of the population, reflects the fact that the referendum was driven by political interests instead of the needs of the Armenian public and was perceived by many citizens as a vote of confidence in the government rather than on the many proposals for change. The two-and-a-half-year reform process was not inclusive enough, the parliament having only a few weeks to discuss the text and public debate being limited to two months, making it difficult for an agreement to be reached. Thus, the core of the constitutional change - the shift from a presidential to a parliamentary system - was understood by too many citizens as being a means for the current president to remain in power after the end of his second (and what would have been final) term.

Concerning the voting process, the delegation regrets that the authorities were not more concerned by the integrity of the process leading to a new constitution and that it must mention several problems, many of them already mentioned in previous PACE, Venice Commission and OSCE/ODIHR recommendations:

  • the inaccuracy of the voting lists containing the names of many people residing permanently abroad or even deceased, leading to claims that these identities were usurped by people who then voted several times;
  • allegations of large-scale organized vote buying and carousel voting as well as pressure on voters;
  • the media playing field was once again not a level one and the political parties were not able to fulfil their duties of informing and motivating the public;
  • the misuse of administrative resources by executive bodies;
  • allegations of pressure on, and attempts to corrupt, election officials;
  • shortcomings in the training of precinct election officials, particularly during counting;
  • the lack of mobile voting effectively excluded disabled citizens from the process.

The delegation urges the authorities to address these issues in order to build trust in the voting process and in politics in general to ensure a genuinely democratic future for Armenia.

While in Armenia, the delegation met leaders and representatives of parliamentary groups and parties, the Chairperson of the CEC, representatives of civil society and the media as well as OSCE/ODIHR experts.

Appendix 3 – Ad hoc committee for the observation of the early parliamentary elections in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (24 April 2016, to be confirmed)

List of members

Chairperson: Stefan Schennach (Austria, SOC)

Group of the European People’s Party (EPP/CD)

  • Viorel Riceard BADEA, Romania
  • David BAKRADZE, Georgia
  • Elena CENTEMERO, Italy
  • Iryna GERASHCHENKO, Ukraine
  • Denis JACQUAT, France
  • Frank J. JENSSEN, Norway *
  • Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE, Latvia
  • Joe O’REILLY, Ireland
  • Yves POZZO di BORGO, France
  • Attila TILKI, Hungary

Substitutes

Socialist Group (SOC)

  • Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria *
  • Marit MAJ, Netherlands
  • Josette DURRIEU, France
  • Predrag SEKULIĆ, Montenegro
  • Maryvonne BLONDIN, France
  • Mogens JENSEN, Denmark
  • Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Substitutes

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

  • Doris FIALA, Switzerland*
  • Eerik-Niiles KROSS, Estonia

Substitutes

  • Carles JORDANA MADERO, Andorra
  • Hendrik DAEMS, Belgium
  • Alain DESTEXHE, Belgium
  • Andrea RIGONI, Italy

European Conservatives Group (EC)

  • Tom PACKALÉN, Finland*
  • Dominik TARCZYNSKI, Poland

Substitutes

  • Mark PRITCHARD, United Kingdom
  • Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway
  • Daniel MILEWSKI, Poland
  • Iwona ARENT, Poland

Group of the Unified European Left (UEL)

  • Ioanneta KAVVADIA, Greece

Substitutes

  • Andrej HUNKO, Germany

Rapporteurs AS/MON (ex officio)

  • Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN, Norway*
  • Valeriu GHILETCHI, Republic of Moldova*

Secretariat

* members of the pre-election delegation

;