EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT OF

EU-UKRAINE PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE

MINUTES of the 19th EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee Meeting (Strasbourg, 13-14 June 2012)

AGENDA

1. Adoption of the agenda

2. Adoption of the minutes of the eighteenth of the EU-Ukraine PCC held in and Ivano-Frankivsk on 20-22 February 2012

3. State of play of the EU-Ukraine relations, including and EURONEST issues

4. Internal developments in Ukraine and the EU

5. Parliamentary elections in Ukraine and their impact on the political situation of the country.

Joint Debate on points 3, 4 and 5 with statements by:

- The - The

6. EU-Ukraine economic and sectoral cooperation, including EU-Ukraine gas transit networks and various approaches on shale gas extraction within the EU and in Ukraine.

7. Adoption of the statement and recommendations of the nineteenth meeting

8. Any other business

9. Date and place of next meeting

1 PE 526.987 The Nineteenth meeting of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee was held on 13 and 14 June 2012 in Strasbourg under the joint chairmanship of Mr and Mr Pawel KOWAL.

Wednesday 13 June 2012, 15.00-18.30

Mr Pawel KOWAL opened the Nineteenth PCC meeting, welcomed and greeted all the participants. He stressed that this meeting particular as it was the last meeting before the Ukrainian parliamentary elections in October 2012 which would be of particular importance for the Ukrainian citizens and the country. He added that these elections would be important for the EU to assess the mutual relationship with Ukraine and would be closely witnessed by an observation mission sent by the European Parliament (EP). Referring to the previous experiences of the elections observation in Ukraine in 2004, he underlined that the highest number possible of observers should be sent to the Ukrainian parliamentary elections showing that the EU cares of Ukraine. Mr KOWAL underlined that he personally met Ms and Mr noting MEPs Ms Rebecca HARMS and Mr Jacek PROTASEWICZ have also met these politicians in prison. He added that Mr Jacek PROTASEWICZ and Mr Johannes Cornelis VAN BAALEN would join this meeting and debrief about their meeting with Ms TYMOSHENKO and Mr LUTSENKO. He noted that the issues related to the Association Agreement (AA) between the EU and Ukraine would be also discussed during the meeting.

On behalf of the Ukrainian part of the PCC, Mr Borys TARASYUK expressed the gratitude to the European Parliament (EP) hosts and thanked for the preparation of the meeting. He emphasised the importance of discussing the state of the EU-Ukraine relations with members of the Ukrainian Parliament and representatives of the and the EP during the last meeting in February in Kyiv and Ivano-Frankivsk oblast. Mr TARASYUK stressed the importance of the finalising of the negotiations on the Association Agreement (AA) during the 15th EU-Ukraine summit and the initialling of the AA between Ukraine and the EU. He expressed the hope that conditions would be met for the signing and the ratification of the AA noting that the key to meet these conditions was in Kyiv. Mr TARASYUK noted some progress on the Plan on visa liberalisation between the EU and Ukraine. Whatever the internal situation in Ukraine, he emphasised the importance of the visa liberalisation for all Ukrainians who should be granted a non-visa regime. He underlined that the organising of the -2012 football championship by Ukraine and Poland would show Ukrainian realities. Mr TARASYUK concluded by stressing the importance of the European Parliament (EP) Resolution of 24 May 2012 on the internal situation in Ukraine. He underlined the successful meeting of the Euronest Parliamentary Assemble (PA) last April in Baku which resulted in the adoption of the five resolutions. He wished the PCC successful work and the adoption of the final statement and the recommendations.

1. Adoption of the draft agenda

The draft agenda was adopted as tabled.

2. Adoption of the minutes of the eighteenth of the EU-Ukraine PCC held in Kyiv and Ivano-Frankivsk on 20-22 February 2012

The minutes were adopted unanimously as tabled.

2 PE 526.987 3. State of play of the EU-Ukraine relations, including Eastern Partnership and EURONEST issues

Mr Maciej POPOWSKI, Secretary General of the European External Action Service, stressed that parliamentary elections in Ukraine would be a political test to assess whether the Ukrainian authorities are fully commited to conduct the elections in conformity with the international standards. In relation to the Eastern Partnership (EaP) and Euronest issues, Mr POPOWSKI emphasised the success of these projects for the security of all partners as the high priority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Regarding the state of play of the EU-Ukraine relations, Mr POPOWSKI reiterated the will to develop the cooperation between the EU and Ukraine. He noted that the Association Agreement (AA) initialled in the end of March had the potential to accelerate the Ukrainian political and economic integration with the EU. He explained that the AA was one of the most ambitious agreements ever prepared by the EU with any third country. He stressed the importance of the conducting free and fair elections, reducing the selective justice' cases and improving the respect of human rights and political freedoms. He underlined the resumption of the reforms that were already agreed in the EU-Ukraine Joint Association Agenda which would facilitate the entering to force of the AA. Mr POPOWSKI stressed that the EU was following closely the internal developments in Ukraine. He noted that the trials against the officials of the former Ukrainian government, in particular the cases of Ms TYMOSHENKO, Mr LUTSENKO, Mr IVASHCHENKO and Mr FILIPCHUK who were currently in detention, were followed closely. He regretted that the trials did not respect the international standards in terms of transparency and independence of the legal process. He noted the continuing unwillingness to address the issue of the selective use of justice by Ukrainian side and emphasised that the EU-Ukraine relations would not improve without strong commitment from Ukraine to demonstrate that the rule of law and respect of fundamental values were applied systematically in Ukraine. He explained that politically-motivated justice was a systemic problem which would need a systemic solution as comprehensive judicial reform. He underlined the importance of the new Criminal Procedure Code in consultation with the was a positive development. He added that this Code was a good example to follow in preparation of other pieces of legislation related to transparent legal process. He explained that the EU was looking at the revision of the legislation in Ukraine on the Public Persecutor on the Bar, the role of High Council of Justice, the Criminal Code with its articles 364 and 365, as well as amendments to the laws on judicial system and state of judges according to the recommendations made by the Venice Commission. He mentioned that the establishment of the effective mechanism of preventing ill-treatment and torture would be also critical to ensure the results. Mr POPOWSKI noted that the reforms would require the important work and cross-party support. He emphasised that constitutional reform in Ukraine, law on public associations, etc. should be carried out in a exclusive transparent way and in close cooperation with the Council of Europe and Venice Commission. He noted that there were positive developments in relation to the complying with the rulings of the European Court of Human rights on medical treatment provided to Ms TYMOSHENKO.

4. Internal developments in Ukraine and the EU

Mr Vsevolod CHENTSOV, Director of the European Department of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noted the intensive dialogue between the EU and Ukraine on different levels and within different frameworks through the work with EEAS and several visits of the EU Commission in Ukraine and Ukrainian officials in Brussels. Mr CHENTSOV stressed that the Ukrainian government paid a lot of attention to what the EU is saying. He underlined

3 PE 526.987 that the problem was that Ukraine saw some issues differently, but the cooperation between the EU and Ukraine should continue. The EU should not be attached to some particular criminal cases and should be concentrated on the EU-Ukraine cooperation. Mr CHENTSOV reminded that the Ukrainian government provided the transparency on all interesting topics for European partners. He added that the EU should take into account that Ukrainian judiciary should be independent, including being independent from the external pressure. Mr CHENTSOV welcomed the adoption of the Roadmap (including bilateral and multilateral levels) within the Eastern partnership initiative. He noted that most of Ukrainian proposals were included in this document. He mentioned that during 2013 Ukraine should fulfil the criteria of visa free travel for its citizens.

Mr Oleh NADOSHA disagreed with the position of Mr POPOWSKI and other members of the EU on the evaluation of the Ukrainian internal situation. He stressed that there were some political aspects in Ukraine that could be valid only in Ukraine. He underlined that not only concrete politicians and cases, but the whole political context in Ukraine should be taken into account.

Mr Borys TARASYUK disagreed with the statements of Mr NADOSHA and noted that these statements could only belong to the opinion of some political forces in Ukraine. He underlined that geographically Ukraine was always a part of Europe. He added that in terms of desire to be a part of Europe, Ukraine would not become a part of Europe with its own rules, but with the EU rules and regulations. Mr TARASYUK stressed that in 2005 Ukraine was ranked as a "free democratic country" by the Freedom House evaluation report, but five year later Ukraine was downgraded to a "partially free country". He underlined that this report like many others showed the problems of Ukrainian democracy. He concluded that Ms TYMOSHENKO was just a part of a problem, not entire problem and her imprisonment could not be compared to the whole political context.

Ms Iryna GERASHCHENKO stressed that the discussion today should be about the implementation of the Association Agreement (AA), not only its signing or not signing this year. She agreed that there was certainly a debate concerning the signing of the AA due to some political events in Ukraine. At the same time, she emphasised that all political forces and Ukrainian citizens expressed clearly the willingness to become a part of Europe and Ukrainian government should comply with this obligation. Ms GERASHCHENKO paid attention to two important aspects. Firstly, she found the resolutions on Ukraine adopted by the EP as worrisome and wondered why they were never debated in the Ukrainian Parliament. Secondly, she pointed out that the selective justice cases showed not only the problem of one or two people with the TYMOSHENKO case as the peak of the iceberg, but the problem of the whole judiciary system in Ukraine.

Mr Volodymyr FILENKO stressed that greater attention should be given to the parliamentary electoral campaign. He welcomed the fact that many international observers would be sent in Ukraine for the elections. He emphasised that the parliamentary campaign was already ongoing in Ukraine and this should be observed more closely. He noted that some already started offering some presents to influence the voters.

Mr Maciej POPOWSKI noted that the assessment on the reform of the judiciary system in Ukraine was comprehensive. He explained that in his speech on Ukrainian internal situation what he referred to was the combined views of the EU institutions and the EU member states, not to the isolated views of the EEAS.

4 PE 526.987 Mr Vsevolod CHENTSOV stressed that EU values and standards could be implemented within the Association Agreement (AA). He noted that Ukraine should be prepared for the following step in order to be able to speak about the EU membership of Ukraine. He emphasised that the EU should develop strategic vision of the EU-Ukraine relations.

Mr Kostiantyn YELISIEIEV stressed the importance of the EU values that would be implemented in the AA and expressed his certitude of its signing. He emphasised that there was one common aim to discuss the European integration of Ukraine with its related issues on visa, energy, etc.

Mr Volodymyr VECHERKO stressed that the Members of the EP should meet more with Ukrainian parliamentarians through travelling in regions of Ukraine in order to see how Ukrainians live. He noted that the EU-Ukraine relations should not focus on negative segments. He called for more understanding between the EU and Ukraine. He underlined that he would like to see Ukraine in the EU and visa free regime for Ukrainians in the EU. He noted that many Ukrainians work in Europe or have their businesses there.

Mr Jacek PROTASEWICZ debriefed the participants about his recent trip to Ukraine (Kyiv and ) on 18-19th of May. He thanked Mr YELISIEIEV for his support in organising this trip. He reported that, on the first day, he met Mr Konstyantyn GRYSHENKO (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Mr (Prosecutor General), opposition leaders- Mr Serhiy LUTSENKO, Mr and with Mr Serhiy VLASENKO (advocate of Ms Yulia TYMOSHENKO). On the second day, he met first the local representative of the persecutor office and then Ms TYMOSHENKO. The Vice-President of the EP stressed that the conditions in which Yulia TYMOSHENKO was detained, her medical treatment and the incident of using of force against her to bring her from prison to hospital were discussed. Mr PROTASEWICZ underlined that the internal permanent conflict between united opposition and ruling party was the main subject of the Ukrainian policy and the European integration was becoming less strategic and left aside. He said that when he talked to the local administration and representatives of persecutor, they confirmed that Ms TYMOSHENKO was given the best conditions possible. At the same time, he stressed that Ms TYMOSHENKO drew attention to the need of better treatment for other prisoners from her cabinet, especially Mr LUTSENKO. He added that he talked to Mr LUTSENKO and his advocate about the conditions of the detention which was much worse than those of Ms TYMOSHENKO. He added that according to his information Mr LUTSENKO was infected with hepatitis in hospital. Mr PROTASEWICZ noted that he discussed the EU-Ukraine relations with Mr GRYSHENKO and Ms TYMOSHENKO. He stressed that this was a strategic issue which should not become a hostage of the internal conflicts.

Mr Johannes Cornelis VAN BAALEN pointed out that there were no guards in the prison cell of Ms TYMOSHENKO and she was authorised to receive guests. He confirmed that she had severe back problems which can make her cripple but the foreign doctors had the possibility to provide her a necessary treatment. He stressed that Ms TYMOSHENKO talked more about the other members of her cabinet that were imprisoned than herself. He noted that it was important to mention that Ms TYMOSHENKO did not call to boycott the Euro 2012 football championship. Regarding the situation of press in Ukraine, he noted that it was difficult for free press to operate in Ukraine. At the same time, he explained that Ukraine had no the censorship as in China or Belarus. He expressed the hope that the opposition would

5 PE 526.987 work together on appropriate conditions to set free and fair parliamentary elections in October 2012.

Mr Marek SIWIEC commented that the mission of Mr KWAŚNIEWSKI and Mr COX would meet the former Ukrainian president and the Minister of Justice. He welcomed the extending of the mandate of this mission as it would not succeed with its initial mandate.

Mr Paweł KOWAL stressed that this mission was a positive factor for a general climate of the EU-Ukraine relations.

Mr Anatolii KINAKH stressed that the strategic aim of Ukraine was and remained the European integration of Ukraine. Through recent twenty years, he underlined the positive dynamic of the EU-Ukraine relations noting that Ukraine was recognised as a market economy and was a member of WTO for over three years. He noted that the process of the approaching of Ukraine to the EU values and standards ameliorated during last years. He mentioned the adoption of the document on foreign policy stipulating the European integration as a strategic aim. He added that the new criminal procedure code was adopted with the specific laws which would be adopted in coming months. He noted that the constitutional majority of the current government adopted the strategic aim of the Ukraine’s European integration. He stated the results of the latest polls that showed more than 70% of Ukrainian citizens supported the European integration. Mr KINAKH welcomed the help in mowing forward on the European integration agenda of Ukraine. He emphasised that it was important not allow a vacuum to exist in the Ukrainian European integration process. He regretted that the time was lost after initialling of the DCFTA and added that there should more work on national programmes of adaptation in relation to this agreement. He pointed out that the EU-Ukraine relations should be focused on the commercial aspects, noting the facts that 30% of Ukrainian trade was with the EU and the EU was the biggest investor in Ukraine. He concluded that these aspects of cooperation united the EU and Ukraine despite some existing problems.

Mr Oleh NADOSHA agreed that the open door to door principle should be followed during the parliamentary campaign. He added that the observation mission should start its work already now before the elections and stressed that it was important to monitor whether there were the equal conditions and whether the elections were transparent and valid.

Mr Pawel KOWAL noted that there was still enough time to organise the observation mission from different political forces from the EU member states. He mentioned that the observation does not require significant financial resources noting that the NGOs can observe the elections and it could be done under OSCE observer mission.

Mr Andrzej GRZYB congratulated with the good organization of EURO 2012 football championships which permitted to come and see how Ukraine looked like. He stressed that the role of a good will KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission was to listen to all parties in order to solve the internal conflict in Ukraine. He expressed his satisfaction with the fact that the mandate of the mission was extended. He added that this mission could be also important in the observation of the pre-election phase. He underlined the importance of the freedom of press and equal access for the political parties to the media stressed earlier by Mr FILENKO. In view of the Lisbon treaty, he stressed that the EP had the right to observe also the process of democratisation in Ukraine. He emphasised that the EU put a particular stress on the human rights issues reminding that the EP recommendation for the Special Representative of

6 PE 526.987 the EU for Human rights was adopted. Regarding the parliamentary elections, Mr GRZYB stressed that the preparations, not the elections themselves, would be a matter of a particular concern for the EU institutional and international observers in terms of the fair and free conduct.

Mr Borys TARASYUK expressed his gratitude to Mr PROTASEWICZ and Mr VAN BAALEN for their visit to Ms TYMOSHENKO and Mr LUTSENKO and their efforts to clarify the situation in this respect. He also thanked to Mr KOWAL to do the same earlier. He then stressed the importance of the mission of Mr COX and Mr KWAŚNIEWSKI.

Mr Volodymyr FILENKO noted that the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission was still not admitted to meet Ms TYMOSHENKO.

Mr Jacek PROTASEWICZ commented on the final words of Mr FILENKO by noting the next visit to Ms TYMOSHENKO would be organised before a cassation court. He added that the mission should also deal with the cases of Mr LUTSENKO and Mr IVASHENKO.

Mr Johannes Cornelis VAN BAALEN noted that the European Parliament should fist wait and see what the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission conclusions, proceedings at cassation court and parliamentary elections of October 2012 would bring us. He added that in view of all these events the EP should then act.

Mr Kostiantyn YELISIEIEV stressed that the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission was unique. On behalf of the government, he encouraged the colleagues to let the mission work normally and create a good climate for its work. He welcomed all possible observers from the EP and elsewhere for the parliamentary elections in October 2012. The Ambassador noted that certain European media wanted to discredit the preparation for the EURO 2012 football championships in Ukraine and explained that the first days of the EURO 2012 showed the real picture of the organisation of this event by Ukraine and Poland as welcoming countries.

Ms Iryna GERASHCHENKO as a journalist noted that it was not acceptable this kind of non-objective reporting made by the British media. She agreed that there were some accidents of xenophobia in Ukraine but it never became a major phenomenon. She stressed that the great work should be done on the creating of positive image of Ukraine by Ukrainian politicians.

Mr Eugene CZOLIJ, President of Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), noted that the EU should put more pressure on Ukrainian voters to vote. He added that the EU should send as many observers as possible and underlined the important human rights violations in Ukraine.

Mr Pawel KOWAL closed the first day of the 19th EU-Ukraine PCC meeting.

7 PE 526.987 Thursday 14 June 2012, 9.00-12.00

Mr Pawel KOWAL opened the second day of the 19th EU-Ukraine PCC meeting.

5. Parliamentary elections in Ukraine and their impact on the political situation of the country.

Joint Debate on points 3, 4 and 5 with statements by:

- The Government of Ukraine - The European Union

Mr Stefan FÜLE stressed that the EU had an ambitious plan for a European and democratic Ukraine and noted that he did not accept analyses and reports stating that there should be a pause in the EU-Ukraine dialogue. He stressed that the EU on the contrary should have a continuous and focused dialogue with Ukraine and added that the EU wanted 'traction' and not 'destruction' in this respect with an emphasis on talking how the reforms could speed up. Mr FÜLE congratulated the Ukrainian negotiating team of the Association Agreement (AA) for their efforts in initialling of the AA in March 2012. He pointed out that this agreement was the most ambitious the EU had ever signed with a third country and stressed that the EU wanted to sign this agreement which would open the implementation of comprehensive programmes in Ukraine. He noted that the signing of the AA would be very important for the EU, Ukraine and the EaP. On the question how the AA can be signed, he stressed that the EP February 2012 recommendations pointed out that Ukraine should share more the EU values and implement more of the legislative acts and should become closer to the EU. Mr FÜLE stressed that the EU did not want more explanations from the Ukrainian side, but more visible actions in three areas: preparations and conduct of the elections in October 2012, abandoning the use of selective justice and guarantee of access to fair and transparent legal process and further reforms of the country (acceleration of the implementation of the Association Agenda). Regarding the reforms, he pointed out the importance of the reforms of the public service, judiciary, gas transit and long overdue reform of Naftogas with the implementation of gas reforms. He stressed that the visa liberalisation Action Plan contributed to dynamic relations between the EU and Ukraine and noted that EU and Ukraine also work on cooperation in the field of education, civil society support, transport and environment as a part of the Association Agenda. Mr FÜLE welcomed the preparations for the observation mission in the parliamentary elections in Ukraine by OSCE. He noted that the criminal cases of Ms TYMOSHENKO, Mr LUTSENKO, and other, were neither transparent, nor fair and were not conducted according to the international standards. He emphasised the use of selective justice was a part of systemic problem in Ukraine. He welcomed the fact that Ukraine complied with the European court on human rights ruling concerning the providing of the adequate treatment to Ms TYMOSHENKO. He explained that this can be considered as an intermediate step, but not as a solution in itself. Mr FÜLE also welcomed the adoption of the Criminal procedure code, but he noted as well that there was still a need for complementary laws on the status of judges, office of the public persecutor, Supreme Council of Justice, and others,. in accordance with the recommendations of Venice Commission. He stressed that the findings of the European Court of Human Rights on Ms TYMOSHENKO and Mr LUTSENKO were important and would be followed with great attention. In view of the agreement between Mr SCHULZ and Mr AZAROV, he also underlined the importance of the monitoring of the future conditions and medical treatment of Ms TYMOSHENKO and Mr LUTSENKO.

8 PE 526.987 Mr Volodymyr FILENKO thanked Mr FÜLE for his support towards Ukraine. He stressed the importance to monitor the whole electoral process starting as soon as possible and explained that the monitoring was needed at all electoral campaigns levels- before the official start of campaign, during the campaign, the conduct of the vote at the day of elections and the announcement of results.

Ms Iryna GERASHCHENKO stressed that she came to conclusions while talking to Mr FÜLE that Ukraine would come closer to the EU when there would be a critical masse of young Ukrainian elite that would not be focus on ideology, but on European values.

Mr Kristian VIGENIN wondered how the initiative of Mr SCHULZ and Mr AZAROV can be evaluated and how we could make the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission successful. He stressed that this mission was a last chance for Ukraine.

Mr Anatolii KINAKH noted that it was important to work together in a transparent fashion to have a full picture of what was going on in Ukraine. He pointed out that the views and opinions cannot be made before the results of the works of the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission have been announced.

Mr Stefan FÜLE noted that the EU followed from the beginning the proceedings on Ms TYMOSHENKO and the members of her cabinet and did not notice consistency from Ukrainian side. He pointed out that it was not possible to reconcile the fact that the judiciary should be independent and the fact that the proceedings against former political opposition leaders started knowing that the criminal code under consideration to be changed. He explained that the problem was not related to the fact that somebody was accused for corruption. He added that the main problem was the articles for which the person was judged; these articles were considered as not appropriate even by Ukrainian experts and politicians (art. 364 and 365) in modern Ukraine. He stressed that the EU reactions should not be underestimated. He noted that the EU's opinion on the use of selective justice in Ukraine was not about personalities, but about principles. Mr FÜLE underlined that there was a need for building more of the EU inside Ukraine. He noted that the young generation was a hope for the EU. In this respect, the financing of the young people working for NGOs would be improved and the participation of NGOs within the national platforms of the Civil Society Forum could be strengthened. Mr FÜLE noted that the most important issue for the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission was not just to get more information and to address many issues. He stressed that the majority and the opposition should work together and negotiate in the name of the interests of the Ukrainian nation. He concluded that there were no doubts about the determination of the EU in its ambitious relations with Ukraine.

Mr Charles TANNOCK did not agree with the statement that the use of selective justice was not personal. and stressed that justice should never be personal, but public. He expressed his disappointment about the current situation in Ukraine which can be characterised as the situation back to 2002.

Mr Eugene CZOLIJ stressed that the trials on Ms TYMOSHENKO and Mr LUTSENKO were about personalities and non-respect of European values by Ukraine.

Mr Borys TARASYUK fully agreed with the request of Mr FÜLE for the Ukrainian opposition to unite and to cooperate with the majority in the Parliament. He regretted that Ukrainian opposition was deprived from the deliberation of the Association Agreement (AA).

9 PE 526.987 Mr Stefan FÜLE explained that the case on Ms Yulia TYMOSHENKO was rather a part of a systemic problem.

Mr Borys TARASYUK noted that the majority in parliament was unconstitutional as the first ruling of the Constitutional court in 2008 stated that individual members of parliament cannot form majority in the House and the second decision in 2010 ruled the opposite.

Mr Pawel KOWAL called all political parties of the Ukrainian parliament to participate in the meetings of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. He reminded that only the amendments which get the majority from both sides would pass.

Mr noted that the trial on the Ms TYMOSHENKO was the only problem in the current EU-Ukraine relations. He stressed that important improvements were made on the visa liberalisation and the adoption of the new criminal procedure code. After one month of distrust, he pointed the convergence between the EU and Ukraine on the Ms TYMOSHENKO case with the acceptance of the KWAŚNIEWSKI and COX mission to monitor her case proceedings. Mr KOZHARA noted that the problems in signing the AA are considered by Ukrainians as the fact that the AA was not so advantageous and the custom agreement with Russia should be better considered. The signing of the AA should be therefore speeded up. Mr KOZHARA underlined that there was no consensus in the Ukrainian delegation and proposed to postpone the adoption of the final recommendations. He noted that he did agree with the majority of statements in the final document. He proposed to add the statements on the importance of signing of the AA in the final document. He noted that the Euronest session in Baku was successful, but at the same time politicised.

Ms Iryna GERASHCHENKO pointed out that there were many contradictions of the election law with Venice Commission recommendations. She drew attention to the low level of women representation in the majority of circumscriptions. In the view of upcoming beginning of the formal parliamentary campaign, she stressed that it was important to look at the conduct of the regional elections in Ukraine.

Mr Maksym LUTSKYI informed the participants that the new Electoral code was adopted by the Constitutional majority. He stressed that the barrier of 5% threshold to get into the parliament was established in order to prevent the political parties just created before the elections from entering into the parliament. He underlined that the appropriate conditions for the campaign were created and noted that many international observers would come in Ukraine to observe the parliamentary elections.

Mr Borys TARASYUK noted that he did not vote for the new Electoral code as it did not provide the sufficient political conditions for the opposition.

6. EU-Ukraine economic and sectoral cooperation, including EU-Ukraine gas transit networks and various approaches on shale gas extraction within the EU and in Ukraine.

Mr Anatolii KINAKH noted that the 80% of the FDI in Ukraine came from the EU. He stressed that it was a strategic aim of the Ukrainian government to make Ukraine a competitive economy and democracy. Mr KINAKH noted that 70% of Russian gas was passing through Ukraine and stressed that Ukraine always fulfilled its obligations in front of Russia underlining that during the Ukrainian-Russian gas conflict of 2009 Ukraine demonstrated itself as a reliable country. He

10 PE 526.987 supported the idea of the creation of a gas consortium to contribute to high competitiveness of Ukrainian GTS. He asked European colleagues to refrain from double standards pointing out the decrease of Ukrainian transit potential due to the construction of Nord and South stream projects. He concluded by pointing out that the EU should adopt more united and coherent positions in the energy field.

Ms Nataliia BOYTSUN, representing the Ukrainian Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry, stressed the importance of cooperation within the EaP platforms noting the meeting of the Platform 3 on Energy Security following week in Brussels. She underlined that Ukraine was a full-fledged member of the Energy community and noted that her country achieved substantial progress in energy reforms as Ukraine had the obligation to comply with requirements derived form its accession to the Energy Community. She pointed out that Ukraine was implementing the main goal to create a single energy market and explained that the Ukrainian government contributed to the creation of transparent energy market by introduction of 15 directives. Ms BOYTSUN underlined the importance of the shale gas for the energy independence of Ukraine.

7. Adoption of the statement and recommendations of the nineteenth meeting

Representatives of the parliamentary majority of the Ukrainian Delegation to the Ukraine-EU Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (L. KOZHARA, A. KINAKH, I. BEREZHNA, M. LUTSKYI, O. NADOSHA) left the committee meeting after one of Mr KOZHARA's amendments was rejected by the majority of Ukrainian and the EP delegations.

Following votes on a number of amendments, the Final Statement and the Recommendations was adopted by the Ukrainian and the EP delegations.

8. Any other business

There was none.

9. Date and place of next meeting

The 20th meeting of the EU-Ukraine PCC will take place in 2013 following the parliamentary elections in Ukraine.

11 PE 526.987 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EU-UKRAINE PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE NINETEENTH MEETING 13 - 14 June 2012 Strasbourg

List of Participants

EU Delegation Co-Chairman: Mr Paweł Robert KOWAL ECR (Poland) Mr Andrzej GRZYB EPP (Poland) Mr Jan KOZLOWSKI EPP (Poland) Ms Elzbieta Katarzyna LUKACIJEWSKA EPP (Poland) Mr Jacek PROTASIEWICZ EPP (Poland) Mr Algirdas SAUDARGAS EPP (Lithuania) Mr Marek SIWIEC S-D (Poland) Mr Charles TANNOCK ECR (UK) Mr Kristian VIGENIN S-D (Bulgaria)

Secretariat of the EP Delegation: Mr Michal CZAPLICKI Administrator, Responsible for the Delegation Ms Claudia SIEGISMUND Administrative Assistant

European Commission Mr Stefan FÜLE European Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighbourhood Policy

EEAS Mr Maciej POPOWSKI Deputy Secretary General, EEAS

12 PE 526.987 Ukrainian Delegation Co-Chairman: Mr Borys TARASYUK Our Ukraine - People’s Self-defense Ms Yryna BEREZHNA Mr Volodymyr FILENKO Yulia Tymoshenko Block Ms Iryna GERASHCHENKO Our Ukraine - People’s Self-defense Deputy Chairman: Mr Anatolii KINAKH Party of Regions Mr Vitalii KORZH Yulia Tymoshenko Block Mr Leonid KOZHARA Party of Regions Mr Maksym LUTSKYI Party of Regions Mr Oleh NADOSHA Party of Regions Mr Yevhen SHAGO Yulia Tymoshenko Block Ms Zoya SHYSHKINA Yulia Tymoshenko Block Mr Volodymyr VECHERKO Party of Regions

Mr Kostiantyn YELISIEIEV Ambassador, Head of the Ukrainian Mission to the EU

Mr Vsevolod CHENTSOV Head of the EU Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ms Nataliia BOYTSUN Director of Department of European integration and international cooperation, Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry

Secretariat of the VR Delegation: Mr Andrii BAGRINETS Secretariat of the Delegation Ms Liudmyla PROTASENKO Secretariat of the Delegation Mr Rostyslav PALAGUSINETS Secretariat of the Delegation

13 PE 526.987