PV\1159439EN.docx AP102.468v02-00

EN EN

EURONEST PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE EURONEST

PARLAMENTARISCHE VERSAMMLUNG EURONEST

ПАРЛАМЕНТСКАЯ AССАМБЛЕЯ ЕВРОНЕСТ

Plenary session

NEST_PV(2016)0322

MINUTESof the meeting of 22 March 2016

Brussels

The Fifth Ordinary Session of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly was opened on Tuesday22 March 2016 at 3 p.m. by Mrs Heidi HAUTALA, Co-President of the Euronest PA. She notedthat on that special, tragic day, and under extraordinary conditions, at least some elements ofthe Fifth Ordinary Session of the Euronest PA had been maintained. The session was bound bythe necessary safety decision just issued by the President of the EP and the relevant services ofthe house that the house would remain closed at all on 23 March 2016. However, the EuronestPA Co-Presidents had got permission from the President's cabinet to hold a somehow "reduced"session. It was the intention of Co-Presidents Mr Dolidze and Mrs Hautala that the Assemblywould first of all draw due attention to the tragic events happened in the morning in Brusselsand then take formal decisions. Mrs Hautala asked Co-President Dolidze to take the floor onthe occasion of the tragic terror attacks of that day in Brussels.

Mr Victor DOLIDZE, Co-President of the Euronest PA, expressed his regrets about whathappened that day in Brussels; however, he believed that it was the right decision to hold themeeting and to discuss the issues shortly.

This was the statement, which the two Co-Presidents issued:

"We are deeply shocked at the horrific events that have taken place in Brussels today. Weextend our condolences to all the families and dear ones of the victims. These coward terroristattacks highlight that cooperation between EU-members and their neighbours is more neededthan ever to create stability and security on our continent. Only together can we defend ourcommon European values of freedom, the rule of law and human rights which are the basis fora safe society."

(*) Remark: because of the unusual conditions imposed on the meeting, there was no interpretation available inthe room.

AP102.468v02-00 2/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

Mrs HAUTALA announced that the Assembly would observe a minute of silence.

***

She then continued with her opening remarks and welcomed the guests to the Fifth OrdinarySession of the Euronest PA.

The Euronest PA, despite all the challenges it faces, is the parliamentary forum, according tothe founding texts and the political will of those who signed them, to promote in a multilateralformat the necessary conditions for accelerating political association and further economicintegration between the European Union and the Eastern European Partners in an inclusive andopen manner, in the face of a variety of political choices and priorities Eastern Partners have tocope with.

Mrs Hautala said that she felt very privileged to work closely with all the partners and regrettedthe absence of the Azerbaijani colleagues, in line with their decision of last September towithdraw from the Assembly and not to take part in this important session, even under theunusual, sad circumstances. The Euronest PA was their Assembly too, as Azerbaijan was stilla fully-fledged Euronest member until early October, when the decision to withdraw wouldtake effect. She expressed the hope that the next few months would still allow opportunities forserene political dialogue with Baku. Mrs Hautala together with Co-President Dolidze wasplanning a brief mission to Baku in early April.

The EP welcomed some signals, perhaps delayed but still positive, received from the MilliMajlis recently; she noted that all members felt encouraged by the leniency measures releasingwell known activists which had been announced in the last week on the occasion of the Novruzspringtime equinox festivities. But there were still important names missing from that list andthe partners had to work hard to make sure that there would be no political prisoners left inAzerbaijan.

The Euronest PA lended democratic legitimacy to the Eastern Partnership. The Assemblyconstitutes a unique opportunity for dialogue, mutual learning, support and understandingamong its various components. It is true that the Euronest PA is still "young", so to say, havingbeen established less than five years ago. However, it already has its place in the inter-institutional setting of the Eastern Partnership: she said that members were grateful to theCouncil, the Member States of the EU, the European Commission, for the ongoing cooperationand hoped to develop this cooperation even further, for example in the field of inter-actionbetween the Platforms and committees. Members also believed that the Euronest proceedingswere valuable in the inter-institutional perspective, as proven by the fact that the rotatingpresidencies and the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, in recent years,had regularly invited the Euronest PA to participate in key Eastern Partnership gatherings.

Mrs Hautala looked forward to the plenary session and debate, which unfortunately would nottake place in the presence of Commissioner Hahn, and would have to be reduced. Of course,the timing was quite important: it was necessary that Euronest takes a stand on the ongoingENP Review the new priorities. Mrs Hautala said that she would do herself her outmost to makesure that the partners would have that debate in another setting.

On the role of the Euronest PA, she mentioned the recently conducted reflection on the

PV\1159439EN.docx 3/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

functioning of the Euronest PA, which had been triggered by serious disruptions in theparticipation of Members in the proceedings but also by a new political reality, namely afterthe signature and provisional entry into force of three Association Agreements between the EUand, respectively, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The result of this reflection, which would benow presented to members from the Bureau for discussion and possible endorsement, containedthe "seeds" for a so-called "new Euronest scenario": a more focused Assembly, a streamlinedwork-plan and more pertinent working methods.

Mrs Hautala also mentioned that, concerning the debates that would not take place due to theday after's closure of the Parliament, the partners could indeed in the coming months agree toorganise a special session on the very important topics that had been decided, one of them beingthe hybrid threats that all partner countries face in their societies, whether on the Easternpartners side or the EU side.

She stressed that the Assembly's inclusiveness needed strengthening, and there were also newopportunities to exploit; Euronest should work on bringing to its forum those who belonged toit. Mrs Hautala mentioned Belarus and the new steps that the Bureau had decided to take, testingif there would be perspectives for cooperation and participation of Belarus, under the conditionof implementation of the recommendations of ODIHR/OSCE on the forthcoming elections.

She suggested that Euronest could also explore what could be done to improve the regionaldialogues with other key stake-holders, for example in Central Asia. Mrs Hautala remindedeveryone that for some time already the Eastern Partnership had been also focused on thepossibilities to cooperate with the neighbours of our neighbours. So partners could look at thattogether.

Also, Euronest should work better on the implementation of the reforms agendas with the civilsociety, which was the true driving force of the EU and Eastern Partner countries. On theoccasion of the Euronest Conference on the implementation of the Association Agreementswith Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, organised in cooperation with the EP Committee onForeign Affairs and the Open Society Foundation on 14 January 2016 in Brussels, Memberscould listen to very clear demands and it was concluded that:- there was no alternative to pursuing a reform path in the associated countries,- governments’ representatives from the Associated Partners should be involved inparliamentary discussions,- the signature of the AAs was certainly not a point of arrival, but a point of departure on arather demanding path,- several state structures in the associated countries, like the judicial systems, still suffered froma Soviet era heritage,- EU technical expertise in some cases only went half-way, with parliaments often not yet ableto be as effective in their monitoring as their voters and taxpayers would call for. Members hadeven heard that some best experts were not coming from the EU but from completely differentinternational backgrounds.- overall, a real parliamentary oversight of the executive’s action was still badly needed in manyEuropean countries, including Eastern partners.Finally, Mrs Hautala handed over to the Co-President to continue the welcoming address.

Mr DOLIDZE presented the work which had been done before the current plenary session ofthe Assembly and during Monday's meetings, especially during the Committee meetings. Thedocuments, which had been prepared, were quite reasonable and pragmatic despite some

AP102.468v02-00 4/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

different ideas and views expressed on all of them. Members would continue to discuss theseissues later on. In terms of Eastern Partnership cooperation, he pointed out to the previous day'smeeting between the four Eastern delegations. As Mrs Hautala had previously mentioned, veryunfortunately, Azerbaijan and Belarus were still out, but a working group on Belarus wasworking very hardly, somehow to get the Belarusian partners on board, addressing in particularthe officials from the government and the parliament of Belarus. The efforts of the WorkingGroup would be more visible after the parliamentary elections of September 2016.

Mr Dolidze indicated that the Assembly was thinking very seriously of improving its work,especially as regards effectiveness. Mr Dolidze appreciated the efforts of the EuropeanParliament's component and its secretariat for the preparation of a very productive documentcontaining an outline of the next steps in this regard: to have more efficient meetings of theCommittees, to have more communication between committee members of both sides of theAssembly.. He informed that Eastern Members had talked about more reasonable andproductive work within the Eastern Partnership countries as well. Mr Dolidze also appreciatedthe Armenian colleagues and the head of their delegation, Mr Zakaryan, whose view on thevarious issues at stake was very reasonable. He believed that partners would concentrate moreon sectorial reforms, DCFTAs, association agreements or individual partnership platforms withthe EU, which would be more effective. He also said that, when Mrs Hautala and himself wouldvisit Baku, they would discuss those issues with the Azeri colleagues. So, despite all issues atstake, he found that it was quite promising to go ahead and have in view a more productive andefficient platform for the future cooperation within the Euronest PA.

1. Adoption of draft agenda

Mrs HAUTALA noted that, indeed, there had been an agreement that the Assembly wouldsomewhat reduce its proceedings for the current plenary session. Basically the draft agenda wascorrect but it would be limited to the issues of the first day (22 March 2016). With that proviso,the draft agenda was adopted.

2. Adoption of a draft motion for a resolution on an urgent topic, ex. art. 9.3 of theRules of Procedure:- the case of Nadiya Savchenko

Mr DOLIDZE noted that in the morning, the Bureau had decided to include in the draft agendaof the plenary session a draft motion for a resolution on an urgent topic: the case of NadiyaSavchenko. This draft had been submitted, according to Art. 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, bythe EPP political group in the European Parliament. It was decided to allow one speaker foreach component of the Assembly to briefly introduce the draft and express their views. Eachcomponent's speaker would have two minutes. After these two short presentations, theAssembly would l immediately proceed to the vote.

Mrs KALNIETE, on behalf of the EP component, noted that Nadiya Savchenko had just beensentenced to 22 years in jail after having been found guilty of complicity in the killing of twoRussian journalists. She declared that the Russian court had based its verdict on fabricatedcharges. She added that it was Euronest's moral and political duty to demand her immediateand unconditional release in the strongest terms. Savchenko had been illegally kidnapped fromUkraine and had been illegally transferred to Russia. Russia had no right to detain, arrest or trialthe citizens of Ukraine for any crimes committed on the territory of Ukraine. Mrs Kalnietestressed that the Russian Federation had full responsibility of the health and well-being ofNadiya Savchenko during her imprisonment, while a demand for Ukrainian doctors to be

PV\1159439EN.docx 5/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

allowed to visit her was pending. The release of Savchenko should become a pre-condition forany improvement of relations between the EU and the Russian Federation. There should be nobusiness as usual as long as Nadiya Savchenko would stay in prison and the Minsk agreementswould not be fully implemented.

Mr Borys TARASYUK, on behalf of the Eastern partner delegations, expressed hiscondolences to the families of the victims of that day terrorist attacks in Brussels. All memberswere mourning about the innocent victims.

About the resolution on Nadiya Savchenko: he found needless to say that the Ukrainiandelegation supported fully and wholeheartedly the draft resolution. He hoped that the othernational delegations of Eastern partner countries would join and support. Regarding thefabricated trial against Nadiya Savchenko, that day the Russian judge had announced a verdictof 22 years imprisonment for Savchenko for a crime she had never committed. And this wasyet, in his view, another signal of the barbaric nature of Putin's Russia, which was ruining theinternational peace order, scrapping the international law and committing aggressions againstEuropean neighbourhood partners. So he urged all present there, all the EU member states andthe European Parliament to continue pressing the Russian regime to release Savchenko.

The resolution was then adopted by acclamation.

3. Greeting addresses from the observers to the Euronest PA

Ms Anne QUART, Committee of Regions, pointed out the role of local and regional authoritiesand the possibilities that they had to implement and to improve the relations between the EUand the neighbour states. One of the most visible examples of the role of local and regionalauthorities in the EU and its neighbouring countries, including Ukraine, .was the task to copewith the refugee question. The cities and local districts were the ones which had to implementpolitics by caring for housing for refugees, providing medical treatment and childcare, schooleducation for refugees and their families. By doing that, they were building the foundations fora future, stable partnership with the neighbouring countries and the people living there. So itwas necessary to take into consideration the role of local and regional authorities whilediscussing the further development of the Eastern Partnership and relations between the EU andneighbouring countries. From their experience, cities and local districts had high interest incontacts and common projects with the neighbours. There were youth exchanges and crossborder projects which contributed to showing to the citizens what was the role of the ENP.There was a potential, which was not yet fully used and which needed not only political supportbut also financial support linked to the partnership and cooperation agreements. Local andregional authorities were also very important partners when it comes to the question ofdecentralization of the administration. Many EU member states, especially the "youngermember states", had just finished the process of decentralization of their administrations, sothey had a lot of experience in this process and they were happy to share this experience withthe partners in the neighbouring countries. This would need concrete programmes of supportorganised at the national level and supported at the European level. The experience also showedthat those very complex processes of transformation, which were linked to the approximationto the EU standards, would cause some social and economic changes and could complicate thesocio-economic situation. In this respect the EU regions had rich experience of thosetransformation processes and their consequences like higher rates of unemployment, theworsening of public transport systems and the closure of educational institutions. These weresome of the problems that had to be coped with.

AP102.468v02-00 6/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

The aim of the ENP was and is to help to stabilize the European common regions and also toavoid building new walls there. Mrs Quart added that the various actors involved had toconsider that there were armies standing at the borders with Russia and there was a kind ofpropaganda war going on. She said that everyone was concerned by the question how can thisescalation be stopped. At the local and regional levels there was another image because therewere still intense contacts between different regions and economic exchanges. This was apotential to regain mutual trust and mutual understanding.

The reviewed ENP focused on European standards, rules and values. Coming from the East ofGermany, Ms QUART could see how the approximation processes could go on. The EU shouldsee where was the potential of the neighbourhood countries, what could be learned from theneighbours, what was the experience and relations that the neighbours could bring to the futurepartnership, in order to use that potential for development purposes and not to lose theacceptance of the people living there.

Mr Krzystof BOBINSKI, Co-Chair of the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Forum,stated that each European country faced major challenges in the current turbulent and tragictimes. This was making the realization of each one's mission more important. The ENPcountries were compelled to enduring continuing pressure and confront Russia's own politicalstandards. The economic downturn resulting from low oil prices and the sanctions againstRussia had made the situation even worse. As a result, the Eastern Partnership leaderships wereincreasingly looking at Brussels for economic support. But some of those leaders had failed torecognize that, to gain that support, they needed to accept governance reforms, democraticnorms and respect of civil rights. These were essential if lasting stabilization was to be achieved.

Civil society was ready to help to stabilize Eastern Partner countries if such reforms wereoffered by the leaderships. In Armenia, the leadership had embarked on talks on a newagreement with Brussels. However, following a clearly fraudulent constitutional referendum,the authorities had continued to ignore the reforms advocated by the civil society as it wascurrently happening with the draft electoral code and the number of political prisoners was 13.On Azerbaijan he welcomed a significant gesture made by the authorities the previous week,when they had freed 14 political prisoners including a CSF colleague, Mr Anar Mamadli.However, the authorities continued to hold others, such as Mrs Izmailova, Mr Aliev and MrMamadov. He wished the chairs of the Euronest PA all the best in their mission to Baku thefollowing month, especially in the light of the fact that Baku was looking for foreign financialsupport and was sending signals that they wanted to improve relations with Brussels. In Belarus,observers had seen a welcome release of political prisoners and, incidentally, peaceful althoughdeeply fraudulent presidential elections. There were still no signs that the leadership was readyto envisage changes including a constructive dialogue with civil society. And the most recentexample was the absence of independent human rights organisations at the conference on thedeath penalty held in Minsk with the participation of the EU special representative on humanrights. Nevertheless, the Steering Committee of the Civil Society Forum had suggestedestablishing in Minsk, a new framework for national dialogue, which would allow all sides towork together for change. Georgia was seeing growing social tensions ahead of elections in theautumn. In that case, the CSF urged speedy progress in the elimination of the visa requirementsfor Georgian citizens. In Moldova, the situation appeared to be temporarily stabilized with therecent decision of the Constitutional Court to order a universal suffrage for the election of thenew President. Also the government had agreed to give civil society an enhanced role in publicpolicy and decision-making processes. Ukraine was of course a special case with the war on itsEastern border with Russia. But the authorities were struggling to introduce reforms that wouldchallenge the culture of corruption. In Ukraine, as elsewhere, corruption was a destabilizing

PV\1159439EN.docx 7/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

force and the major barrier to change.

The EU was showing signs of fatigue with the EaP. However, it had now more than ever payattention to the political and economic developments in the Eastern Partner countries. Theinherent instability, of which the leadership of the EaP countries were so afraid, made it all themore important that the EU and the Civil Society Forum push for governance reforms anddefend human rights. With the support of the European Parliament and the Euronest PA led byHeidi Hautala and Victor Dolidze, civil society had not only to continue to push for change butalso to remember that, should a civil unrest erupt, triggered by populist corrupt elites, mediationwould be needed to facilitate compromises and to avoid violence. This was another area wherethe CSF should work together with parliamentarians to prepare for such an eventuality.

Mrs HAUTALA welcomed the proposals of the Civil Society Forum and personally MrBobinski and expressed her willingness to work together with them.

4. Approval of minutes of the Fourth Ordinary Session, held on 17-18 March 2015 inYerevan, Armenia

Co-President Mr Dolidze reminded members that, according to Art. 24 of the Rules, the drafthad been prepared by the Secretariat of the Armenian Parliament. The draft minutes had beendistributed. He proposed that, should no remark be received by the Secretariat by 23 March2016, at 10.00 a.m., they would be considered approved.

5. Exchange of views and, possibly, adoption of the proposals for "a new EuronestPA scenario"

Co-President DOLIDZE noted that the proposal had been prepared by Mrs Hautala and thesecretariat. This was a very good signal to remind every Euronest member to be more effective,and to privilege fruitful and efficient working methods. This was not only the case of theAssembly meetings, but also of the working groups and the committees. There was a need tomove further to give the Euronest PA new strategic importance. As rightly pointed by MrsHautala, the main objective of the " new scenario" should be to improve the functioning of theEuronest PA, by stimulating the participation of members from both components and makingit better equipped, more flexible and more content-oriented in its political bodies. As theGeorgian delegation had studied the proposal carefully, Mr Dolidze said that he had shared histhoughts in a letter which had been made available to Members. The reduction of the frequencyof the committee meetings from twice to once a year might not have a noticeable effect on thework of committees. On the other hand, organising joint meetings of the political and socialaffairs committees and, respectively, of the economic and energy committees might encouragethe works of all committees and increase the overall productivity of the Euronest PA.

As stated at the last Euronest PA Bureau meeting, it was vital to ensure that the Euronest PAmeetings would not coincide with important activities of political institutions of the EU and ofthe Eastern partners. He believed that this would benefit to the attendance and interest in theCommittees' activities and plenary sessions. Eastern Partners understood quite well that thepossibility of participation, particularly from the EP component, was not always so highbecause MEPs had their own agenda and tight schedule, which was absolutely understandableto everybody. On the other hand, it was necessary to somehow improve the relatively poor trendobserved recently. Full participation of all EaP delegations (4 delegations at the current session)

AP102.468v02-00 8/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

was not yet enough for a fully-fledged parliamentary dimension of the Eastern Partnership. Heannounced that the Co-Presidents would work on that aspect and improve it.

At the Bureau meeting in the morning it had been decided that all amendments fromdistinguished delegates (comments from the Moldovan delegation, the Armenian delegationand Mr Dolidze's proposals) would be included in the document. Therefore, members wouldhave a legitimate, serious document available, to be used for going ahead and continue thetransformation for the better of the work of the Euronest PA.

Mr FLECKENSTEIN noted that there had been a long discussion at the EP and in his politicalgroup about how to make the work of the Euronest PA more efficient and they supported thesuggestions made by Mrs HAUTALA.

Mr PIRINSKI stressed that he very much appreciated the discussion on how to increase theeffectiveness of the Euronest PA. The proposals contained in the document "a new Euronestscenario" dealt with the procedural aspects of the assembly's functioning and certainly therewas a room for manoeuvre, when looking at possibilities to make the Assembly more efficient,more streamlined and, as Ms Hautala had said, more focused.

Mr Pirinski also raised the question about the purpose of the Euronest PA. As the paper "a newEuronest scenario" said, the Assembly should be better equipped, more flexible and content-oriented for the purpose of exerting political influence. He wondered whether exerting politicalinfluence really was the principal purpose of the assembly. He mentioned that, previously, therepresentative of the CSF Mr Bobinski was talking about the importance of compromise andthe difficulty of seeking possible outcomes to difficult problems. Mr Pirinski respected thedifferent points of view and wanted to draw his colleagues' attention to the importance ofthinking very carefully of the exact purpose the Euronest assembly was trying to achieve.

Mr LUPU fully endorsed the proposals contained in the document and the idea itself launchedby the chairmanship of Euronest and thanked the Co-Chairs for that. For the Republic ofMoldova, it was very clear that the activities of Euronest should be improved, that the Assemblyshould become much more efficient and without any driven orientation. . The main purpose ofthe creation of the Euronest PA had been to set a kind of platform for debating, coordinatingcommon actions, having as a main purpose a European agenda. This was why the Moldovandelegation supported any kind of work and move in that direction, which would contribute tothe efficiency of EU and Eastern Partners' common work. He reminded that two years beforehis delegation had proposed for the first time to set up a sub platform or a working group,unifying the countries that have signed an association agreement with the EU.

In her turn, Mrs Hautala had proposed to have an additional body, tasked to hold associationcontent-focused although not necessarily very formal debates., Ms KALNIETE noted that theEPP supported the proposals contained in the document "new Euronest scenario" and endorsedit. She thanked everyone for the very good discussions held during the preparation of thedocument.

Mr POGHOSYAN commented that it was not really the problem of Euronest PA if theparticipation of the EP members was not very high; this was also a problem affecting the directbilateral relationship between the EP and the relevant countries. It was always difficult to get ahigh participation of the EP Delegation, for example in the context of the EU-ArmeniaParliamentary Cooperation Committee. There was a similar situation for Georgia and for othercountries. The issue had been raised many times. There was a need to add very strong content

PV\1159439EN.docx 9/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

to all those meetings and discussions, which would trigger a driving interest on both sides for awider participation. Definitely the content of activities would be the decisive factor.

Mr AUSTREVICIUS reacted on the section of the document dedicated to Belarus. Overall, hewas not optimistic about the prospect of general changes in Belarus. He would not be so speedyto take away all sanctions imposed on Belarus because he did not believe in the possibility, inthe short term, of genuine and real changes of the political system. What would come next?Whom should Euronest involve and what should one expect from Euronest to bring about interms of real change in Belarus? He supported a proper and well-balanced involvement of theBelarusian opposition. Should Euronest not involve them, as they are in fact for the time beingexcluded from the political process of their country, thanks to the efforts of PresidentLukashenko's regime, Euronest would contribute to kill yet for many years to come thedemocratisation process in Belarus. Democracy could gain in Belarus if the opposition wouldhave the upper hand. He did not believe that President Lukashenko might change of attitude.He was a symbol of the past of Belarus, not in any instance part of the future of Belarus. MrAustrevicius called therefore for a very cautious consideration of any possible option to admitrepresentatives of Belarus in the Euronest PA, as the opposition was not yet proportionallyrepresented at all.

The interventions round was closed and Co-President DOLIDZE proposed to consider the listof measures contained in the document "A new Euronest scenario" as indorsed. He mandatedthe working group on rules to look at the necessary adjustments of the Rules of Procedure ofthe Euronest PA.

Mrs HAUTALA proposed to take particular care of the suggestions endorsed by theParliamentary Assembly, including the one on the possibility to introduce, if appropriate, somemodifications to the rules of procedure on the setting up of working groups (Art. 27.1).

6. Presentation by Mrs Sandra KALNIETE (EP) and Mr Artak ZAKARYAN(Armenia), Co-Rapporteurs of the Euronest PA Committee on Political Affairs,Human Rights and Democracy, of a draft resolution on Common positions andconcerns of the EU Member States and Eastern European Partner countries overforeign policy and external threats to their security - Debate

Mrs HAUTALA noted that the report had been unanimously adopted in the Political AffairsCommittee and that there was no new amendment put forward for the plenary.She invited Mr ZAKARYAN to presents the report.

Mr ZAKARYAN expressed deep condolences to the families of those who lost their lives inthe terror attacks of that day in Brussels. He noted that the President of Armenia had sent hiscondolences too. Those tragic events showed once again that the EU and Eastern Partners hadto remain united in their fight against all types of terrorism.

He expressed his gratitude to Mrs KALNIETE for the joint work on their report. From the veryoutset, he had understood that elaborating such a report was going to be a very complex task,requiring a highly responsible attitude since the report subject was currently very topical.Overall, 111 proposals for amendments had been received, covering more than the wholecontext of the report. It was hard to find compromises. Taking into consideration the issuesrelated to the security of people as well as the tense atmosphere in the region, the Armeniandelegation had voted against a number of proposed amendments. The Armenian strategicpartnership with the Russian Federation would make it possible to envisage peaceful

AP102.468v02-00 10/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

developments in the region. Security, peace, sustainable development, dialogue and the will tofind acceptable political solutions were the main principles enshrined in the report. Asparliamentarians, Euronest Members would have to be supportive to the confidence buildingmeasures, to the formation of a politically conducive atmosphere and to mutual understanding.Parliamentarians would not have any right to worsen already complicated conflicts and to createadditional, potential problems. He was pleased that the co-rapporteurs had managed to keepthat line in the report. Today the EaP region needed security in the first place. Each party hadto decrease hazards and risks and make an effort to perceive the interests of other partner states.Europe was a large family. Leaving out any state from that family could become a case forother issues. Euronest should not take any steps against any of its members; on the contrary,the Assembly should do its best to address those integration issues constructively and that washis commitment.

Mr BONI made some remarks: firstly, in his view, Euronest was needed. It was important tohave the opportunity to exchange views among all partners. The report on threats to the securityof EU and Eastern Partner countries, which was discussed, addressed a key, in a broad sense,European challenge. Euronest Members did not want reports only for the sake of writingreports. They wanted to have a real impact on the reality. Secondly, he stressed that, forachieving better security, stronger cooperation in the economic area was needed, developingthe idea of FTAs and strengthening trade relations in a framework close to that of the DCFTArules. Thirdly, it was necessary to better understand who was a friend or potential friend, andwho was an enemy or potential aggressor of peaceful and sustainable development in the region.This implied the need to clearly consider the role of Russia, Turkey, and Iran in the future ofthe EU and in its relations with Eastern Partners. Fourthly, it was crucial to know how to dealwith refugees, displaced persons and migratory flows, which required a comprehensiveapproach focusing on development, conflict prevention and settlement, crisis management andhumanitarian aid. Fifthly, joint actions were needed to counter new threats to security, andtherefore cooperation among law enforcement national bodies in fighting terrorism, cross-border crime and cybercrime. The underground roots of home grown terrorism, such as politicaland religious extremism, needed to be tackled. Lastly, he stated that there was no commonfuture in Europe without well-organised cooperation of neighbours amongst each others andwithout EU active friendship.

Mr POGHOSYAN noted that in reality the Assembly was discussing a draft motion for aresolution on the external threats to the security of EU and Eastern Partner countries. Ironically,the task of each delegation or individual member seemed to be to present some small detailsand peculiarities, which could not find their place in the report adopted by the committee. Inthis regard, he noted that, sometimes, Euronest members did not seem supportive enough anddid not take the time to understand each other properly. There were, for example, three missingpoints in the draft resolution, which had to be considered describing real threats for Armenia.One of them was the common position on the promotion of confidence building measures andthe call for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Unfortunately, even withregard to human rights, the citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh were really deprived of internationalattention. The second important point was the recognition of Armenia as the third Europeancountry receiving refugees from the MENA region. Armenia had done its best not to contributeto increasing the threat that the huge inflow of refugees was constituting for Europe. Commonapproaches to face this issue should be developed. The third point was the main cause of theshocking event of the day in Brussels, which truly had touched everyone, namely the terroristattacks. Armenia had always been one of the countries stressing the need to join efforts in thefight against common threats such as terrorism, be it called ISIS, DAESH, Islamic State, oranyway else. Unfortunately, he said, the effort for understanding and joining forces was failing.

PV\1159439EN.docx 11/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

Europe should be inclusive. It was time to understand that only by joining forces Europe wouldbe able to fight common threats.

Mr GRZYB believed that the report under discussion was a very important one. There was avery special political situation in Brussels during the Euronest plenary sitting. Members shouldagree with all conclusions included in the report.

Mr TARASYUK noted that his delegation fully supported the report as it had been submittedto the plenary. At the same time, he invited the assistance to pay more attention to real concernsand threats to security, which were those stemming, according to his words, from the barbaricactivities of Russia. Without united efforts to stop that behaviour of the Russian regime, hewarned, Europe might have to face even more threats to its security and democracy. In thatsense he urged the EP and the EU member states to continue imposing sanctions against Russia,until Russia would fully implement the Minsk agreements and would stop the occupation ofCrimea.

Mrs KOZLOWSKA-RAJEWICZ commented that, from the events of that day, it was possibleto realise how important was the collection of information, the exchange of information and thecompatibility of data bases systems for the exchange of information between institutions ofdifferent states. Secondly, one of the new threats was disinformation, which might be used as atool of war. She encouraged everyone to do everything to increase resistance to propaganda,false information or disinformation. In that context, it was very important to supportindependent media and the activities of young independent journalists in the EU and EasternPartner countries and to help them in all possible ways to exchange information andexperiences. Thirdly, with regard to cybercrime and cyber-attacks, they were the new threatsand it was difficult to react. However, she concluded, it was possible to cope with thosephenomena by working together.

Mrs HAUTALA congratulated Mrs KOZLOWSKA-RAJEWICZ on her initiative to organise,that day, the first Women's Forum of the Euronest PA. She was pleased to observe that themeeting room was full, not only of women, but also of men.

Mr PLENKOVIC noted that the report very well reflected the challenges and the security issuesthe EU and Eastern Partner countries were together confronted with, especially in the light ofthe terrorist attacks of that morning in Brussels. The members’ states of the EU and all Easternpartner states shared similar threats, which went far beyond the respective borders. Issues suchas radicalization, cyber-attacks, or terrorism committed by foreign fighters were seriouslyinfluencing EU and Eastern Partners' citizens' daily lives and putting into question their values.The EU had a catalogue of tools and foreign policy instruments, such its ENP policy, its securityand enlargement policies, which had been put on the table, especially through associationagreements, trade agreements, cooperation on energy, cooperation on strengthening the rule oflaw, institution building, and development. These were the elements that could help thecountries in the EU neighbourhood to reach the standards which existed in the EU. All of thatshould be complemented with a strong, business-oriented, economic cooperation that wouldfinally have a beneficial effect on people-to-people contacts, which, in its turn, would befacilitated if there was a free visa regime for the citizens of the Eastern neighbourhoodcountries. Mr Plenkovich was particularly committed to the sovereignty and territorial integrityof all Eastern Partnership countries, especially with regard to the recent developments inUkraine, the situation in Georgia and Moldova. All those territorial issues were clear prioritiesand required international involvement, be it through the United Nations, the OSCE, or throughspecial formats such as that called "the Normandy format": international action should be well-

AP102.468v02-00 12/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

channelled to attain the reintegration of the disputed territories into the respective countries'constitutional orders. When it comes to security, the clear threat was the continuation of thedestabilization of Russia's neighbourhood whether through active or frozen conflicts. This wasthe main challenge where the EU and Eastern Partners should jointly try to find solutions.

Mrs HAUTALA pointed out the very good cooperation of the Euronest PA with the Co-Chairsof the bilateral parliamentary association or cooperation committees. There were at presentthree Parliamentary Association Committees for Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and there wasa parliamentary cooperation committee concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan. ConcerningBelarus, the EP standing delegation had visited the country in June 2015, for the first time after13 years. She stated that the more Euronest and the bilateral PACs and PCCs would worktogether, multilaterally and bilaterally, the stronger the parliamentary dimension of the EasternPartnership would be.

She noted that the vote on all reports would be held when the discussions on all of them wouldbe concluded.

7. Presentation by Mr Vitaliy BARVINENKO (Ukraine) and Mr RyszardCZARNECKI (EP), Co-Rapporteurs of the Euronest PA Committee on EnergySecurity, of a draft resolution on Policy development on unconventional gas andpotential energy market impacts in the EU and eastern European Partnercountries - Debate

Mr BARVINENKO noted that the committee had prepared a very important and very goodreport focused on unconventional gas. The co-rapporteurs had received many amendments.Shale gas had proven to be a game changer in the global energy market. It had been a successfulsource of energy, so far, only in the US; however, that experience could not be simply repeatedin Europe, due to the differences in geology, population, resources or ownership of the land.Some European states like Ukraine and Poland had a significant potential for the exploitationof those resources, which represented an important asset for their energy security. These andother states had different resources but still depended to a large extent on a single source of gas,which was Russia. Russia was obviously using its vast gas resources as a way to exert pressureon gas recipients and transit countries. For these countries, shale gas represented a possibilityto reinforce the national sovereignty by reducing the dependence on external suppliers. Yet alot remained to be done to make it happen. Ukraine, as well other Eastern Partners, needed amore favourable political and legal environment and transfer of technology, which remained,still, mainly in the US. At the same time, those countries needed to make sure that all theoperations taking place in Europe would have the highest standards in terms of safety andenvironmental protection. There was no proof that shale gas could threaten human health orenvironment. Yet many of those who did not want shale gas exploitation to develop, used thosehealth or environmental claims to stop Europe from using shale gas. The rapporteur remindedthat, however, the report had been adopted by the committee the day before and was verybalanced. He expressed his satisfaction on that the common sense had prevailed in the vote.

Mr FLECKENSTEIN noted that the S&D group agreed with all reports except for the report ofthe Energy Security Committee. Therefore, he announced that his vote would be against, firstof all, because there had not been any effort directed to compromise, the report only showed aone-way, approach by the rapporteurs and this should not be the way to deal with such delicateissues. He stressed that there were many different views on the unconventional gas and it wastherefore normal not to agree on everything.

PV\1159439EN.docx 13/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

Mr GRZYB congratulated the co-rapporteurs on their good report. Shale gas as a source ofenergy had a big potential, especially for the countries that had those resources. It might be asource for the diversification of supplies, even more important than indigenous resources. Itcould also be a mean for leverage on reducing the CO2 emissions. At present, low prices of gasdid not help to intensify the exploration. However, it was crucial to maintain the possibility forthe future, not only for the EU countries, but also for the Eastern Partnership countries (forexample, Ukraine).

Ms HARMS fully agreed that it was a good idea to decrease energy dependence on Russia. Inthe Ukrainian case, there were some evaluations according to which shale gas could beavailable. Should European countries go together for the exploration, then they would do it withthe best available technical standards. She regretted that in the draft resolution the sensitivityof the environmental demands had not been addressed as it should be. Therefore, the Greenswould not support the resolution. It was better, in her view, to discuss it later in the Euronestassembly in a balanced way: she stressed that she was in favour of decreasing dependency butalso in favour of developing new energy sources in a context of sustainability.Mr BALČYTIS was in favour of the report. The situation in the Baltic States and other stateswas different from that of the Southern countries and maybe Germany because there was noother possibility to get gas. Shale gas was a real substitute for more carbonate-intensive fossilfuel. It could actually reduce the dependence on imports from Russia. With regard to Ukraine,it was good that the country had engaged in adopting legislative acts which could favour theliberalization of the gas market and the development of new energy resources. He expressed hissupport to the Eastern Partner countries in a currently very difficult moment. The EU shouldreview its policies on energy and in particular on the construction of the Nord Stream II pipelinein order to prevent the division of the European Union countries and of the Eastern Partnershipcountries.

8. Presentation by Mrs Iris HOFFMANN (EP) and Mr Gia JORJOLIANI (Georgia),Co-Rapporteurs of the Euronest PA Committee on Economic Integration, LegalApproximation and Convergence with EU Policies, of a draft resolution on EUmulti-annual financial perspectives and their impact on Eastern Partnershipcountries economic cooperation - Debate

Mrs HAUTALA noted that there was no need for the presentation of the report and proposedto give the floor to the speakers who had asked to intervene.Mr DOLIDZE observed that the report was substantial and would benefit, in his view, of anoverall support of the Assembly.

Ms MOODY noted that it was a very good report, which was focused on the cultural andhistorical links not only between partner countries and EU member states, but also betweenpartner countries themselves. Obviously, DCFTA and association agreements had a bilateralcontent but there was a need for a multilateral approach, which was exactly the work that theEastern Partnership and Euronest PA were doing. The report also looked at other options forthe countries without DCFTA agreements, where the EU and Eastern Partners should developnot only bilateral but also multilateral relations. The Commission should include the track onregional integration in its work and also in its reporting. The launch of the DCFTA facilities forthe SMEs was an area where more support could be provided. Supporting infrastructures forSMEs should be provided, so that the concerned countries could accomplish reforms. Withregard to the Eastern Partnership Platform 2, the Commission should strengthen the mandatefor it and encourage its participants to exchange best practices and support cooperative work.Both the EP and the Eastern Partners' parliaments should take a much more strategic view to

AP102.468v02-00 14/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

the work Euronest was doing in order for it to play a more valuable role.

Mr BAGRATYAN noted that there were discussions ongoing on how to make available thebulk of the DCFTA agreement provisions for the Eastern European countries (including thosewho had not signed them) and the representatives of small businesses. He emphasized theimportant role of the Commission, which had presented a large number of new opportunitiesfor small businesses in Eastern Europe. It was important to take into consideration thecentralization and concentration of economy in this part of Europe. It was necessary to find newways to decentralize, to fight against monopolistic structures, to make available DCFTAopportunities for everybody and to work on the approximation of the legislation in the tradearea. There was already a common language, the understanding of the problems and, hopefully,there would be positive results which would hopefully lead to the development of more moderneconomic structures in the Eastern Partnership countries.

Mr DOLIDZE reminded that recently Commissioner Malmström had visited Tbilisi. It wasagreed that DCFTA was a very good tool for sectorial reforms, starting from transport toagriculture. The political decision of the Commission on granting Georgia a visa-free regimewith the EU was highly appreciated. Hopefully such political decision would be made forUkraine as well, which would be a good tool for further development of trade and economicrelations. Political association and economic integration of EU and Eastern Partner countrieswas a very pragmatic mechanism for further cooperation.

Mr PLENKOVIC noted that the economic cooperation was a cornerstone of the Europeanproject and that there were successful examples of economic integration among central andEastern European countries as well as among countries from the South-East Europe that couldbe a source of inspiration for Eastern Partners. It was with regret that the report assessed thecurrent level of economic integration between the EaP countries still not high enough; in fact,a higher level of economic integration would not only stimulate economic growth but alsopromote stabilization and peace in the region. Mr PLENKOVIC welcomed the entry into forceof the bilateral DCFTAs with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, because, together with a visa-free regime, they would bring about other concrete benefits for the people and especially forthe businesses of these countries. Associated countries would have the possibility to trade withthe EU and to make a profound and unavoidable transformation into competitive marketeconomies. Support for SMEs was one of the key priorities for the EU. At the same time, theCommission would provide a substantial budget for grants for SMEs in Ukraine, Georgia andMoldova (200 mln euro for the next 10 years). Among the tasks of Euronest, one is to ensurethat beneficiaries are informed about these grants initiative and have access to thesepossibilities. The DCFTAs were also a crucial tool for attracting foreign investors to therelevant countries, for the creation of new jobs and stable economic growth in the medium andlong-term. At the same time, he stressed that countries who had not signed DCFTAs would notbe left behind because there would be a possibility for the adoption of international standardson the basis of the WTO rules as a way to overcome technical barriers for trade. In his opinion,having a DCFTA with the EU did not in any way complicate or make it impossible to havedifferent free trade arrangements with other countries and neighbourhood. Unfortunately therewere many difficulties for the entry into force of the DCFTA with Ukraine due to the aggressionfrom the Russian side. However, he expressed the wish that the Commission's trilateral talkswould end up successfully.

9. Presentation by Mrs Norica NICOLAI (EP) and Mrs Oxana DOMENTI(Moldova), Co-Rapporteurs of the Euronest PA Committee on Social Affairs,Education, Culture and Civil Society, of a draft resolution on Cooperation between

PV\1159439EN.docx 15/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

the EU and Eastern European Partner countries in terms of mutual recognition ofprofessional qualifications, work experience and university diplomas within theBologna process - Debate

Mrs NICOLAI mentioned the good debate which had taken place in the Committee the previousday. There were 56 amendments and also some compromise amendments had been voted.Currently, the Bologna process had some problems inside the EU as well as outside. TheCommission’s requirements on professional qualification and work experience were morecomplicated than the Bologna process itself. The diploma issue was a current problem. Therewere some improvements in the European neighbourhood countries and there were standardsfor diploma recognition. This was a good achievement which would facilitate in the future thepossibility to cooperate. The report tried to find some common positions and common solutionsto problems.

Mr PIRINSKI highlighted that the topic of recognition of qualifications and diplomas provedto be of a great interest for the members of the Committee. At the end of the discussion therehad been a question raised by some of the Eastern Partners’ participants: how could theycontinue examining the existing problems which had been identified, how could they makebetter use of the cooperation with the Commission. Three representatives from the Commissionhad attended the meeting and had made very serious and in-depth comments on opportunities,good experiences, successful examples and also problems. So in line with the effort to makethe Assembly more efficient and more focused, the Bureau should consider how to carryforward those issues which had been found to be of particular interest.

Mr SHAHGELDYAN noted the good quality of the report.

Mr STETINA highlighted the importance for students from the former Soviet bloc to takeadvantage of university exchanges and diploma recognition. Only educated young intelligencefrom the Eastern Partner countries, who would have the possibility to learn through their owndirect experience the democratic system would have the possibility to fight against communismand the “Soviet way of thinking”. He observed that in some countries there was still atotalitarian spirit flying in the air.

Ms MAGRADZE noted that the report raised very urgent and necessary questions. The futureof Eastern Partner countries depended, she said, on how they would answer to unemployment,which was the main challenge. One of the causes of unemployment, for her, was the quality ofeducation and professional qualifications. As the new Georgian Prime-Minister had announced,knowledge-based economy was important for the country and it was a priority in thedevelopment strategy up to 2020. This report provided indications on which mechanisms couldbe put in place to ensure that the education and professional qualification would answer thedemands from the huge, global labour market, which could open up to Eastern Partners’ work-force after visa liberalization and with the progressive entry into force of the associationagreements. She noted that, sometimes, Euronest talked a lot about political issues, but it wasimportant to talk also about the living standards of people which directly depended on thequality of education. She observed that nobody could ensure that tomorrow the quality ofeducation would be the same in every country but the Social Affairs Committee’s report nowprovided very concrete proposals on how to reach the mutual recognition of diplomas andprofessional qualifications.

10. Adoption of the draft resolutions contained in the Committees' reports

AP102.468v02-00 16/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

Mrs HAUTALA noted that on tree of the draft resolutions contained in the reports adopted bythe Committees, no amendments had been submitted, while on the Energy SecurityCommittee’s draft resolution 1 amendment had been submitted. She proposed to adopt theresolutions without amendments, namely the Political Committee resolution, the EconomicCommittee resolution and the Social Affairs Committee resolution, by acclamation. The threeresolutions were adopted by acclamation.

Then, the meeting proceeded with the voting on the report from the Energy Security Committee.

The chair activated the electronic vote equipment and the results were the following:Vote on amendment No. 1: 30 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention.Vote on the draft resolution as amended: out of 50 members present, 46 took part in the vote;30 were in favour, 14 against and 2 abstentions.

The Energy Security Committee report was declared adopted.

11. Adoption of work-plan for the second half of 2016 and the first half of 2017

Mr DOLIDZE proposed to proceed to the adoption of the Work Plan for the second half of 2016and the first half of 2017. He presented the recommendations of the Bureau for the calendar ofthe main meetings of the Euronest PA political bodies and reminded Members that they wouldfind that proposed calendar in their files.

He mentioned, in particular, that the Working Group on Rules could have a meeting inNovember 2016 to make an evaluation on the opportunity to elaborate amendments to the ruleswhich would be needed as a result of the Fifth Ordinary Session and as a result of the document“New Euronest Scenario”. The WG on Belarus intended to organise a meeting just a few weeksafter the September legislative election in Belarus. The Bureau would meet in principle inOctober 2016 in Strasbourg and the date would be communicated later on. The Committeeswould meet in October and November of 2016 in principle in the Eastern Partner countries. Themeetings would be organised in accordance with the new modalities defined in the “NewEuronest Scenario”. Ukraine proposed to host the Energy Security Committee meeting inOdessa in July 2016.

Concerning the first half of 2017, the EP had not adopted yet its annual calendar. Therefore thedate of the 6th Ordinary Session would be communicated later on. For reasons of coherence,the Bureau recommended, also in accordance with the new modalities defined in the “NewEuronest Scenario”, that the next session should take place shortly before the 2017 EasternPartnership Summit of the Heads of State and Government. The date and place of the Summithad not been decided yet. The Summit, for various reasons, might take place in Brussels ratherthan in the country holding the EU Presidency. Concerning the location of the 6th OrdinarySession, Mr Dolidze announced that the Bureau had confirmed its support to the 2015 Ukrainianproposal to hold the session in Kiev in 2017.

Mr ZAKARYAN noted that the Armenian Delegation had proposed to host the meeting of theEconomic Committee in Yerevan in October 2016. The dates depended on the EP calendar forexternal activities, since Armenia was ready to host that meeting anytime.

Mr DOLIDZE concluded that further changes and adaptations might be necessary and all datesand meetings were still subject to approval by the relevant political bodies, at least on the EPside.

PV\1159439EN.docx 17/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

Mrs HAUTALA concluded that 22 March 2016 was a day to remember due to the tragic eventsof the morning. She noted that it was important to think about how to re-organise work on theissues which had been left out of the agenda due to the emergency of the day.

The session was closed at 17.00hrs.

AP102.468v02-00 18/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Members of the European Parliament

Mrs Heidi HAUTALA, Co-President (Greens, FI)Mr Zigmantas BALCYTIS, Vice-President (S&D, LT)Mr Ryszard CZARNECKI, Vice-President (ECR, PL)Mr Michal BONI (EPP, PL)Mrs Birgit COLLIN-LANGEN (EPP, DE)Mr Mark DEMESMAEKER (ECR, BE)Mrs Elisabeth KÖSTINGER (EPP, AU)Mrs Agnieszka KOZLOWSKA-RAJEWICZ (EPP, PL)Mr Jiri MASTALKA (EFDD, CZ)Mrs Clare MOODY (S&D, UK)Mr Giorgi PIRINSKI (S&D, BG)Mr Andrej PLENKOVIC (EPP, HR)Mr Bronis ROPE (Greens, LT)Mr Jacek SARUYSZ-WOLSKI (EPP, PL)Mr Jaromir STETINA (EPP, CZ)Mr Bogdan Andrej ZRDOJEWSKI (EPP, PL)Mr Kosma ZLOTOWSKI (ECR, PL)Mr Petras AUSTREVICIUS (EPP, LT)Mr Jerzy BUZEK (EPP, PL)Mr Benedek JAVOR (Greens, HU)Mr Marek JUREK (ECR, PL)Mrs Sandra KALNIETE (EPP, LV)Mr Karol KARSKI (ECR, PL)Mr Ivan STEFANEC (EPP, SK)Mr Andrejs MAMIKINS (S&D, LV)

Eastern Partners

Armenia

Mr Artak ZAKARYAN, Chair, Republican (RPA)Ms Karine ATSHEMYAN, Republican (RPA)Mr Tevan POGHOSYAN, "Heritage" FactionMr Mikayel MELKUMYAN, Prosperous Armenia"Mr Mher SHAHGELDYAN, Rule of LawMr Vahe ENFIAJYAN, Prosperous Armenia"Mr Hrant BAGRATYAN, "Armenian National Congress"

SecretariatMr Victor BIYAGOVMs Karine SHIMSHIRYAN

Georgia

Mr Victor DOLIDZE, Co-President of the Euronest PA, Free DemocratsMr Fridon SAKVARELIDZE, The Georgian Dream -National ForumMr Gia JORJOLIANI, The Georgian DreamMr George ZHVANIA, The Georgian DreamAni MIROTADZE, The Georgian Dream -National ForumGiorgi KANDELAKI, The United National MovementMrs Tinatin BOKUCHAV, The United National Movement

PV\1159439EN.docx 19/20 AP102.468v02-00

EN

Eka BESELIA, The Georgian DreamMrs Guguli MAGRADZE, The Georgian DreamMr David DARCHIASHVILI, The United National MovementMr George VOLSKI, The Georgian DreamChiora TAKTAKISHVILI, The United National MovementMr Levan TARKHNISHVILI, The United National Movement

SecretariatMs Tamara KHINTIBIDZEMs Ekaterine KATSADZEMr Lekso GOLETIANIMrs Teona BORASHVILI

Moldova

Mr Marian LUPU, Chair, Democratic PartyMr Dumitru DIACOV, Democratic PartyMs Oxana DOMENTI, Party of CommunistsMr Artur REȘETNICOV, Party of Communists

SecretariatMr Eugeniu BURDELNII

Ukraine

Mr Borys TARASYUK, Chair, All-Ukrainian UnionMr Vitaliy BARVINENKO, Group "Rennaissance"Mr Oleksandr, KODOLA, People's FrontMr Vitalii KURYLO, Petro Poroshenko BlocMr Hennadii CHEKITA, Petro Poroshenko BlocMr Vitalii KORCHYK, People's FrontMs Nataliia VESELOVA, Samopomich Union

SecretariatMs Liudmyla PROTASENKOMr Andrii BAGRINETSMr Bohdan FERENS

Also present:

EEAS: Ms Federica MOGHERINI, HRVP (via video-message, not projected in the room due to theterrorist attacks of the day)Mr Jon KYST, Mr Boris IAROCHEVITCH, Mr Dirk SCHUEBELEuropean Commission: Mr Johannes HAHN, Commissioner (his intervention was foreseen for 23March 2016 am, but that second working session of the plenary was cancelled due to the terroristattacks of the day)European Economic and Social Committee: Mr Gonçalo LOBO XAVIERCommittee of the Regions: Ms Anne QUART

Eastern Partnership Civil Society ForumMr Krzysztof BOBINSKIMr Ulad VIALICHKA

Baltic AssemblyMr Romualds RAŽUKS

AP102.468v02-00 20/20 PV\1159439EN.docx

EN

Ms Marika LAIZANEMr Martin OLEKSS

Diplomatic Corps

S.E. Mr Tatoul MARKARIAN, Ambassador of the Republic of ArmeniaS.E. Mr Fuad ISGANDAROV, Ambassador of the Republic of AzerbaijanS.E. Ms Natalie SABANADZE, Ambassador of GeorgiaS.E. Mr Eugen CARAS, Ambassador of the Republic of MoldovaS.E. Mr Mykola TOCHYTSKYI, Ambassador of Ukraine

Secretariat of the European Parliament

DG EXPOMr Marco AGUIRIANO NALDA Director GeneralMr Ciril STOKELJ DirectorMs Sabina MAZZI ZISSIS, Head of UnitMr Yves MAISONNY, AdministratorMs Myriam GOINARD, AdministratorMr Philippe KAMARIS, AdministratorMs Szidonia FOGARASI, Assistant

DG COMMMs Agnese KRIVADE