EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU- PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE

MINUTES of the TWELTH MEETING 24 - 25 February 2009 BRUSSELS

CONTENTS

1. Adoption of draft agenda PE 412.693...... 3

2. Adoption of the minutes of the 11th meeting of the EU-Ukraine PCC in and Yalta on 2-3 October 2008...... 3

3. State of play of the EU-Ukraine relations, including the negotiations on the Association Agreement and talks on the Free Trade Area (FTA) agreement...... 3

4. Political and economic situation in Ukraine and the EU, following the global financial crisis and in the view of respective political and institutional reforms....3

Joint Debate on points 3 and 4 with statements by

- Government of Ukraine - Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union - European Commission

5. Energy cooperation, especially regarding the security of energy supply...... 6

6. Implementation of the EU-Ukraine visa facilitation and readmission agreement and perspectives of a visa-free regime and people-to-people contacts...... 8

7. Cooperation in the common neighbourhood, including the launching of the Eastern Partnership and the setting up of an EU Neighbourhood East Parliamentary Assembly (EURO-NEST)...... 9

8. Follow-up of the final statement and recommendations of the 11th EU-Ukraine PCC meeting...... 10

9. Adoption of the final statement and recommendations...... 10

10. Any other business...... 10

11. Date and place of the next meeting...... 11

Annex: List of participants

______PV\798204EN.doc 1 PE 428.999 The EU-Ukrainian Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (PCC) 12th meeting opened on 24 February 2009 at 15.30 under the co-chairmanship of Mr. Adrian SEVERIN (European Parliament) and Mr. , Chairman of the (Ukrainian Parliament).

Mr. SEVERIN opened the meeting and welcomed all the participants. He expressed his hope that the 12th EU-Ukraine PCC would be fruitful and good and would deepen the EU-Ukraine cooperation. The speaker noted that the meeting was taking place in turbulent times, in the midst of global crisis and in the aftermath of Ukraine-Russia gas dispute, which had raised deep concern in the EU and had forced the EU to rethink its overall energy policy. Mr. SEVERIN also spoke about the continuing political instability in Ukraine because of the power struggle between the President and the Prime Minister. He expressed his believes that Ukraine's closer integration with the EU would direct the country towards the development of a real democracy, of a functioning market economy and of a free society. The speaker also encouraged the Ukrainian delegation members to inform the Committee about the current economic and political unstable situation in Ukraine and to suggest how the EU could help in that regard. Mr. SEVERIN then briefly introduced the agenda of the meeting showing the common purpose of the both delegations. He also called on Ukraine to be more united and to show more European consistency at the same time.

Mr. TARASYUK took the floor and welcomed all the members of the EU delegation and presented the members of the Verkhovna Rada delegation. He noted that it was the last PCC meeting before the European Parliament elections and wished success to the EP colleagues during the campaign. Mr. TARASYUK said that the beginning of political crisis in Ukraine was partly overcome with the help of global economic and financial crises because the parliamentary elections had been postponed and new trilateral coalition had emerged in the Ukrainian Parliament. The speaker noted that it had not been Ukraine that had initiated the recent gas crisis and that it had been Russia that cut off gas supply. He thanked the EU for being the facilitator in the resolution of the crisis. Mr. TARASYUK also mentioned the Association Agreement and expressed his believes that it would fully emerge by its contents as the result of current negotiations. The speaker also welcomed the initiative of Eastern Partnership and declared that Ukraine was ready to participate in the EU Neighbourhood East Parliamentary Assembly (EURO-NEST) as it had been expressed in the reply-letter of Mr Volodymyr Lytvyn, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, to the EP President Poettering. The speaker also mentioned the EU-Ukraine visa facilitation and readmission agreement and expressed his hopes that the Committee would prepare the draft statement and resolution in the same fruitful way as it had done before.

Mr. SEVERIN took the floor.

______PV\798204EN.doc 2 PE 428.999 1. Adoption of draft agenda

The draft agenda of the 12th PCC meeting was adopted.

2. Adoption of the minutes of the 11th meeting of the EU-Ukraine PCC in Kyiv and Yalta on 2-3 October 2008

Minutes of the 11th PCC meeting were adopted.

Mr. SEVERIN also declared that for the draft joint statement of the 12th PCC meeting all text proposals and amendments should be presented during the PCC itself. Eventual amendments, if any, would have to be submitted to the Delegation Secretariat by 18h00, 24 February.

Joint Debate:

3. State of play of the EU-Ukraine relations, including the negotiations on the Association Agreement and talks on the Free Trade Area (FTA) agreement

4. Political and economic situation in Ukraine and the EU, following the global financial crisis and in the view of respective political and institutional reforms

Mr. SEVERIN then opened the floor for a joint debate.

Ambassador Andriy VESELOVSKY, Head of the Ukrainian Mission to the EU, made a statement on behalf of the Government of Ukraine. He started by saying that although there were legislative controversies and institutional imperfections in Ukraine, the political and economic reforms were underway to address European standards. He noted that European integration was perceived as political platform by major political forces in Ukraine. Ambassador VESELOVSKY said that global economic crisis had its strong impact on Ukraine. The Government had undertaken relevant measures to support financial institutions and prevent their break-down. A comprehensive anti-crisis package had been created to stabilise the situation in finance and banking sector, to support industry and to increase the flow of investments. Ambassador VESELOVSKY then spoke on Ukraine-EU relations. He said that Ukraine was the only country in Eastern Europe that enjoyed a very close relationship with the EU. The speaker noted that the items on the agenda of the meeting were important for Ukraine and briefly informed the Committee on Ukraine's progress on the items. He also encouraged the EU to meet Ukrainian expectations. The speaker concluded by saying that he hoped that Ukraine would continue its deep and comprehensive dialogue with the EU.

Mr. John KJAER, Head of Unit for relations with Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the South Caucasus, intervened on behalf of the European Commission. He started by talking about Ukraine-EU relations. He mentioned the EU-Ukraine summit in Paris in 2008 and the successful negotiations on energy, environment, justice and home affairs, human rights and democratisation and people to people contacts. He talked about progress at the EU-Ukraine visa-free regime, the Association Agreement, the Free Trade Area (FTA) Agreement and new Action Plan Agreement negotiations. ______PV\798204EN.doc 3 PE 428.999 Mr. KJAER also reminded that Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty was very important. He spoke as well on the assistance provided by the EU and its constant growth. Mr. KJAER then raised the issue of economic and political situation in Ukraine. He acknowledged that Ukrainian Government took leadership in much needed reforms and the speaker encouraged further reforms. He highlighted that recent gas dispute had been very damaging. He concluded by saying that Ukraine was a key strategic partner for the EU and key political and economic reforms in Ukraine would make it able to rise to the challenges the whole world was facing at the moment.

Ambassador Milena VICENOVA, Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the EU, intervened on behalf of the Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union. She started by welcoming all the participants and by saying that Ukraine was the topical issue for the Council of the European Union. During Czech Presidency the priority would be given to deep Free Trade Agreement. The speaker also highlighted the importance of the Association Agreement and the Eastern Partnership negotiations. She expressed her hope that further progress would be reached in bringing Ukraine and other Eastern European countries closer to Europe.

Mr. TARASYUK reminded the Committee that the EU had been very helpful in resolving the recent gas dispute. He noted that the Association Agreement, which would bring Ukraine closer to the EU membership; Free Trade Agreement and its quality; visa-free regime; in-depth regional cooperation and European common foreign and security policy were the most important areas of EU-Ukraine negotiations.

Mr. SEVERIN posed a question both to the Council of the European Union and the Commission - if there was any possibility for a stimulus package for Ukraine from the EU as Ukraine was one of the most important strategic members, in order to assist it to overcome the difficulties of the economic and political crises.

Mr. Leonid KOZHARA, Ukrainian member of the PCC, opened his intervention by referring to the Association Agreement and expressed his consent with Mr TARASYUK that quality of Free Trade Agreement was more important that the speed with which it would be finalized. Regarding Eastern Partnership, the speaker expressed his concerns with the essence of it. In his opinion Ukraine was different from all the countries of the region and should be treated differently from the other countries. The speaker also spoke on visa facilitation agreement and mentioned the inappropriate treatment for Ukrainian citizens who apply for Schengen visas and high visa fees. He concluded by saying that the EU should also study the migration from Ukraine and noted that it had almost stopped.

Mr. SEVERIN underlined that Ukrainian citizens should not suffer and that the EU should have a clear roadmap to overcome the current problems.

Ambassador VICENOVA, added that she fully agreed with Mr. KOZHARA that Eastern Partnership was a great initiative and it was up to all 6 countries to use that chance to come closer to the EU. She also noted that both bilateral and multilateral tracks of cooperation within Eastern Partnership were the EU focus. ______PV\798204EN.doc 4 PE 428.999 Mr. KJAER pointed out that all EU Member States committed to Eastern Partnership initiative and the negotiations were well under way. He also noted that deep Free Trade Agreement was very comprehensive and included not only liberalisation of trade in goods, but also in services and investments And that the EU closely followed Ukraine's economic situation and was ready to help.

Mr. Charles TANNOCK, EP 1st Vice-Chairman of the PCC, agreed with Mr. KOZHARA that Eastern Partnership was not bringing anything dramatically new for Ukraine. He also drew a picture of Ukrainian and Eastern European economic situation as critical and mentioned the likelihood of default at mortgage markets there.

Mr. SEVERIN mentioned that it was very important for Ukraine to understand where the money provided as financial assistance would go.

Mr. , Ukrainian Vice-Chairman of the PCC, explained that the cooperation between the IMF and Ukraine was suffering due to the lack of consolidated coordination between the Ukrainian National Bank and the Government of Ukraine. He also suggested that the Government of Ukraine should approve a more balanced budget for 2009.

Mr. TARASYUK adamantly insisted on the necessity to separate Free Trade Agreement and Association Agreement as the former would take much more time. He expressed his regrets that the EU had a contrary opinion on the issue.

Mr. Olah SHEVCHUK, Ukrainian Vice-Chairman of the PCC, spoke on the economic situation in Ukraine. He said that the head of Ukraine's National Bank was appointed by the President of Ukraine and that fact was the reason why the National Bank could not work smoothly with the Government of Ukraine. The speaker also noted that more money was being attracted to Ukrainian's stabilisation fund which was under Governmental guarantee and that the Government would also revise the budget and would work further on pension reforms, health sector reforms and other vital reforms. He noted that inflation was a real problem and that the Government and National Bank policies should be based on common ground so that the crisis could be overcome. The speaker also expressed his hopes that the EU would help Ukraine financially.

Mr. KINAKH commented that Ukrainian delegation in spite of difference in political views was united in their will to join the EU. The speaker noted that due to the dualism of power in Ukraine there was no real anti-crisis programme in Ukraine. Many reforms were also pending due to that fact. He underlined that there was no other alternative to consolidation of efforts in order to get out of the crisis. Mr. KINAKH also highlighted that all the barriers between the European investors and Ukrainian economy should be eliminated and trust should be there.

Mr. SEVERIN concluded the joint debate by saying that if Ukraine helped itself the EU would help it. He encouraged Ukraine to improve the internal environment in the country and indicated that efforts should be done on both the Ukrainian and the EU sides.

______PV\798204EN.doc 5 PE 428.999 5. Energy cooperation, especially regarding the security of energy supply

Mrs. Marjeta JAGER, Director for General Affairs of the DG Energy and Transport of the European Commission, made an opening statement on behalf of Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. She addressed the energy issue by saying that January gas crisis was deeply unacceptable to the EU. Obligations both of Russia and Ukraine were not fulfilled and the dispute had a negative public image in the EU. However the EU was ready to start the process of rebuilding trust and the speaker welcomed the recent contract signed by Russia and Ukraine. Successful implementation of that agreement was crucial for the trust to come back. Mrs. JAGER mentioned that the EU-Ukrainian Memorandum of Understanding on Energy should be implemented and strong legally binding provisions on energy should be fulfilled. Both the EU and Ukraine should work together on gas crisis prevention. The speaker also underlined that Ukraine should enter the European Community as soon as possible.

Mr. Roman ZVARYCH, Ukrainian member of the PCC, noted that there was no one single contract between the EU, Russia and Ukraine on gas deliveries since 2005. He mentioned that recent Ukraine-Russian negotiations were not about transit of gas to the EU. The speaker suggested the creation of a trilateral negotiation mechanism in the field of gas. He also encouraged the EU to negotiate good gas price for Ukraine. The speaker expressed his believes that Russia was using gas as a political weapon and noted that Ukraine and the EU should do something about that.

Mr. SEVERIN firmly highlighted that the EU was not blaming Ukraine or Russia in the gas crisis and that Ukrainian reputation had suffered as well. He noted that the EU expected from Ukraine to make efforts in order to correspond to the EU expectations. The speaker also underlined that trilateral negotiations were indeed needed so that interests of suppliers, consumers and transit countries were taken into account.

Mr. Yevhen SHAGO, Ukrainian member of the PCC, reminded the Committee of the whole range of cooperation between Ukraine and the EU on energy issues, including nuclear energy and renewable energy. He stressed that the gas crisis was caused by Russia and reminded that such conflicts should be solved via negotiations. He expressed his believes that the problem would have been solved faster if the EU had been more decisive.

Mr. TANNOCK, referring to the recent gas crisis, raised the question of some Ukrainian political interest in RosUkrEnergo and of the legal possibility for Gazprom to sue Ukraine because Ukraine had signed the Transit Protocol of Energy Charter. The speaker underlined that the Commission was trying to diversify the EU energy routes, but expressed his regrets that Ukraine was not a partner in those projects and noted that the country should be integrated much closer into the EU Energy Community.

______PV\798204EN.doc 6 PE 428.999 Ambassador VESELOVSKY, commenting on the role the European Commission played in the recent gas dispute, expressed his believes that it had been really important. The speaker pointed out that the Commission was also doing a lot to help Ukraine to create transparency at its gas market. He also commented on clear Ukrainian interest to associate itself with the EU and European market.

Mr. TARASYUK noted that is was extremely important to urge Russia to ratify the Energy Charter otherwise Ukraine and Russia were not in the same conditions and no legal disputes could be settled. He also stressed that there was no united energy policy of the EU and the EU was still dependent very much on Russian gas.

Mr. KINAKH mentioned that in the recent gas crisis everyone had been a loser. Ukraine would remain a strategic transit country for the EU for a long time and the EU should have a consolidated position on its energy supplies and not waste money on additional energy routes. After the contract had been signed between Ukraine and Russia in January 2009, the Ukraine had decreased its position as it was paying a higher price for the gas since then.

Mr. SEVERIN noted that both energy sources and energy transit routes should be diversified and it had been therefore also a political decision to keep Ukraine as a transit country.

Mrs. JAGER agreed with Mr. KINAKH that there were no winners in the recent gas dispute. She underlined that Ukraine was an important transit country for the EU, but lessons had been learned and energy sources should be diversified. The speaker concluded by saying that energy security was paramount, but the EU remained open to its partners including Ukraine.

Mr. SEVERIN adjourned the meeting at 18.30.

***

______PV\798204EN.doc 7 PE 428.999 ***

Mr. TARASYUK resumed the meeting on the 25 February 2009 at 09.20 by announcing

6. Implementation of the EU-Ukraine visa facilitation and readmission agreement and perspectives of a visa-free regime and people-to-people contacts

Mr. ZVARYCH opened the discussion by saying that Ukraine was doing much to prepare the basis for the readmission agreement. Regarding visa facilitation agreement the speaker noted that there were a lot of violations on the EU part when the visas were refused or only short-stay visas were issued or time management at visa centres was bad or illegal private consultants were engaged in the visa application process.

Ms. Iryna GERASCHENKO, Ukrainian member of the PCC, confirmed that Mr. ZVARYCH had given a true picture of Schengen visa application problems in Ukraine. She underlined that a lot of complains had been received and a lot of violations were noticed. Even Ukrainian journalists and politicians experienced problems when applying for visas.

Mr. KOZHARA remarked that there should be one rule for all Schengen countries Embassies in Ukraine and the list of application documents should be unified. Also computer registration at visa centre should be introduced and those centres should be also more organized. The speaker also suggested that payments for visa application should be reviewed by the EU.

Ms. GERASCHENKO added that the country of fist entry should not necessary correspond to the country that issued the Schengen visa.

Mr. TANNOCK pointed out that there should be no fear that many migrants would come to the EU from Ukraine. He also proposed that a letter from the PCC Co-Chairs to the Council and the Commission on certain failures to fully implement the visa facilitation and readmission agreements between Ukraine and the EU could be written.

Mr. KJAER noted that Ukraine had been applying the visa facilitation agreement for one year only and that was the reason for many problems that existed. The speaker commented that the implementation of that agreement was at the level of the EU and that the Commission was looking how it could further modernise the visa policy in general. A new proposal called 'Community Code on Visas' was being under discussion in the Commission that would introduce greater transparency and harmonisation of procedures at Schengen visa application centres.

Mr. SEVERIN reminded that involvement of Ukrainian citizens in integration process was extremely important otherwise the whole idea of integration was disconnected from people. He also gave his support to the idea of Mr. TANNOCK to write a letter from the PCC Co-Chairs to the Council and the Commission on problems with issuance of Schengen visas. ______PV\798204EN.doc 8 PE 428.999 Mr. TARASYUK said that such a letter would be supported by the Committee.

Ambassador VESELOVSKY agreed with Mr. KOZHARA that the approach of the EU in implementation of the visa facilitation agreement should be collective as Ukraine had signed one agreement with the EU and not twenty seven.

7. Cooperation in the common neighbourhood, including the launching of the Eastern Partnership and the setting up of an EU Neighbourhood East Parliamentary Assembly (EURO-NEST)

Mr. TANNOCK opened the discussion by saying that the Eastern Partnership was a priority for Czech Presidency and it would be a priority for the Swedish Presidency. The speaker then expressed his concerns that the initiative was a new version of the Eastern Dimension and nothing new was offered to Ukraine. He also stressed that Ukraine was different from other countries of the region and that the new initiative that offered the same conditions to all six countries could slow the process of Ukrainian integration into the EU. The speaker concluded by encouraging more EP members of the PCC to attend the meeting in the future.

Mr. KOZHARA informed the Committee that Ukraine welcomed the Eastern Partnership, but it wished further integration into the EU unlike other Eastern European countries and it should be treated differently. He also said that Russia should be involved in the discussion about the Eastern Partnership, that the EU funds that were invested in the initiative were not enough as the region was so big and that the Eastern Partnership should be more practical than the Eastern Dimension.

Mr. KINAKH noted that the Eastern Partnership initiative should strengthen and not substitute the process of Ukraine's integration into the EU. He also underlined that cooperation between the EU and Ukraine was already very strong both in the spheres of politics and economics.

Mr. KJAER added to the discussion by saying that the Eastern Partnership was a unique initiative as it allowed all the countries of the region to integrate closely with the EU. He highlighted that the new initiative would bring more possibilities for all the countries of the region to cooperate and to harmonise their positions. The speaker indicated that the Eastern Partnership was not a 'zero-sum game'.

Mr. TARASYUK reminded the Committee about the frozen conflicts in the region. He also suggested that the Eastern Partnership initiative could be divided into Eastern and Southern dimensions and two different policies could be designed. The speaker also underlined that EURO-NEST should be regarded as only a supplement format to the existing format of PCC. He suggested upgrading the Committee to the level of a Joint Parliamentary Committee and mentioned that Russia should not participate in the Eastern Partnership initiative.

Mr. TANNOCK underlined that the countries of the region were indeed very different and it was hard to define which countries were entitled to the EU membership at the moment. ______PV\798204EN.doc 9 PE 428.999 Mr. SEVERIN noted that the EU was very interested in the Ukraine and that already gave it a special place. He also agreed with Mr. TARASYUK that EURO-NEST should be a supplement to PCC and that the Committee should be upgraded to the level of a Joint Parliamentary Committee. The speaker also remarked the Ukraine was a 'de-facto' member of the EU.

Mr. SEVERIN concluded the discussion on point 7 by saying that it was very hard to define what Europe was exactly from political, cultural or religious point of view.

8. Follow-up of the final statement and recommendations of the 11th EU-Ukraine PCC meeting

Mr. TARASYUK noted that the final statement and recommendations of the 10th EU-Ukraine PCC meeting was under process of implementation apart from the decision to create Working Groups.

Mr. SEVERIN thanked all the members of the Committee for their work and expressed his hope that the future activities of the PCC would be as fruitful as before in spite of the EP elections in 2009.

The meeting continued after a 50 minute interval dedicated to the discussion of the final statement and recommendations.

9. Adoption of the final statement and recommendations

Mr. TARASYUK called for the adoption. Following intensive and constructive negotiations on various amendments, the final statement and recommendations were adopted in unanimity.

10. Any other business

There was no other business.

11. Date and place of the next meeting

It was declared that the next PPC was provisionally scheduled to take place in Ukraine on 27-28 October 2009.

The meeting was closed at 12h10.

***

______PV\798204EN.doc 10 PE 428.999 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU-UKRAINE PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE

TWELTH MEETING 24 - 25 February 2009 BRUSSELS

List of Members

Mr Adrian SEVERIN PES, Constitutional Affairs; Chairman Romania Foreign Affairs

Mr Charles TANNOCK, EPP-ED, Foreign Affairs; Economic & Monetary Affairs; 1st Vice-chairman UK Human Rights

Mr Andrzej ZAPAŁOWSKI UEN, Agriculture & Rural Development; Economic & 2nd Vice-chairman Poland Monetary Affairs; Women's Rights & Gender Equality Mr Šarŭnas BIRUTIS ALDE/ADLE Industry, Research & Energy; Lithuania Internal Market & Consumer Protection

Ms Jana BOBOŠİKOVÁ NI, Czech Regional Developlment; Republic Economic & Monetary Affairs; Climate Change

Mr Jerzy BUZEK EPP-ED, Industry, Research & Energy; Climate Change; Poland Environment, Public Health & Food Safety

Mr Antonio DE BLASIO EPP-ED, Budgetary Control; Regional Development; Hungary Environment, Public Health & Food Safety

Mr Gábor HARANGOZÓ PES, Regional Development; Hungary Agriculture & Rural Development

Ms Rebecca HARMS Greens/ALE Climate Change; Industry, Research & Energy; Germany Environment, Public Health & Food Safety

Ms Lily JACOBS PES, Agriculture & Rural Development; Netherland Transport & Tourism; Climate Change

Mr Guntars KRASTS UEN, Economic & Monetary Affairs; Latvia Internal Market & Consumer Protection

Mr Helmuth MARKOV GUE/NGL, International Trade; Germany Transport & Tourism

Ms Zita PLEŠTINSKA EPP-ED, Internal Market & Consumer Protection Slovakia Women's Rights & Gender Equality; Regional Development; Climate Change Mr Marek SIWIEC PES, Foreign Affairs; Poland Security & Defence

Ms Gražyna STANISZEWSKA ALDE/ADLE Regional Development; Poland Culture & Education; Petitions

Ms Marianne THYSSEN EPP-ED Internal Market & Consumer Protection Belgium Climate Change; Environment, Public Health & Food Safety ______PV\798204EN.doc 11 PE 428.999 List of Substitute Members

Mr Stavros ARNAOUTAKIS PES, Regional Development; Fisheries; Greece Internal Trade

Mr Christopher BEAZLEY EPP-ED, Foreign Affairs UK

Mr Herbert BÖSCH PES, Budgetary Control; Budgets; Austria Agriculture & Rural Development

Mr Martin CALLANAN EPP-ED, Environment, Public Health & Food UK Safety; ACP; Employment & Social Affairs Ms Maria CARLSHAMRE ALDE/ADLE, Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs; Sweden Women's Rights & Gender Equality; Culture & Education Mr Arūnas DEGUTIS ALDE/ADLE Transport & Tourism Lithuania

Mr Alfred GOMOLKA EPP-ED, Foreign Affairs; Fisheries; Germany Budgets

Mr Milan HORÁČEK Greens/ALE, Human Rights; Foreign Affairs; Germany Agriculture & Rural Development

Mr Mieczysław JANOWSKI UEN, Regional Development; Poland Industry, Research & Energy; Petitions Ms Constanze KREHL PES, Regional Development; Germany Budgets

Mr Aldis KUŠKIS EPP-ED, Environment, Public Health & Food Latvia Safety; Transport & Tourism; Climate Change Mr Zbigniew KUŹMIUK UEN, Budgets; Poland Economic & Monetary Affairs; Climate Change Ms Marusya LYUBCHEVA PES, International Trade; Budgetary Control; Bulgaria Budgets; Women's Rights & Gender Equality Ms Gabriele STAUNER EPP-ED, Employment & Social Affairs; Germany Legal Affairs; Budgetary Control

Ms Eva-Britt SVENSSON GUE/NGL, Women's Rights & Gender Equality; Sweden Internal Market & Consumer Protection; Civil Liberties, Justice & Home Affairs

______PV\798204EN.doc 12 PE 428.999 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU-UKRAINE PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE

TWELTH MEETING 24 - 25 February 2009 BRUSSELS

LIST OF THE UKRAINIAN PARTICIPANTS

Members

Mr Borys TARASYUK Member of Parliament Chairman of the Delegation Our Ukraine - People’s Self-defense

Mr Anatoliy KINAKH Member of Parliament Vice-Chairman of the Delegation Party of Regions

Mr Olah SHEVCHUK Member of Parliament Vice-Chairman of the Delegation Block

Ms Iryna GERASCHENKO Member of Parliament Our Ukraine - People’s Self-defense

Mr Roman ZVARYCH Member of Parliament Our Ukraine - People’s Self-defense

Mr Leonid KOZHARA Member of Parliament Member, Party of Regions

Mr Yevhen SHAGO Member of Parliament Yulia Tymoshenko Block

Ms Zoya SHYSHKINA Member of Parliament Yulia Tymoshenko Block

Ukrainian Mission to the European Union

Mr Andriy VESELOVSKY Ambassador of Ukraine to the EU

Accompanying staff

Mr Serhiy DVORNYK Secretary of the Delegation

Ms Oleksandra KOVAL Deputy Secretary of the Delegation

______PV\798204EN.doc 13 PE 428.999