B Explanatory memorandum by Petra Bayr,
rapporteur for opinion
1 Introduction
and regulatory framework
1. On 27 January 2025, Ms Boriana
Åberg (Sweden, EPP/CD), supported by the required number of members
of the Assembly, challenged the still unratified credentials of
the parliamentary delegation of Georgia on substantive grounds,
pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure.
2. The substantive grounds on which the credentials were challenged
refer to the recent parliamentary elections and subsequent developments,
including the deteriorating situation with regard to the respect
for democratic values, democratic pluralism, respect for the rule
of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and in particular
concerns at the dismantling of the democratic order in Georgia,
violations of the freedoms of assembly and expression and the crackdown
on the opposition and civil society. All these issues cast serious doubt
as to the compliance of Georgia with its commitments and obligations
in the Council of Europe.
3. In line with Rule 8.3 of the Rules of Procedure, the Assembly
decided to refer the challenge to the Committee on the Honouring
of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of
Europe (Monitoring Committee) for report and to the Committee on
Rules of Procedure, Immunities and Institutional Affairs for opinion.
4. At its meeting on 28 January 2025, the Rules Committee appointed
me rapporteur for opinion.
5. On 28 January 2025, the Monitoring Committee adopted a report
and a draft resolution which proposes to the Assembly to ratify
the credentials of the Georgian delegation together with depriving
or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation
or representation of members of the Georgian delegation in the activities
of the Assembly and its bodies and whilst calling for Georgia to
implement a number of actions.
6. The Committee on Rules of Procedure is asked therefore to
consider the compatibility of the proposed decision with the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure, as well as with the Statute of the Council of
Europe.
7. Rule 10.1 reads as follows:
“10.1. Reports submitted to the Assembly or
the Standing Committee under Rules 7.2, 8.3., 8.4., 9.2. and 9.3.
shall contain a draft resolution proposing in its operative part
one of the following three options:
10.1.a. ratification of the
credentials, or confirmation of ratification of the credentials;
10.1.b. non-ratification of
the credentials, or annulment of ratification of the credentials;
10.1.c. ratification of the
credentials, or confirmation of 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.
The members’ rights to vote,
to speak and to be represented in the Assembly and its bodies shall
not be suspended or withdrawn in the context of a challenge to or
reconsideration of credentials.”
2 On the compatibility
of the proposed decision with the Assembly's Rules of Procedure
2.1 Compliance of
the motion to challenge the credentials with formal requirements
8. The Rules committee points
out that challenging the credentials of a delegation must comply
with certain formal conditions in order to be in order. Rule 8.1
provides that:
“[t]he unratified credentials of a national
delegation as a whole may be challenged on the substantial grounds
set out in paragraph 2 by: at least thirty members of the Assembly
present in the Chamber, belonging to at least five national delegations”,
and that “[t]he authors shall state the reasons for the challenge”.
9. The committee notes that the challenge was supported by more
than 30 members, belonging to at least five national delegations.
No irregularities were observed. It could therefore be concluded
that the request had gathered sufficient support of members, as
required by the Rules of Procedure.
2.2 Analysis of the
substantive grounds in the light of the scope of Rule 8 of the Rules
of Procedure
10. Rule 8.2 provides that:
“The
substantive 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 Preamble to, the Statute; or
b. persistent failure to honour
obligations and commitments and lack of co-operation in the Assembly’s monitoring
procedure.”
11. In its previous opinions the Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs expressed its concern that
any procedure for challenging credentials should be based on a duly
substantiated request.
12. It therefore welcomes the fact that the challenge of the credentials
identified the grounds on which it is based. As was announced in
the plenary, the challenge of the credentials of the delegation
of Georgia relates to, inter alia: the recent
parliamentary elections and subsequent developments, including the
deteriorating situation with regard to the respect for democratic
values, democratic pluralism, respect for the rule of law, and in
particular concerns at the dismantling of the democratic order in
Georgia. All these issues cast serious doubt as to the compliance
of Georgia with its commitments and obligations in the Council of
Europe.
13. The reasons given to challenge the credentials constitute prima
facie legitimate grounds able to fall under the scope
of Rule 8.
14. It is not the task of the Rules Committee to enter into substantive
considerations, the analysis of the substantial grounds being under
the scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee according to its terms
of reference.
15. However, it is noted that the lack of genuine political pluralism
in the current delegation poses difficulties for the operation of
the Assembly. This matter could benefit from further consideration,
having regard to the importance of genuine political pluralism and
thus of hearing from a plurality of different voices within a democracy.
16. The rapporteur notes that the Monitoring Committee's report
includes a detailed description of the facts leading the rapporteur
and the Monitoring Committee to propose to ratify the credentials
of the Georgian delegation together with depriving or suspending
the exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation
of members of the Georgian delegation in the activities of the Assembly
and its bodies, whilst also calling for Georgia to implement a number
of actions.
2.3 Analysis of the
option chosen with respect to the question of the ratification of
credentials
17. As is set out above, Rule 10.1
contemplates three options following a challenge to the ratification
of credentials (i) ratification of the credentials; (ii) non-ratification
of the credentials; (iii) 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. It further
provides that “the members’ rights to vote, to speak and to be represented
in the Assembly and its bodies shall not be suspended or withdrawn
in the context of a challenge to or reconsideration of credentials.”
18. The draft resolution proposes 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 Georgian
delegation in the activities of the Assembly and its bodies, which
is one of the options foreseen in Rule 10.
19. The required actions set out in the sub-paragraphs of paragraph
11 of the draft resolution should be followed up closely by the
Monitoring Committee and its co-rapporteurs. It would also be appropriate
for all bodies of the Council of Europe, including the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights,
and, as appropriate, the Committee of Ministers, to follow-up and
to monitor the implementation of these required actions in order
to inform the Assembly of developments.
20. The draft resolution further notes the possibility for the
credentials of the Georgian delegation to be reconsidered, under
the conditions in Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The draft resolution
explicitly references the April 2025 part-session. It would be important
for the Monitoring Committee to prepare a report on the implementation
of the requirements set out in the draft resolution in time for
the April 2025 part-session.
21. The draft resolution proposes depriving or suspending the
exercise of some of the rights of participation or representation
of members of the Georgian delegation in the activities of the Assembly
and its bodies. The list of the affected rights is set out in paragraph
12 of the draft resolution and is in conformity with the Rules of Procedure.
2.4 Precedents
22. The following precedents are
of relevance to the consideration of challenges on substantive grounds
to the ratification of credentials.
- In 2024, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2527 (2024) in which it did not ratify the credentials of Azerbaijan.
- In 2022, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2422 (2022) in which it ratified the credentials of the Russian Federation.
- In 2021, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2363 (2021) in which it ratified the credentials of the Russian Federation.
- In 2020, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2320 (2020) in which it ratified the credentials of the Russian Federation.
- In 2019, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2292 (2019) in which it ratified the credentials of the Russian Federation.
- In 2015, the Assembly adopted Resolution 2034 (2015) in which it ratified the credentials of the Russian Federation
delegation but suspended the following rights during the 2015 session:
to be appointed rapporteur, membership of an ad hoc committee
on election observation; to represent the Assembly in Council of
Europe bodies and external institutions and organisations. Furthermore,
the Assembly resolved to suspend the voting rights and the right
to be represented in the Bureau of the Assembly, the Presidential
Committee and the Standing Committee of the Russian delegation to
the Assembly. The Assembly decided to return to this issue, with
a view to reinstating these two rights at its April 2015 part-session
if the Russian Federation had made marked and measurable progress
towards implementing the demands of the Assembly formulated in this
resolution. In Resolution
2063 (2015), adopted in June 2015, the Assembly confirmed the sanctions.
- In 2014, in its Resolution
1990 (2014) the Assembly suspended the voting rights of the delegation
of the Russian Federation as well as the right to be represented
in the Bureau, the Presidential Committee and the Standing Committee
and the right to participate in election observation missions, until
the end of the 2014 session (the challenge was referred to the Monitoring
Committee for report – Doc.
13483 – and to the Rules Committee for opinion – Doc. 13488).
- In 2006, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1480 (2006) in which the Assembly ratified credentials of Azerbaijan,
with certain requirements including in relation to investigations
into electoral fraud, amendments to electoral legislation, the freedom
of assembly and media pluralism.
- In 2004, the Assembly adopted Resolution 1370 (2004) in which it ratified the credentials of Serbia and Montenegro.
- Before that date, it is worth recalling that the Assembly
decided on only one occasion to suspend the voting rights of the
members of a delegation, whose credentials had been challenged on
substantive grounds. The Russian delegation was sanctioned in this
way in April 2000, in connection with the conflict in Chechnya;
it recovered all its participation and representation rights in
January 2001 (Resolution
1241 (2001)).
- It is also interesting to note, looking back a little
further into the past, that the Assembly, faced with the situation
in Greece following the 1967 military coup d’état and the installation
of the “colonels’ regime”, took the decision “not to recognise the
credentials of any Greek delegate purporting to represent the Greek
Parliament until such time as the Assembly is satisfied that freedom
of expression is restored and a free and representative parliament
is elected in Greece” (Recommendation
547 (1969), January 1969). This decision was taken a few months
before Greece’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe (December
1969 – November 1974).
- Similarly, bearing in mind the situation in Turkiye following
the 1980 coup d’état, the Assembly decided in May 1981 not to “envisage
the prolongation of the term of office of the Turkish delegation”
(Order 398), and then, in September 1983, that the elected parliament
“will not be able to be considered as representing the Turkish people
in a democratic manner, and could not therefore validly constitute
a delegation to participate in the work of the Parliamentary Assembly”
(Resolution 803).
23. The latter two decisions are atypical but illustrate the Assembly’s
ability to react to the violation by a member State of its obligations
under the Statute and to sanction the parliamentary delegation of
the member State in question.
3 Conclusion
24. The Committee on Rules of Procedure,
Immunities and Institutional Affairs considers that the proposal included
in the draft resolution presented by the Monitoring Committee to
ratify the credentials of the Georgian delegation together with
depriving or suspending the exercise of some of the rights of participation
or representation of members of the Georgian delegation in the activities
of the Assembly and its bodies, whilst calling for Georgia to implement
a number of actions is an option compliant with Rule 10.1 of the
Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.
25. It is evident that specific efforts will be needed to seek
to address the lack of genuine political pluralism in the current
delegation, which could pose difficulties for the operation of the
Assembly. This matter could benefit from further consideration,
having regard to the importance of genuine political pluralism and
thus of hearing from a plurality of different voices within a democracy.
26. Further, in order to make the actions set out in the sub-paragraphs
of paragraph 11 of the draft resolution meaningful, the implementation
of these actions should be followed up closely by the Monitoring
Committee and its co-rapporteurs, as well as, as appropriate, other
bodies of the Council of Europe, including the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe, the Commissioner for Human Rights, and
the Committee of Ministers, in order to inform the Assembly of developments
on the implementation of these required actions. In this context,
it would be important for the Monitoring Committee to prepare a
report on the implementation of the requirements set out in the
draft resolution in time for the April 2025 part-session.
