EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

EU- PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE 11th MEETING

1-2 December 2010

BRUSSELS

CONTENTS

1. Adoption of draft agenda 2. Adoption of the minutes of the 10th meeting of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee held in on 7-8 April 2009 3. The state of play of the EU-Armenia relations and the negotiations on an EU-Armenia Association Agreement Opening Statements by: . Government of the Republic of Armenia . Presidency-in-Office of the Council of the European Union . European Commission 4. Follow-up to the Final Statement and Recommendations of the 10th meeting of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee adopted in Yerevan on 8 April 2009 5. Democratic Reforms in Armenia . Reform of the electoral legislation in Armenia . Democracy and respect for human rights in Armenia . Armenian Government anti-corruption strategy . The European Cultural Heritage and its preservation 6. The economic crisis, State finances and social policies 7. Regional issues . The state of play of relations between Armenian and Turkey . The current situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict 8. Any other business 9. Adoption of the Final Statement and Recommendations 10. Date and place of next meeting

Annex: List of attendance

______PV\EN.doc 1 PE 467.638 The 11th EU Armenia PCC under Co-Chairmanship of Mr. Milan CABRNOCH (ECR) and Ms. Naira ZOHRABYAN was open at 15:10.

Mr. CABRNOCH welcomed the Armenian colleagues to the 11th meeting of the EU- Armenia PCC, the 1st meeting of the new EP delegation. He introduced Ms. ZOHRABYAN, Ms. KAZINIAN and Mr. Gunnar WIEGAND (DG RELEX Director). He invited the Members of the PCC to table amendments to the final recommendations by the end of the day.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN introduced the Armenian members of the EU-Armenia PCC and considered the work of the PCC beneficial to the development of the bilateral relations and the solving of various issues. She expressed confidence that the 11th meeting would be productive. Armenia is more and more engaged with the European organisations. The EaP contributes to European integration and democracy is an important tool. She referred to 2007 ENP Action Plan and found the EaP a qualitatively new level in the multilateral as well as the bilateral dimensions. Armenia wants to benefit from the EaP. She also noted that there were dividing lines in the South Caucasus, but Armenia wanted to cooperate for a peaceful future. The EaP is an initiative that brings benefits to both sides, for markets in Armenia and the EU; the initiative promotes dialogue and European values. Since the launch of the EaP Armenia and the EU have had a common position on the majority of issues. Ms. ZOHRABYAN mentioned the Group of Advisors from the EU working in Armenia since 2009. Human rights issues have been discussed too. According to Ms. ZOHRABYAN, Armenia is committed to reforms and to improving legislation. Freedom of movement and the DCFTA are important aspects of the relations between Armenia and the EU. Armenia appointed a delegation to the EURONEST PA that is chaired by a representative of the opposition. On 20 May 2010 a new Criminal Procedure Code was adopted in order to promote the work of the media. "Journalists without Frontiers" also appreciated the good results for Armenia in the field of media freedom. She stressed the commitment of the country to the civil society, regional peace and stability.

1. The agenda of the meeting was adopted. Mr. CABRNOCH welcomed the other members of the EP Delegation: Mr. THALER, Ms. LUNACEK, and Mr. KIRILOV.

2. Adoption of the Minutes of 10th meeting.

The minutes of the 10th meeting of the EU-Armenia PCC were adopted.

3. State of play of relations between the EU and Armenia.

Mr. CABRNOCH stated that the EU Council Resolution of 10th May was the basis for future cooperation. He asked Ms. KAZANIAN about the status quo of negotiations.

Ms. KAZANIAN welcomed the PCC meeting. The Lisbon Treaty has increased the number of opportunities for cooperation within the EaP. Armenia wants to deepen its cooperation with the EU. Dialogue has intensified, top-level visits are taking place. She mentioned mutual the willingness under ambitious agenda and commitments to action. A detailed list of actions was presented in May 2009. For the period 2009-2011 200 actions are to be taken in the field of economy, democracy building, civil society and administrative capacity enhancement. She noted that the EU advisors, since March 2009, have been assisting in the country. The Human Rights Dialogue was established in a constructive atmosphere. Another discussion on

______PV\EN.doc 2 PE 467.638 concrete cooperation in the field of human rights was scheduled for 7 December 2010. Armenia has embraced the idea of the EaP as a new opportunity and wants to make use of it. Armenia is eager to participate in the multilateral track, as well as to cooperate between the partner countries themselves. According to Ms. KAZANIAN, Armenia remains committed to regional cooperation, but any cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan is rejected by Baku. The Association Agreement negotiations were launched on 9 July 2010 and are supposed to replace the PCA. She noted that the DCFTA establishment would be a step forward and would provide access to the European markets. Visa liberalisation is a fundamental issue for the government of Armenia and is given significant attention. She expressed hope to start the Readmission Agreement negotiations. She stressed the commitment of Armenia for the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and blamed Azerbaijan for a military rhetoric. She mentioned the relevance of the Minsk Group for the conflict resolution with 3 principles: non-use of force, territorial integrity and self-determination. She claimed that the EP resolution of 20 May 2010 was pro- Azerbaijani. She explained the Armenian position on the Turkish-Armenian relations. In the opinion of the Armenian government Turkey was to blame for the lack of progress, since it decided not to ratify the protocols (of October 2009) to open the borders unconditionally. Ms. KAZANIAN appreciated the position of the EU that Nagorno-Karabakh resolution should be separated from Armenia-Turkey relations. Ms. KAZANIAN said that the EURONEST could further enhance the democratic parliamentary practices. The Parliamentary Assembly should work on the principles of mutual interest, common ownership and inclusiveness. In her words the PCC is important for strengthening this cooperation.

Mr. WIEGAND greeted the Armenian Co-Chair and the Members of the PCC. He appreciated the role of a regular parliamentary dialogue since it had democratic legitimacy. He mentioned that the role of the EP rose due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. He noted that the domestic reform agenda of Armenia was ambitious. Domestic reforms were aimed at bringing the country closer to the EU. In this respect, launching of the EaP in May 2009 meant a dynamic start on both the bilateral level and multilateral level. Progress has been made on both tracks, an unprecedented scope for cooperation emerged. The South Caucasus was getting more attention from the EU. The Association Agreement negotiations are speedy. He mentioned that the aim of cooperation was a political association and economic integration, DCFTA, approximation of rules and standards. He said that the DCFTA would bring free access to the European market for Armenian goods and would make the country more attractive for the investors. He explained the conditions for the DCFTA. There are 2 sets of conditions: political and economic. Political conditions consist of democracy, freedoms, good governance. Progress is expected from Armenia to improve the electoral standards; it means that a good Electoral Code must be elaborated together with reforms in the judiciary and media. Mr. WIEGAND stated that the human rights dialogue was concrete and had no taboos. Mr. WIEGAND stated that the EU was concerned about the respect of the WTO rules by Armenia. He mentioned the case of non-discriminatory taxation of tobacco products which was violating the WTO commitments. He stressed the importance of visa facilitation and liberalisation for further improvement of the bilateral relations. The 1st steps should be the reduction of fees and speeding of issuing visas for certain groups of citizens. Mr. WIEGAND touched upon the issue of assistance for Armenia between 2011 and 2013. 157 million Euros were allocated to Armenia for 2011-2013. The main area of the financial assistance is supporting the reforms and the institution building. He mentioned the positive

______PV\EN.doc 3 PE 467.638 contribution of the advisors from the EU in the Armenian Parliament. He also mentioned the extraordinary assistance granted to Yerevan worth 100 million Euros, 1st tranche was expected in December. Mr. WIEGAND then talked about regional challenges, primarily Nagorno-Karabakh; the OSCE Summit was mentioned in this respect. The EU supports the Minsk Group framework. Brussels encourages the improvement of the relations between Armenia and Turkey. At the end Mr. WIEGAND appreciated the role of the parliamentary dimension for cooperation. He called for an even more intensified dialogue on the reform agenda in Armenia. (Tax Code, Electoral Code).

4. Follow-up to the Final Recommendations of the 10th meeting of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee adopted in Yerevan on 8 April 2009

Before coming to item 4 of the Agenda Mr. CABRNOCH mentioned several topics. He mentioned that the EU-Armenia relations had intensified and the parliamentary dialogue became more constructive, better understanding was achieved. He mentioned the Progress Report of May 2010 on the implementation of the ENP Action Plan and the PCA. He said that the negotiations on the Visa-Facilitation and Readmission Agreement were being prepared. Opening the political dialogue should also mean democratic values and freedom. He called for the improvement in the sphere of the Rule of Law in Armenia. He stressed that the demonstrators of March 2008 should have been released. He wanted to have more information about the Law on Broadcasting, granting frequencies. He stressed that freedom of journalists had to be granted.

Items 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Ms. ZOHRABYAN claimed that progress had been achieved in a number of areas. She said that the Law on Demonstration was in the process of being elaborated with the assistance of the Venice Commission. She also stated that the reform of the Electoral Code would be prepared 1 year prior to the previous parliamentary elections. She mentioned the events of 1-2 March 2008. She explained the investigation conducted by the Armenian Parliament of the above-mentioned events. The main shortcoming was the use of special means against the demonstrators. Ms. ZOHRABYAN stressed that Armenia was committed to democracy and making a significant effort in that direction. She said that Armenia might have had some problems with law enforcement, despite the fact that the laws are good. She stressed that Nagorno-Karabakh was the main issue. Armenia calls for the fulfilment of principles in conflict resolution.

Mr. CABRNOCH emphasised the importance of the meeting and the importance of parliamentary democracy as such. He noted that the importance of parliamentary democracy was growing because the MPs are elected directly. Mr. CABRNOCH also mentioned the necessity to know the interests of the other party in order to have better and more efficient relations. The importance of freedom of expression, rule of law was stressed by Mr CABRNOCH. The relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia are being watched closely by the EU, as well as the relations between Armenia and Turkey, where the blockade of the border is of particular concern. Mr. CABRNOCH asked the Armenian members about their expectations of the PCC. The EP is, according to Mr. CABRNOCH, interested in the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh, the state of play of relations between Armenia and Turkey as well as the state of play in relations between Azerbaijan and Russia.

______PV\EN.doc 4 PE 467.638 Ms. ZOHRABYAN expressed the view that Azerbaijan was constantly working on expelling Armenia from the regional economic projects, which was really going against the EaP goals.

Mr. NAHAPETYAN stated that the EaP meant an opportunity to discuss a wide range of issues and was indeed a new stage of cooperation. He stressed that the electoral reform was part of the strategic priorities of Armenia with raising the public trust being the priority number 1. He mentioned that on 6 May 2009 a number of actions were adopted by the President to ensure the EaP Action Plan fulfilment, according to the findings of the OSCE/ ODIHR from the elections that took place in 2006 and 2008. Transparency in elections must be guaranteed and international electoral standards must be respected in Armenia. He expressed the satisfaction of the PACE with the current efforts to reform the electoral legislation. Mr. NAHAPETYAN mentioned the work of the working group elaborating the draft of the electoral code as well as the symposium organised in cooperation with various international bodies, where several topics of the electoral process were discussed. The opposition was has been participating in elaborating the draft code. Mr. NAHAPETYAN expressed that new Electoral Code should be adopted in spring 2011.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN said that not all human rights issues had been dealt with in Armenia so far, but civil society had been engaged in reforms. She stressed that different options of reforms were discussed. Tabulation of the election results might be an option to improve the transparency of the electoral process. She touched upon the issue of the broadcast legislation stating that she was one of the authors of the amendments dealing with issuing licenses. The significant job was done by the working group consisting of representatives of the government and the civil society. All the steps were made in order to preclude any bias action in issuing the licenses. Ms. ZOHRABYAN also explained the draft proposals for the Law on demonstrations. Revised amendments of the law were sent to the Venice Commission. She stated, however, that there would still be some temptations to refuse the notifications of demonstrations by the bureaucrats. Ms. ZOHRABYAN said that she was a member of the ad hoc committee investigating the events of March 2008. She hoped that specific recommendations or lessons would be carried out in order to prevent similar events from happening again.

Mr. NAHAPETYAN said that Armenia was making significant efforts to improve the judiciary and police reform. It has to be done according to the EU standards. He mentioned all the steps done by Armenia so far in this effort. Judiciary reform is part or the ENP Action Plan; several laws had been adopted, presented to the National Assembly (Parliament of Armenia): Law on Process, Advocacy. He noted that the entire process had to be intensified. Mr. NAHAPETYAN underlined that the anti-corruption measures were implemented under the monitoring of the GRECO. Other significant law is draft law on Advocacy which is in line with the ENP AP. Important part of judiciary reform. Process of reforms must be intensified according to Mr. NAHAPETYAN. The government of Armenia decided to establish a joined institution for training of judges and prosecutors. That is a big part of the judiciary reform.

Mr. AYVAZYAN presented the economic policies conducted in Armenia, the measures taken to tackle it. He explained the plans aimed at turning the situation of effects of economic crisis on Armenia. He explained that the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 was imported to Armenia. GDP in 2009 fell by 14.2 percent. Sector of real economy was stroked heavily. Mr AYVAZYAN explained the structure of the country's GDP having 3 main sectors: constructions, mining and services. External remittances were an important source of income

______PV\EN.doc 5 PE 467.638 for the country. The construction sector was heavily influenced by the crisis; it fell by 56% in 2009. Exports contracted as well as export of labour force which resulted in fall of remittances and thus fall of domestic consumption. Mr. AYVAZYAN explained the anti-crisis measures undertaken by the government. He stated that the strategy was based on 3 core principles: large-scale infrastructure investments, targeted assistance for exporters, and support for SMEs by providing governmental loans (SME loaning headquarters was created, offering 88 million USD in loans). The Armenian authorities are also aiming at improving the business climate in the country; loans were received from Russia as well as from various international organisations: EIBRD, IMF. Tax administration was streamlined; legislation for subsiding public works was adopted. He gave examples of governmental investments: roads, irrigation systems, constructions and reconstructions of power plants, construction of Armenia-Georgia highway. Mr. AYVAZAYAN explained the activity of the Pan-Armenian Bank aiming at gathering the Armenian potential (financial resources of the Diaspora invested in the country). He stressed that for 2010 positive GDP growth was achieved, despite the bad climate conditions in the country. Short-term credit must be available. He explained also that in the short-term availability of credit was a priority. For the long-term the goal was diversification of economy and macroeconomic stability. Mr. AYVAZYAN offered a broad overview of anti- corruption measures being undertaken. He said that the focus was on senior public officials. Transparency was a priority. In this respect he mentioned that the ministers had to make property declarations in 2009, draft law on public procurement was adopted and legislation on internal audit enacted.

Mr. RUSTAMYAN said it was a key challenge for a country to hold transparent elections, to restore confidence of the population in the electoral process. He mentioned that the Electoral Law amendments had been sent to the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. He stated that the opposition could come with the other draft. He called for deepening the trust in the elections, election fraud being the main problem. Mr. RUSTAMYAN stressed that it was that some type of electoral rigging could not be addressed by any law: ballot stuffing, multiple voting. Mr. RUSTAMYAN proposed several mechanisms to tackle that type of electoral fraud. The opposition in Armenia was suggesting publishing the journals of voters that would boost transparency and accountability. He stated that in opinions of the opponents of the proposal the publishing would break the right for privacy. He did not agree with such statement. The idea of publishing the journal of voters was also criticised by the international organisations. He did not agree with the position and referred to obligatory voting in some European countries. In his view the international organisations were applying double standards. He would like the EU to clarify the opinion in this field (privacy vs. transparent elections).

Ms. ZOHRABYAN commented on the issue and said that the international organisations were against publishing the journals. Mr. CABRNOCH said that the EP perhaps could make some statement about the issue.

Ms. ALAVERDYAN reflected on the ideas discussed before. She hoped that the PCC would present some mechanisms how to deal with the problems. She expressed worries about the idea of the electoral commissions being not under the control of the political parties. She said that the commissions would depend more on the executive in that case. It is important for Armenia to exchange the experience with Europe on human rights issues. Armenia is seeking assistance and exchange of information on human rights with the EU.

______PV\EN.doc 6 PE 467.638 Ms. ALAVERDYAN expressed disagreement with the EP resolution of 20 May 2010 (on the need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus), that was allegedly too pro-Azerbaijan. She also stressed that the blockade of Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey was not correctly assessed by the EU. She referred to the violations of human rights in Azerbaijan and criticised the EU for applying double standards in respect to the recognition of new countries. She said that countries of Eastern Europe were granted independence based on their right to self- determination, while the post-Soviet countries were not granted such right (nuclear stability was more important than the right to self-determination). Ms ALAVERDYAN noted that the EU was giving Azerbaijan some hopes about the possibility of overtaking Karabakh by force issuing rather controversial statements. She called for participation of the representatives of Nagorno-Karabakh in the negotiations. She said that Nagorno-Karabakh had all the attributes of statehood, with regular and fair elections being held. She expressed her readiness to cooperate with all the MEPs in order to improve the situation and understanding of the topic since the MEPs were not having sufficient information on the issue. Ms. ALAVERDYAN stressed that the Minsk Group was the only forum able to move the things forward.

Mr. THALER welcomed the participants and expressed satisfaction with the discussion. He asked the Armenian delegation to present their views on various topics: how to continue with the EURONEST PA? What to do with the bad reputation of police towards the citizens? He mentioned also that the last elections in Azerbaijan were democratic and fair. He called the Armenian authorities to improve the situation in prisons and to combat corruption. He also referred to the fact that independent media was needed in every democratic society. Mr. THALER also stressed that the possibility to demonstrate peacefully had to be granted to the citizens.

Mr. KIRILOV expressed the happiness about the frank discussion. He expressed hope that the events of March 2008 would not happen again. He touched upon the issue of representation in the electoral commissions. He said that the will of the people had to be reflected in the elections. He stressed the importance of media in every democratic society. Politicians must get used to it, even if it sometimes goes against their interests. Regarding Nagorno-Karabakh Mr. KIRILOV stated that the EP had been criticised by Azerbaijan for taking too pro-Armenian stances. EP is committed to help and is not taking anyone's side. He said that Nagorno-Karabakh had to define its future, but the surrounding regions had been problematic, since he considered them under Armenian occupation. He called the Armenian participants to propose what the positive role in the issue could be. He referred to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina where significant improvements had been achieved. He called for participation of the Azerbaijani participant in the EU-Armenia PCC and the other way around.

Mr. CABRNOCH introduced a short documentary proposed by the Armenian delegation.

Mr. ZOHRABYAN referred negatively to the statements of Mr. Kirilov about allegedly occupied territories of Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh.

The meeting was closed at 17: 55.

______PV\EN.doc 7 PE 467.638 2 December 2010

The meeting under chairmanship of Ms. ZOHRABYAN was opened at 9:20.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN said that the Armenian side had some key recommendations for the Final Statements and Recommendation. She stressed that Armenia was committed to irreversible reforms and she repeated the fact that Yerevan was the first to nominate the national delegation to the EURONEST PA. According to her, the parliamentary diplomacy can contribute to the partnership. The issue of Belarus was just the tip of the iceberg. Ms. ZOHRABYAN noted that Belarus should have a full-fledged membership in the EURONEST PA. Still the membership was not a precondition for the existence of the EURONEST as such. The EURONEST should be launched: the Belarusian participation can be discussed later. Ms. ZOHRABYAN mentioned the Armenian EURONEST delegation was chaired by the opposition and stressed that there was an agreement within the society on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. She touched upon the reform of the electoral code. The Armenian authorities are constantly consulting with the international bodies like OSCE- ODIHR or the Venice Commission.

Mr. ZAKARYAN spoke about the EURONEST PA. He said that the parliamentary dimension would promote dialogue in the context of enhanced political and legal cooperation. Democracy is in the hearth of the programme. The EURONEST should start working as soon as possible; excluding Belarus fully and waiting for the elections would be perceived as a treatment of segregation. He stressed that the elections in Azerbaijan were not democratic either; therefore Belarus was not the only undemocratic country.

Regarding the item 7, Mr. ZAKARYAN said that Armenia was following the preparation of report in the EP on the South Caucasus. He expressed hope for a stable and coherent EU position on the region. Armenia appreciated the stance of the EC and focus of the EaP on specific projects. Armenia remains committed to both bilateral and multilateral tracks. Mr. ZAKARYAN explained the Armenian stance on relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia had no preconditions for establishing the diplomatic relations. He referred to the recent years when the relations between Turkey and Armenia were improving. Protocols on opening the border were signed on 10 October 2009, but they were not ratified after, due to the lack of political will on the part of Turkey. Turkey started with preconditions before ratifying the protocols. Normalisation of relations would contribute to regional security and cooperation. The peaceful resolution must be made according to 3 principles of the CSCE Helsinki Final Act: non-use of force, right for self-determination and territorial integrity. He stressed that Nagorno-Karabakh had never been a legal part of Azerbaijan; therefore there was no question about territorial integrity in the issue. He mentioned the security zone outside Nagorno-Karabakh itself. If the Nagorno-Karabakh independence were recognised, the Armenians would consider leaving the security zone with security guarantees being in place as well as the corridor Armenia-Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr ZAKARYAN called for the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh that would allegedly help solving the problem. The speaker referred to the issue of Kosovo recognition of primacy for self-determination and compared it with the Nagorno-Karabakh case.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN referred to the above mentioned EP resolution on the South Caucasus and claimed that it encouraged belligerent statements of President Aliyev. She called the EU to be much more cautious about the statements. She referred to the case of Kosovo as well.

______PV\EN.doc 8 PE 467.638 Mr. RUSTAMYAN referred to the statement of Mr. Kirilov and impartiality of the EP. Two key questions need to be answered according to him. He noted the issue of status of Karabakh, saying that the problem emerged during Perestroika and stressed that Nagorno- Karabakh became part of Azerbaijan because of the . Mr. RUSTAMYAN noted that Azerbaijan was the legal successor of the Azeri state of 1918, when Nagorno-Karabakh was not a legal part of Azerbaijan. He referred to the human dimension of the war. He asked by whom the war had been started in 1988 (Sumgayt massacre). Mr. RUSTAMYAN referred to the EP resolution on Karabakh from 1988 and others on the conflict. The key question emerging recently is how to solve the conflict. He stressed that international conditions had to be met, referring to the equal importance of all 3 Madrid (Helsinki) principles. Mr. RUSTAMYAN referred to the ICJ verdict on Kosovo and explained it as non-prohibition of declaration of independence. He found it incorrect that Azerbaijan was not discussing with Karabakh as a party for the negotiations. Mr. RUSTAMYAN underlined that the components of the conflicts (e.g. status) could not be fragmented.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN stated that the level of democracy in Nagorno-Karabakh was better than in some other countries.

Mr. THALER said that possible solutions should be searched for, which could be the case of the EURONEST PA. He called for stability and peace but agreed that there had been different points of view on the EURONEST PA especially in the light of Belarus. He asked if Armenia could help to set up the EURONEST in some way. EU should have more initiative on the issue. He referred to Armenia-Turkey relations saying that the win-win situation in the region was necessary. He underlined that the whole region was victim of the USSR. Conflict-resolution could lead to win-win resolution. He was contemplating some stronger form of mediation than the Minsk Group, possibility of international arbitration.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN spoke about refugees, saying that the numbers of refugees of both parties were the same. Armenia is ready to take initiative regarding the EURONEST and launch it as soon as possible.

Ms. ALAVERDYAN criticised the fact that the MEPs were not participating sufficiently in the PCC meetings. She referred to the Europeanisms of Armenia despite the difficulties. The EURONEST is a platform to hear from Azerbaijan and other actors. Territories around Karabakh were not a security zone. Conflict was unleashed by Azerbaijan, and the territories were part of Karabakh before. She criticised the fact that the South Caucasus was becoming only the sphere of influence because of the mineral resources, which was cynical according to her. She said that the Minsk Group was doing a bad job (accepting the logic). She mentioned the reunification of as a big success and tried to compare it with the Armenian effort. Karabakh must be involved in the discussion. TheS1996 Budapest OSCE summit recognised Karabakh as a party to the conflict. She stressed that she was against the Turkish-Armenian protocols. The texts of protocols do not contain any preconditions with regard to the alleged genocide of the Armenians. Azerbaijan did not want to step back in any thought. Aliyev claims the non existence of the Armenian state. Nagorno-Karabakh must be involved in the peace talks. She expressed hope to hold the PCC there in the future.

______PV\EN.doc 9 PE 467.638 Mr. CABRNOCH explained that MEPs could not participate at the meetings because of number of the other meetings in the EP.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN said that Turkey did not want to accept the genocide. The issue was not raised by Armenia anyway because of the good will of Yerevan. She stressed that there was no alternative to the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Mr. ABAD expressed disagreement with the EP statement. The EP resolution was biased according to him. He called for a long-term peaceful resolution, with the arms race question being the core one. He said military spending of Azerbaijan was of serious concern. Mr. ABAD called for investigation of the Azerbaijani and Armenian refugees. The Minsk Group should be the organisation for peace resolution. The EU's role is to not to present unbalanced positions. He underlined the necessity of economic policies. 2 situations should be separated: NK and the relationship between Turkey and Armenia.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN confirmed the statements of Mr. ABAD about the humanitarian blockade of Karabakh.

Mr. LANDSBERGIS asked if the meeting (PCC) was supposed to have a real outcome. He touched upon the issue of Karabakh saying that there was indeed no progress on the spot. He called for a clear assessment of the situation. He analysed the draft statement and recommendations and criticised the Armenian proposal to erase the issue of violence against journalists and the self-censorship from the document. He criticised that the territories out of Karabakh under Armenian control were disputed. He refers to other parts of the Caucasus, where there were similar areas after the Russian-Georgian war named as disputed. He called for discussion with the Nagorno-Karabakh representatives but from both communities, not just the Armenians. He criticised the idea of self-determination in the light of, for instance, legitimisation of the claim for reuniting both North and South Ossetia. Mr. LANDSBERGIS also criticised the outcome of the OSCE Astana Summit that allegedly had not brought anything new to solve the problem. He stated that if there were no progress on the ground in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue the worse development could be expected.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN talked about the issues of journalists that Mr. Landsbergis had referred to. Ms. ZOHRABYAN mentioned the upgrade of the Criminal Code of 12 May 2010 clearly improving the situation of the journalists. She noted that the Reporters without Borders appreciated the improvement of the situation in Armenia and upgraded the country's ranking by 10 points. She asked the EU partners to appreciate the significant Armenian effort. She also said that the exchange of prisoners was of an utmost importance. She further stressed that Azerbaijani military budget was equal of the budget of Armenia as a country. She referred to the (alleged) statement of the EU Special Representative about understanding the Armenian concerns over rising Azerbaijani military spending.

Mr. RUSTAMYAN proposed to the MEPs to visit Nagorno-Karabakh or either to have a working session there with the participation of Azerbaijan as well. He was referring to the fact that the 1994 ceasefire agreement was signed by 3 parties including Karabakh. That was confirmed by the OSCE; therefore, Nagorno-Karabakh has got the right to participate in the talks. He stressed that any peace was better than a war and that for the conflict resolution all the controversial and problematic issues had to be settled.

______PV\EN.doc 10 PE 467.638 Ms. ZOHRABYAN agreed with the idea of holding meetings in Karabakh. She expressed alleged commitment of Karabakh to democracy and appreciated its level there.

Mr. RUSTAMYAN commented on the Armenia-Turkey relations. The current process must be analysed seriously. He said that it was not reasonable to be involved in two issues at the same time (EU-Turkey relations, Karabakh conflict resolution). He stressed that Turkey was only pretending to normalise the relations, by signing the protocols and then refusing to ratify them with no preconditions. He noted that Armenia was making concessions to Turkey on the issue (the question of the genocide). Mr. RUSTAMYAN said it was a precondition for Turkey from the EU to open the borders with Armenia but Brussels never efficiently demanded it.

Ms. ALAVERDYAN said that Azerbaijan attacked Armenia already before the collapse of the USSR and therefore was to blame for the conflict. She said that the UN membership did not have anything to do with the borders of the countries. She underlined that Baku claimed territories that it never exercised sovereignty over before 1920 or after 1992. She mentioned Nakhichevan that allegedly never belonged to Azerbaijan. UN admission as such did not mean acceptance of the borders of the Soviet Azerbaijan.

Mr. KIRILOV mentioned that it was not possible to discuss the same issue (Karabakh) all the time (also in EU-Azerbaijan PCC). He called for some other format to be found in case the Minsk Group was not working sufficiently. It is not viable to return to history all over again. Mr. KIRILOV criticised Mr. Abad's statement in the view that he had not personally amended the EP resolution, which had been adopted by 95 % of votes. He referred positively to the idea of arbitrage stating however that the EP was unable to serve as an mediator.

Mr. ABAD criticised the number of MEPs present at the meeting as well as the low level of knowledge of the topic. The EP resolution was not balanced, according to him. The MEPs should visit the territory in order to understand the situation better. He called for a more balanced approach of the EU.

Ms. ZOHRABYAN expressed hope for consensus to be found regarding the Final Statement and Recommendations and postponed the meeting for 5 minutes.

Mr. CABRNOCH thanked for the discussion and thanked for helping drafting the Final Statement and Recommendations. Ms. ZOHRABYAN thanked for the work and said that she was happy about having a common statement. She invited the MEPs to Armenia for the PCC and she repeated the invitation to Nagorno-Karabakh.

9. Adoption of the Final Statement and Recommendations

Mr. CABRNOCH went through the text. Several points of the text were changed. The document was agreed eventually. Ms. ZOHRABYAN expressed her gratitude about achieving a balanced text. She thanked all those present for their patience and for welcoming the Armenian delegation to the European Parliament.

The PCC ended at 12.00.

******

______PV\EN.doc 11 PE 467.638 BILAG/ANLAGE/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/BILAGA

DELTAGERLISTE/ANWESENHEITSLISTE/ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΣΗ ΠΑΡΟΝΤΩΝ/RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/LISTA DE ASISTENCIA/LISTE DE PRESENCE/ELENCO DEI PRESENTI/PRESENTIELIJST/LISTA DE PRESENÇAS/LÄSNÄOLOLISTA/DELTAGARLISTA

Til stede Formandskabet/Vorstand/Πρoεδρείo/Bureau/Ufficio di Presidenza/Mesa/Puhemiehistö/J.L. Presidium: (*)

CABRNOCH (chair)*+, THALER (1st vice-chair)*+, LANDSBERGIS (2nd vice-chair)+

Anwesend Medlemmer/Mitglieder/Μέλη/Members/Diputados/Députés/Deputati/Leden/Deputados/jäsenet/

IMBRASAS*+, KIRILOV*+, LUNACEK*

Παρόvτες Stedfortrædere/Stellvertreter/Αvαπληρωτές/Substitutes/Suplentes/Suppléants/ Membri supplenti/Plaatsvervangers/Membros suplentes/Varajäsenet/Suppleanter:

ABAD*+, FALBR+, HÄFNER*, RUBIKS* Present

Presentes

Présents

Presenti

Aanwezig

Läsnä

Närvarande

Art. 147,7 /Art. 178.2

Art. 166,3/ Art. 183.3

Art. 162.6 Endv. Deltog/Weitere Teiln./ Συμμετείχαv επίσης/Also present Participaron igualmente/ Participaient également/ Hanno partecipato altresi/ Andere deelnemers/ Outros participantes/ Muut osallistujat/ Dessutom deltog

(Dagsorden/Tagesordnung Pkt/Ημερήσια Διάταξη Σημεί/Point OJ/Punto OG/Agenda Punt/Ordem do dia- punto/punto orden del dia/ Esityslista Kohta/Föredragningslista punkt):

* (P) =Formand/Vorsitzender/Πρόεδρoς/Chairman/Président/Presidente/Voorzitter/Presidente/Puhemies/Ordförande (VP) =Næstform./Stellv. Vorsitz./Αvτιπρόεδρoς/Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président/Vicepresidente/Varapuhemies Ondervoorz./Vice-Pres./Vicepres/Vice ordförande.

Til stede den/Anwesend am/Παρώv στις/Present on/Présent le/Presente il/Aanwezig op/Presente em/Presente el/Läsnä/Närvarande den.

(*) 1.12.2010 (+) 2.12.2010

______PV\EN.doc 12 PE 467.638 Efter indbydelse fra formanden/Auf Einladung d. Vorsitzenden/Με πρόσκληση τoυ Πρoέδρoυ/At the invitation of the Chairman/Por invitación del presidente/Sur l'invitation du président/Su invito del presidente/Op uitnodiging van de voorzitter/A convite do presidente/Puhemiehen kutsusta/ På ordförandens inbjudan:

Radet/Rat/Συμβoύλιo/Council/Consejo/Conseil/Consiglio/Raad/Conselho/Neuvosto/Rådet: (*)

Kommissionen/Kommission/Επιτρoπή/Commission/Comisión/Commissione/Commissie/Commissão/Komissio/ Kommissionen: (*) RIBULIS, WIEGAND

Missions/Ambassades: GIORGOBIANI, BIYAGOV, ADONTS

Andre deltagere/Andere Teilnehmer Επίσης Παρόvτες/Also present Otros participantes/Autres participants/Altri partecipanti Andere aanwezigen/Outros participantes Muut osallistujat/Övriga deltagare

Gruppernes sekretariat PPE Sekretariat der Fraktionen S-D Γραμματεία τωv Πoλ. Ομάδωv ALDE RYCKMAN Secretariat political groups Verts/ALE Secr. de los grupos politicos ECR MILACKOVA Secr. groupes politiques GUE/NGL Segr. dei gruppi politici EFD JANCKEVICIUS Secr. van de fracties NI Secr. dos grupos politicos Puolueryhmien sihteeristö Gruppernas sekretariat

Cab. du Président .

Cab. du Secrétaire Général

Generaldirektorat I Generaldirektion II Γεvική Διεύθυvση III EXPO: Directorate-General IV MAZZI-ZISSIS, SOURANDER, UDINA Dirección general V Direction générale VI Direzione generale VII Directoraat-generaal VIII Direcção general Contrôle financier Service juridique Pääosasto Generaldirektorat

Udvalgssekretariatet Ausschußsekretariat POPESCU-BLACK Γραμματεία επιτρoπής Committee secretariat Secretaria de la comisión Secrétariat de la commission Segretariato della commissione Commissiesecretariaat Secretaria de comissão Valiokunnan sihteeristö Utskottssekretariatet CLAES, TURANOVA Assist./Βoηθός

* (P) =Formand/Pres./Πρόεδρoς/Chairman/Président/Voorzitter/Puhemies/Ordförande (VP) =Næstform./Vize-Pres./Αvτιπρόεδρoς/Vice-Chairman/Vice-Président/Ondervoorz./Vice-pres/Varapuhemies/Vice ordförande. (M) =Medlem./Mitglied/Μέλoς/Member/Miembro/Membre/Membro/Lid/Membro/Jäsen/Ledamot F) =Tjenestemand/Beamter/Υπάλληλoς/Official/Funcionario/Fonctionnaire/Funzionario/Ambtenaar/ Functionário/Virkamies/Tjänsteman

______PV\EN.doc 13 PE 467.638 EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee

ELEVENTH MEETING 1-2 December 2010 Brussels

LIST OF THE ARMENIAN DELEGATION

Members

Mrs Naira ZOHRABYAN Member of Parliament Chair of the Delegation "Prosperous Armenia"

Mrs Larisa ALAVERDYAN Member of Parliament "Heritage"

Mr Vardan AYVAZYAN Member of Parliament "Republican Party of Armenia"

Mr Armen MELIKYAN Member of Parliament "Prosperous Armenia"

Mr Koryun NAHAPETYAN Member of Parliament "Republican Party of Armenia"

Mr Armen RUSTAMYAN Member of Parliament "Armenian Revolutionary Federation"

Mr Artak ZAKARYAN Member of Parliament "Republican Party of Armenia"

Government Representative

Mrs Karine KAZINIAN Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Accompanying staff

Mr Edouard BADOYAN Secretary of the Delegation

______22 November 2010-rev1/fc

______PV\EN.doc 14 PE 467.638