EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

DELEGATION TO THE PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEES EU-ARMENIA, EU-AZERBAIJAN AND EU-GEORGIA

INFORMATION NOTE

ON THE WORK OF THE DELEGATION TO THE EU-ARMENIA, EU-AZERBAIJAN AND EU-GEORGIA PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEES

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES OF THE UNION

______5 June 2014/rev.030714 PK/fc 1 INTRODUCTION

Our bilateral relations: where we stand

The relations between the European Parliament and the parliaments of the three South Caucasus countries- Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia - are currently conducted within the framework of bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreements, which all entered into force in July 1999.

This framework vis-à-vis Azerbaijan and Armenia is not expected to change in the short term. On the other hand, the EU-Georgia Association Agreement, which features an ambitious Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement dimension, was signed on 27 June 2014 and is now likely to enter in provisional application before November 2014. This will lead to the further intensification of structured parliamentary dialogue with Georgian legislators in particular, reflecting the clear progress seen in EU-Georgia relations these last few years. EU cooperation and financial assistance to the country (see below) further reflects this fact.

This said, the standing PCAs have all already initiated formal interparliamentary cooperation – with three Parliamentary Cooperation Committees exercising parliamentary control over their implementation. Each PCC has the right to receive information from the Cooperation Council and the Cooperation Committee set by the respective PCA: PCCs can also adopt recommendations addressed to the competent Cooperation Committees. The EP-Georgia PCC should however be replaced, before 2015, by an EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee, in order to perform the joint democratic scrutiny function over the proceedings of the Association Council which will be established by the EU-Georgia AA/DCFTA.

Current priorities and funding of the ENP (European Neighborhood Policy) Action Plan

As of May 2014, the indicative financial allocation foreseen under the European Neighborhood Policy Instrument for each of the South Caucasus Countries for the years 2014-2020 is as follows:  Armenia: EUR 252.000.000 – 308.000.000 Private Sector Development 35% Public Administration Reform 25% Justice Sector Reform 20% Capacity Development & Institution building 15% Civil Society 5%

 Azerbaijan: EUR 139.000.000 – 169.000.000 Regional Development 40% Justice Sector Reform 20% Education & skills development 20% Capacity Development & Institution building 15% Civil Society 5%

 Georgia EUR 610.000.000 – 746.000.000 Agriculture and rural development 30% Public administration reform 25% Justice Sector Reform 25% Capacity Development & Civil society 20% 2 Our partner parliaments

 The Armenian National Assembly has 131 Members, last elected for a five year mandate in 2012; the Republican Party (EPP affiliated) enjoys 70 seats; the governmental coalition also comprises the 6 MPs from the Rule of Law party, giving it a comfortable majority. The opposition comprises Prosperous Armenia (36 MPs), the Armenian National Congress (7 MPs), the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (5 MPs) and the Heritage Faction (5 MPs).

Speaker Galust Sahakyan (RP) was elected in mid-2014, as his predecessor, Hovik Abrahamyan, was appointed Prime Minister. The EU-Armenia PCC is co-chaired, on the Armenian side, by Mr. Samvel Farmanyan (RP).

 The Azeri Milli Mejlis is chaired since 2005 by Mr. Ogtay Asadov. It comprises 125 Members, elected for a 5 year mandate in 2010 – meaning that the next elections are due next year. The ruling New Azerbaijan Party has the majority with 73 seats; as to the other MPs, their nominal independence is quite compatible with their government- leaning positions.

The EU-Azerbaijan PCC is co-chaired, on the Azeri side, by Vice-Speaker Valeh Alesgerov.

 The Georgian Parliament, transferred in Kutaisi since 2012, is chaired by Speaker Davit Usupashvili (Georgian Dream – Republican Party); the Georgian Dream coalition enjoys a majority of 85 seats in the 151-seat assembly, whereas 65 seats belong to the opposition United National Movement (EPP affiliated). The ruling coalition regroups a number of parties which came under the same umbrella in the last general elections in October 2012: Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia (47 seats), Free Democrats (10 seats; ALDE affiliated), Republican Party (9 seats; ALDE affiliated), National Forum (6 seats), Conservatives (6 seats), and Entrepreneurs (6 seats). The next elections are scheduled to take place in the second half of 2016.

The EU-Georgia PCC is actively co-chaired, on the Georgian side, by Ms Tinatin Khidasheli (Georgian Dream – Republican Party).

Our last interparliamentary meetings

 EU-Armenia: 14th PCC meeting, February 2014 Strasbourg.

For the first time in fifteen years of parliamentary dialogue, no Joint Recommendations were adopted. The main stumbling block was not the future course of EU-Armenia relations following Armenia’s U-turn in September 2013, when President Sargysyan, to the general surprise, shelved the AA/DCFTA which had been negotiated and opted, in Moscow, for integration into the Russian-led Customs Union instead; parliamentarians discussed this issue in depth, and both sides concurred at the need to find a new 3 contractual framework that would replace the, outdated, 1999 EU-Armenia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. However, no agreement could be found on common wording on Nagorno-Karabakh – with the EP Delegation, in particular, bound by the last positions on the matter adopted in the EP Plenary. In the absence of any agreed text that would also cover this issue, Co-Chair Farmanyan deemed the draft unacceptable in its entirety, without even calling for a formal vote.

 EU-Azerbaijan: 12th meeting of the PCC, Brussels, June 2012

This 2012 PCC meeting, the last in the previous legislature, examined in detail the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh in the presence of Commissioner Füle, EU Special Representative Philippe Lefort, and Deputy Foreign Minister Mammad-Guliyev. EUSR Lefort particularly refuted accusations of the EU adopting double standards vis-à-vis territorial integrity issues in various conflict areas (Kosovo, Georgia) and stressed that neither use of force nor the status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh were acceptable. As to EU/Azerbaijan relations, negotiations on the future Association Agreement were clearly lagging behind; no joint recommendations were adopted, largely due to a diametrically different appreciation on human rights issues.

It should be mentioned that a Bureau mission of the Delegation also took place in early 2014 to Baku; while this did not constitute formally speaking a fully-fledged PCC, it did provide an opportunity to review the state-of-play of EU-Azerbaijan relations from a parliamentary perspective. Thus, Milli Mejlis MPs attributed the lack of progress in the EU/Azerbaijan association agreement negotiations exclusively to the EU side, due to a perceived lack of willingness to recognise Azerbaidjan’s territorial integrity in the draft.

 16th EU-Georgia PCC meeting, Tbilisi, March 2014

The meeting took place in the heavy shadow of Crimean developments – and was marked by a genuine apprehension that these could prefigure other agressive Russian actions in disputed or breakaway territories, from South Ossetia to Nagorno Karabakh.

A constructive approach nonetheless prevailed during the meeting –both between and, crucially, inside each parliamentary delegation. Thus the joint recommendations adopted highlighted the need to pursue legal and judicial reform by building on the work undertaken by EU Special Advisor Thomas Hammarberg; common wording was also found on the delicate selective justice issue; both Delegations did underline, with satisfaction, the recent EP position which made references to a possible EU accession for Georgia, based on the principles set out by article 49 of the Treaty. A field-trip to the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Gori allowed, furthermore, seeing first-hand the ongoing process of ‘borderisation’ by participating in an EUMM patrol –thus carrying a symbolic dimension and a message of EU solidarity.

4 HISTORY AND FUNCTIONING OF THE EP DELEGATION

The European Parliament has, so far, been represented on the three PCCs by the Delegation for relations with the South Caucasus Republics (D-SCA), which was chaired during the 7th legislature (2009-2014) by Mr Milan CABRNOCH (ECR - Czech Republic), assisted in his tasks by 1st Vice-Chair Ms Mojca KLEVA (S&D, Slovenia) and 2nd Vice Chair Vytautas LANDSBERGIS (EPP, Lithuania). This Delegation was formally created back in 1999, first Chaired until 2004 by Ms Ursula SCHLEICHER (EPP-ED, Germany) and, from 2004 to 2009, by Ms Marie Anne ISLER-BEGUIN (Verts/ALE - France).

Prior to 1999, interaction took place at the initiative of the EP and in the absence of any contractual obligation – in the sense that contacts were not foreseen explicitly by any instrument of international law. The EP Delegation was first chaired (1994-1996) by Mr Antonios TRAKATELLIS (EPP - Greece) and then (1997-1999) by Mr Alexandros ALAVANOS (GUE/NGL - Greece). Before 1994, the area was covered by the Delegation for relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States, under Ms Magdalene HOFF (PES - Germany).

Also thanks to the work undertaken by the Delegation, developments in the South Caucasus have been examined in a number of EP resolutions adopted in Plenary; thus, a dedicated resolution entitled "the need for an EU strategy for the South Caucasus" was adopted on 20/5/2010. Furthermore, the numerous resolutions covering the EU’s Eastern Partnership invariably address the situation in these countries, with the input and expertise of the Members of the EP Delegation. Such resolutions, together with country-specific texts which can be adopted in Plenary in the framework of so called ‘emergency’ resolutions on the state of play of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, form, in turn, the basic framework for the institutional positions the EP delegation has to promote in its meetings with counterparts from the three South Caucasus countries.

Country-specific details: Armenia

Debates with Armenian MPs at joint meetings [in detail: Annex I] tend to focus, often overshadowing other issues, on the perennial problem with Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian populated region that was part of Azerbaijan in the Soviet era. Since 1994, and after a war which claimed more than 30.000 lives, there has been an uneasy truce between the two countries, with Armenia in military control of both Nagorno-Karabakh itself and adjacent parts of Azerbaijan. The situation is best described as a ‘protracted conflict’ rather than as a frozen one: frequent exchanges of fire along the ‘line of control’, where the armies face each other, routinely result in numerous deaths every year (more than 30 in 2012, and 18 in 2013): this bears the inherent fear of an escalation and subsequent resumption of hostilities.

Since the war, the border between the two sides remains closed; Armenia also has poor relations with Turkey, which has sealed the land border between the two countries in a sign of solidarity towards Azerbaijan. The principled European Parliament's position is, nonetheless, that the opening of the border should be seen as a matter of priority. On the other hand, the European

5 Parliament also feels that ‘the occupation by one country of the Eastern Partnership of the territory of another violates the fundamental principles and objectives of the Eastern Partnership’.1

While Armenia had initially manifested an active interest in the EU’s Eastern Partnership and had demonstrated real efforts in finalising the negotiations of an Association Agreement and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area in the summer of 2013, this was never signed. Instead, in a surprise move, President Sargsyan announced, in Moscow, on 3 September 2013, that his country was to join the Russian-inspired Customs Union.

The reasons for such a dramatic U-turn were widely seen to be primarily geopolitical, i.e. dictated by the need for Yerevan to be able to count on Moscow’s continued support on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. The trade / economic rationale of the Customs Union choice appears indeed to be far less convincing – also in terms of the, badly needed, modernization of the country structures. The EP’s position is that Armenia’s choice was the result of direct Russian pressure and security-related threats2; it might be recalled that Armenia constantly supported subsequent Russian actions in Crimea, most prominently in a UN General Assembly framework.

As to the future of EU-Armenia relations, the aforementioned negative developments had no impact on Armenia’s participation to selected European programmes or on the EU-Armenia’s mobility partnership, with the EP giving its green light to the visa facilitation foreseen. From a more general perspective, the common perception is that the standing PCA is outdated and that EU-Armenia cooperation deserves a new institutional framework. Following Yerevan’s U-Turn of 3/9/2013 it is, nonetheless, first and foremost for the Armenian authorities to give credible commitments on where precisely their so called ‘red lines’ lie, i.e. what are precisely the domains where EU-Armenia cooperation is not precluded by Armenia’s new international commitments, assuming these can be ascertained. More clarity in rebuilding trust is therefore needed – and the ball remains, in this respect, in Yerevan’s court.

As to the chronic EU concerns over corruption in Armenia, tackling this scourge remains an ongoing challenge, since –badly needed- economic development is hampered. During the last few years, largely due to substantial international pressure, a number of positive steps had been undertaken by the Armenian authorities – and the EU had firmly supported Armenia’s own reform agenda, which was intended to modernize the country and to help it to eventually exploit the potential that was to be offered by the AA/DCFTA. How to continue to support in a credible and productive way this reform agenda, especially since the country is expected to become gradually integrated in a Russian-led Customs Union (and eventually in the Eurasian Economic Union), which might further entrench the existing oligopolistic structures, remains an open question.

The last parliamentary elections were held in Armenia on 6 May 2012. International observers, amongst whom also MEPs, described these elections as "a step forward and a considerable improvement". The undisputable winner of these elections was the Republican Party (EPP affiliated), which holds the majority in Parliament. The Prosperous Armenia -in opposition- is now the second largest party in Parliament, with the Armenian National Congress securing only a handful of seats.

1 EP Plenary resolution on the European Neighbourhood Policy, 23 October 2013. 2 EP Plenary resolution on the pressure exerted by Russia on Eastern Partnership countries, 12 September 2013 6 Presidential elections also took place in February 2013, resulting in the re-election of President Serzh Sargsyan (Republican Party) for a second 5-year mandate, with a majority of 58,64%.While these elections took place under the newly amended Electoral Code, which the OSCE/ODIHR assessed as providing a sound basis, misuse of administrative resources, blurring the distinction between the state and the ruling party, was observed on several cases; the voting process was however generally calm and orderly. This said, the post-interim OSCE/ODIHR report also concluded that the statistical tendency of higher results for the incumbent observed at stations with a high turnout did raise concerns over the integrity of the elections. The EP Electoral Observation Missions thus recommended a follow-up on the basis of the ODIHR’s final report.

Country-specific details: Azerbaijan

The protracted conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh and the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan's territory (Nagorno Karabakh proper, but also several surrounding territories) by its neighbour is a constant agenda item; most, if not all, meetings [in detail: Annex II] echo the call for a resolution of the conflict, which is seen as preventing the political and economic development of the region. The importance of exploiting Azerbaijan's huge oil wealth is also stressed, as are projects for regional development.

The possibility of an EU-Azerbaijan Association Agreement (perhaps in the form of a Strategic Modernisation Partnership), is also discussed in the context of interparliamentary meetings, especially since such negotiations have already been ongoing, for many years. While the EU is seeking increasingly close relations going towards gradual economic integration (bearing in mind no DCFTA talks have taken place, since Azerbaijan is not a WTO member) and a deepening of political co-operation, the little progress seen in these negotiations can be attributed to two factors: the insistence of Azerbaijan to see included in the text explicit references to its sovereignty and territorial integrity on one hand, and, on the other, the reluctance Baku shows in seeing any strong Human Rights dimension in the text.

The EU is, indeed, quite critical of the situation in the country, and has repeatedly issued public statements decrying, as of mid-2014, an intensifying clampdown against Human Rights defenders taking place in the country. These chronic EU and EP concerns over the human rights situation, democratic rights, freedom of the media and corruption have had as a consequence that it has not been possible to adopt joint recommendations in any interparliamentary meeting since 2010.

As to the last Presidential elections, in October 2013, they saw the re-election of President Ilham Aliyev with 84,5% for a new 5-year term. A European Parliament Delegation observed these elections in the framework of an International Electoral Observation Mission led by the OSCE/ODIHR – which found the elections to have been undermined by limitations on the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association, accompanied by continued allegations of candidate and voter intimidation. The sad conclusion was that Azerbaijan was not meeting its OSCE commitments for genuine and democratic elections; the European Parliament regretted these negative developments 1; while the OSCE/ODIHR only faced the verbal wrath of the

1 EP Resolution of 23/10/2013 on the European Neighbourhood Policy, paragraphs 31 & 32 7 authorities, domestic observers who had arrived at similar conclusions were subsequently arrested, and remain in custody.

In the domestic field, criticism is also heard on the oil production income not trickling quickly enough to large sectors of the population, such as the one million internally displaced persons Azerbaijan has to cope with since they fled Nagorno-Karabakh. Substantial foreign investment is however seen in the energy sector - most notably in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline; one of the key challenges is encouraging investment in other areas of the economy, as well as diversification from the oil sector.

Country-specific details: Georgia

The EU and Georgia initialed the AA/DCFTA at the Vilnius 2013 summit, and signed it, as foreseen, on 27 June 2014. The EU now seeks to ensure that the benefits of the AA/DCFTA are felt by citizens as soon as possible and thus announced, in early May, additional funding of EUR 30 million, largely to help the modernisation efforts linked to the implementation of the AA/DCFTA in order to facilitate access to the EU market. The Georgian government, in turn, has committed to continue to deliver on political reforms: the recent bipartisan adoption by the Georgian parliament of the needed anti-discrimination legislation, which was by no means an easy task given the domestic context, is therefore expected to allow moving ahead with visa liberalization – a priority often underlined in a PCC meeting set-up [in detail: Annex III].

Georgia is clearly an achiever in terms of democracy: despite having been tense, the 2012-2013 cohabitation between President Mikheil Saakashvili (United National Movement) and new Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili (Georgian Dream) can be seen as a proof of democratization. The OSCE/EP electoral observation mission noted that the 2012 legislative elections met international standards; this trend was confirmed in the subsequent October 2013 Presidential elections, which saw the easy election of Mr. Giorgi Margevlashvili (GD) to a largely ceremonial post, after the completion of Mr. Sakaashvili’s term. It should be pointed out that Prime Minister Ivanishvilli (GD) resigned after the defeat of the UNM at the Presidential elections; the Prime Ministerial office is now held by 32-year old and trusted aide Irakli Garibashvili (GD).

While the country has much progressed in the last decade in terms of human rights and democratization, a key remaining challenge is to firmly set-up a sustainable system of checks and balances – including firmly consolidating the independence of the judiciary; the ongoing legal cases against leading high officials of the previous administration (such as former Prime Minister Merabishvili) have been interpreted, in some political circles, as proof of selective justice being applied. The EU position on the matter is that there should be no impunity for those who have broken the law. However, criminal prosecutions should be evidence-based, transparent and impartial. In order to assist Georgia in the necessary reforms, M. Thomas Hammarberg, former Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, has been appointed as EU adviser to the Georgian PM on constitutional and legal issues. His landmark report ‘Georgia in transition’, released in September 2013, was welcomed as constructive by both parties, and is being followed-up.

8 It should be reminded that Georgia underwent considerable change after the so-called "Rose Revolution" of 2003-2004, with the resignation of President Shevardnadze in the aftermath of the deeply flawed parliamentary elections of November 2003 and the overwhelming victory of Mikhail Saakashvilli in the presidential elections of January 2004.

Since independence, civil war, crime and corruption have ravaged Georgia - and the August 2008 war with Russia drastically changed the internal political situation. A need for national unity was widely recognised; at the same time, new issues were added to the list of reasons for discontent: the failure to prevent hostilities, the situation of the initially 133.000 internally displaced persons, the economic downturn and the growing unemployment this provoked, etc.

Although the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia looked hard to reverse and violence continued to make adjacent areas uninhabitable, the threat against the very survival of the Georgian state receded. While on 26 August 2008, Russia recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, this move was widely condemned by the international community, which remains united in its policy of non-recognition of these two Russian-sponsored breakaway regions as sovereign states. The two breakaway regions were declared to be occupied territories by the Georgian Parliament in October 2008, which restricted access and prohibited economic and financial activities that do not comply with Georgian law. The Georgian Dream government has however embarked on a policy of ‘engagement, not recognition’ and, since 2013, all rights, programmes and funds have been extended to both breakaway regions. Few results have however been seen so far: the ad-hoc authorities of the territories do not appear willing to cooperate even on minor issues with the Georgian government.

EU, UN and OSCE sponsored talks between representatives of Georgia, Russia and the Abkhaz and South-Ossetian de facto authorities are, since October 2008, held in Geneva. To the extent that substantial, rather than just procedural issues have been dealt with, discussions have focused on security and the return of displaced persons. The EU has also deployed the EU Monitoring Mission, a 260-strong civilian CSDP mission, along the administrative lines with the breakaway regions – a major foreign policy contribution which has helped to defuse tensions in the region; the EUMM has however not been able to prevent the so-called borderisation process which takes place since mid-2013, with Russian ‘border guards’ erecting barriers and barbed wire, further encroaching on Georgian territory.

As to the origins and course of the conflict, the EU entrusted Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini to lead an independent fact-finding mission, which presented its conclusions in 2009: the immediate cause of the war was assessed to be the shelling by Georgian forces of the city of Tskhinvali (a civilian target), but the report further found the Russian response to have been disproportionate - while the stage had been previously set in preparing for a violent confrontation, with the international community failing to realise how fragile the existing cease- fire was. Ambassador Tagliavini judged the 2008 conflict to have been predictable and preventable, and a failure of the international community which could "do better, and does not have to reinvent the wheel to do so".

Separatism and conflict remain an important impediment to development and contribute to regional instability; the EU supports the principle of Georgian territorial integrity and aims to assist Georgia in creating the political, economic and social environment necessary for the country to fully exploit its natural comparative advantages at the crossroad of important transport and energy corridors between Europe and Central Asia. One of the most notable

9 developments in this respect was the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which brings oil directly from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, through Georgia.

10 Annex I: History of EU-Armenia PCC Meetings

November 2012 - 13th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels The PCC took place in the aftermath of Azerbaijan pardoning convicted killer Safarov and giving him a hero’s welcome, after his extradition by Hungary where he had been convicted and jailed. This inflammatory development, condemned by the EP Plenary, marked a new low point in Azeri-Armenian relations. In their joint recommendations, both parliamentary delegations welcomed the progress seen on the Association Agreement and DCFTA negotiations, even though MEPs insisted again on the need for Yerevan to ratify the ICC.

November 2011 - 12th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Yerevan A joint statement was adopted after intense negotiations, with difficulties mostly due to the huge sensitivity of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. On the domestic front, conciliatory moves by the authorities (release of political prisoners, progress on respecting the freedom of assembly, moves to investigate the 2008 presidential election violence) contributed to a constructive atmosphere in Interparliamentary talks; the importance of free and fair elections was repeatedly stressed by all sides.

December 2010 - 11th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels Among the issues raised, the most prominent were the democratic reforms process, human rights issues, the national anti-corruption strategy, the impact of the economic crisis and, of course, regional issues such as Armenian-Turkish relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. While it was underlined that the EU ought to become more involved in the resolution of the conflict, the Armenian side criticized strongly the EP position on the matter as enshrined in 20/5/2010 EP resolution on South Caucasus. Armenian legislators were also keen to defend the legitimacy of the electoral process in Nagorno Karabakh – even though this was unrecognised by the international community.

April 2009 - 10th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Yerevan MEPs visited the Vardashen Penitentiary, and met with the Armenian MPs who were detained after the riots of 1st of March 2008. During their meetings with Armenian MPs and with President Sargsyan, MEPs underlined a number of Human Rights / religious minorities / rule of law issues, as well as the need to reform the Criminal Code. The Nagorno-Karabakh situation was discussed through the prism of the Moscow Declaration of 2 November 2008; an exchange of views also took place on the Turkish Stability Platform Initiative.

January 2007 - 9th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels The political, economic and social situation in Armenia within the context of the forthcoming legislative elections was discussed - as was the implementation of the ENP Action Plan. Respect for human rights, including freedom of expression, were also high on the agenda. Nagorno Karabakh and the rrelations with Turkey were examined, in presence of EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby.

April 2006 - 8th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Yerevan Resuming the discussion on the democratisation process, MEPs underlined the need to see the implementation of the Government's anti-corruption strategy. A long debate was dedicated to energy security and environment protection issues (the likelihood of decommissioning the Medzamor nuclear power plant and protection of Lake Sevan). On Nagorno-Karabakh, debates took place also on the need to respect the cultural and historic heritage of the region.

11 April 2005 - 7th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Strasbourg The discussions covered the overall democratisation process, focussing on the freedom of the media and respect for human rights. The MEPs stressed the importance of relations between Armenia and its neighbours, the clear definition of cross-border cooperation and expressed concern about the ongoing situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. The EP Delegation also brought up the necessity to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in Armenia.

March 2004 - 6th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Yerevan Concerns were expressed about the conduct of the parliamentary elections of May 2003, which observers considered to have fallen short of international standards. Members however had praise for the abolition of the death penalty and the appointment of an Ombudsperson. The PCC further greeted the appointment of an EU Special representative for the South Caucasus and called for a South Caucasus dimension withing the EU’s Neighbourhood policy.

March 2003 - 5th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels Irregularities in the conduct of the last Presidential elections were widely discussed, with MEPs urging the Armenian authorities to address such shortcomings in the May parliamentary elections. On a positive note, the PCC expressed its support to cross-border initiatives such as the newly created Regional Environment Centre, which brought together the three countries of the South Caucasus.

September 2002 - 4th EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Yerevan The themes at this PCC were similar, with an additional stress on the importance of free and independent media and a welcome for the moratorium on the death penalty. There was also a call for the removal of unnecessary administrative barriers in order to attract investment. Debates, more generally, took place against the backdrop of the EP's resolution of 28/2/2002 on South Caucasus, which urged the EU to become more engaged in the region.

November 2001 - 3rd EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels An emphasis was laid on Armenia's strategic position lying between East and West - the "East of the West and the West of the East" - particularly in the light of the conflict in Afghanistan. The PCC gave its support to all efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute and Turkey was urged to reopen its borders with Armenia. The EU was also called upon to play a more active role in the region and to adopt a common strategy towards it.

September 2000 - 2nd EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Yerevan The economic reforms undertaken by the Armenian government were widely welcomed, while there was also a call for increased efforts to attract foreign investment and to increase economic transparency. Concern was however expressed over the high level of unemployment and the "brain drain" abroad of qualified professionals. The PCC also highlighted the environmental damage caused by the earthquake of 1998 and the drought of 2000.

December 1999 - 1st EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels The EP delegation stressed the importance of a functioning judicial system and economic development. It called strongly for the closure of the Medzamor nuclear power plant (built on a zone of seismic activity, it lacks a containment structure) although the Armenian side dismissed any such possibility due to the lack of any alternative reliable and secure sources of electrical energy. On Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian side pointed to several contacts between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a settlement of the conflict.

12 meetings held prior to the PCC being set up

June 1998 - 3rd EP-Armenia Interparliamentary Meeting -Yerevan The EP delegation hoped that the opening of an EU information office in Yerevan would be the first step towards the establishment of a full Commission Delegation. Some progress in the fields of democracy and protection of human rights was appreciated, but the consolidation of the independent media and civil society were pointed out as areas requiring special attention.

July 1997 - 2nd EP-Armenia Interparliamentary Meeting - Brussels The EP delegation called on the Armenian government to carry out reforms to the police forces and to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. The unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh dispute was also widely discussed and the EP side stressed the importance of respecting the principles of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination, accompanied by security guarantees.

July 1996 - 1st EP-Armenia Interparliamentary Meeting - Yerevan Topics discussed included the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; Russia-Armenia relations; the reasons behind cuts in the EU humanitarian aid, social and economic reforms; the TACIS programme; as well as the energy question with its environmental implications.

July 1995 - Ad hoc delegation for election observation An ad hoc delegation monitored the parliamentary elections. It considered these elections as an important step towards democracy, despite a series of problems which had, eventually, led them to be deemed "free but not fair".

13 Annex II: EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee meetings

June 2011 - 11th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC - Baku This meeting took place against the backdrop of the EP Plenary adopting a quite critical emergency resolution condemning a wave of Human Right violations1.Most independent observers met by the EP Delegation confirmed that this EP assessment was, largely, valid. Meetings with NGOs allowed hearing the sometimes difficult conditions under which they were working, but also a call for more EU support -in practical, but also symbolical terms. Many interlocutors nonetheless explained that the situation was not always black or white and needed to be seen in shades of grey; official authorities, for their part, blamed the EP for following a policy of double standards.

December 2009 - 10th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC - Brussels Lengthy discussions took place on the human rights situation, particularly after bloggers being condemned to jail; the energy security issue was also debated in detail, as was the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azeri side, nonetheless, stressed the importance it attached to its participation in the Eastern Partnership and the EURONEST Parliamentary Assembly.

October 2008 - 9th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC - Brussels The political situation and democratisation process in Azerbaijan were discussed largely in light of the forthcoming presidential elections. As to the economic and social situation, this included raising issues related to macro-economic development, the energy export revenue, poverty reduction and development of the labour market, improvement of health and education, and the protection of the environment.

September 2007 - 8th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC - Baku Many interlocutors met the EP Delegation, including President Aliyev; talks covered developments in the European Neighbourhood Policy, democratic reforms, respect for human rights, reform of the judiciary, economic development, as well as social issues including energy and poverty reduction.

December 2006 - 7th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC - Strasbourg Given the adoption of the ENP Action Plan between the EU and Azerbaijan, all sides stressed the importance of closer cooperation. Talks on human rights continued, in particular concerning the release of political prisoners, following recent presidential pardons. Media freedoms, as well as freedom of expression in general, were at the top of the agenda.

April 2005 - 6th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC - Baku For the first time, relations between the EU and Azerbaijan were discussed within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). Taking into account that parliamentary elections were expected in November, talks focused on issues such as respect for human rights and democratic principles.

November 2005 - ad hoc delegation for election observation (Baku and provinces) The general assessment of the EP delegation was that the voting day was calm. On the whole, the Electoral Commission followed the rules; EP observers, who had unrestricted access to polling stations, noted that, often, voters could not express their choice freely because of a

1 European Parliament resolution of 12 May 2011 on Azerbaijan (P7_TA(2011)0243) 14 general fear of the authorities. With a high number of complaints registered, the results were cancelled in 87 constituencies and a re-run took place in 10 of them. This, for the OSCE/ODIHR, underscored the need for electoral reform.

November 2004 - 5th meeting of the EU-Azerbaijan PCC- Strasbourg The meeting brought up issues such as respect for human rights and democratic development in Azerbaijan, as well as economic and social issues and protection of the environment. The state of play of relations between the EU and Azerbaijan was analysed within the framework of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. As it did in the past, the PCC stressed the necessity of finding a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

April 2003 - 4th EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Baku Members welcomed the opening of the Europa House in Baku, which was seen as a signal of greater engagement in the country, and could prefigure the opening of a full EC delegation. MEPs stressed that the next presidential elections ought to comply fully with international standards, and further welcomed the start of construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, looking forward to the development of an energy dialogue between the EU and Azerbaijan. On regional issues, MEPs underlined that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute had to be reached by exclusively peaceful means.

February 2002 - 3rd EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels The PCC welcomed the accession of Azerbaijan to the Council of Europe and stressed the importance of the Council as a forum for dialogue. It also underlined the need to implement democratic reforms in order to build a prosperous and stable country and reiterated calls for the opening of a full European Commission delegation in Baku.

May 2001 - 2nd EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Baku The overall EC technical assistance to Azerbaijan, with a considerable funding of around EUR 333 million, was examined. The EU was urged to play a more active political role in the region; an initiative welcomed by MEPs was the inauguration of the Baku based secretariat for the EU- financed TRACECA Project (Trans Corridor Europe Caucasus Asia).

April 2000 - 1st EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels Members stressed the strategic importance of the petrochemical resources of the Caspian Basin and encouraged the creation of an "Oil Fund" to ensure the development of a diversified and sustainable economy; initiatives to enhance regional cooperation were particularly reviewed.

meetings held prior to the PCC being set up

15 June 1998 - 3rd EP-Azerbaijan Interparliamentary Meeting - Baku The EP delegation underlined the strategic importance of the Caspian region in energy resources terms, and the perspectives to become a major transit route. The EC was particularly urged to establish a full Commission Delegation in Baku. MEPs further stressed the need to establish an independent judiciary and to encourage independent media, and supported the efforts made by the Minsk Group to find a peaceful solution to the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh.

October 1997 - 2nd EP-Azerbaijan Interparliamentary Meeting - Brussels The internal political situation, oil economy, the serious environmental situation in the Caspian Sea, as well as Azerbaijan's relations with its neighbours, dominated the discussions of this second meeting.

June 1996 - 1st EP-Azerbaijan Interparliamentary Meeting - Baku The democratisation of the Azerbaijani society, restructuring of the economy, TACIS programmes, international relations the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, transport and energy issues dominated the discussions during the first EP-Milli Mejlis interparliamentary meeting.

November 1995 - Ad hoc delegation for election observation in Azerbaijan The ad hoc delegation for election observation in November 1995, monitoring the first multiparty elections in Azerbaijan, pointed out several deficiencies in the electoral process, to such an extent the elections were deemed "neither free nor fair", even if necessary towards the the direction of developing a democratic process.

16 Annex III: EU-Georgia PCC Meetings

February 2013: 15th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Brussels The PCC meeting took place in the aftermath of the October 2012 general elections, which had seen the Georgian Dream winning the elections and President’s Saakashvili United National Movement conceding defeat. This had initiated a period of uneasy cohabitation between President Saakashvili (UNM) and the newly elected Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili (GD), with the two highest office-holders in the country barely in speaking terms. Even though Georgian parliamentarians confirmed, during the meeting, that Georgia’s euro-atlantic orientation constituted a strong bipartisan foreign policy choice, adopting joint recommendations between MEPs and Georgian MPs proved impossible: the reason mainly was the different appreciation of the ongoing judicial developments in the country, with many high officials of the previous government being under investigation or charged with criminal offences, facing accusations ranging from embezzlement to abuse of power and torture.

May 2012 - 14th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Tbilisi The AA/DCFTA negotiations were examined in depth, with the "enhanced mobility" component seen as very important. MEPs further welcomed the adoption of a new electoral law in view of the October 2012 general elections, and also acknowledged the progress made in the fight against corruption. On the protracted conflicts issue, Georgian MPs appreciated EP resolutions describing Abkhazia/South Ossetia as occupied territories. A lengthy discussion nonetheless took place on Georgia's state strategy on the matter in the light of the Geneva Talks.

March 2011 - 13th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Brussels The meeting focused on the AA/DCFTA negotiations, on Visa facilitation, but also on Georgia's policy of "engagement without recognition". This State Strategy vis-à-vis the breakaway regions proved difficult to implement, given they remained under Russian control. The lack of progress in the Geneva Talks remained a problem, and Georgian MPs insisted the EU should always officially use the term of "occupied territories". On other issues, lengthy talks took place on media ownership transparency and on the need to adopt anti-discrimination legislation, covering all ethnic and sexual minorities and the rights of the people with disabilities.

March 2010 - 12th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Tbilisi Developments in Russia-Georgia relations were particularly discussed, especially after the opening of the Larsi border-crossing point. The political and diplomatic efforts made in the aftermath of the war were reviewed, including the IDP overall situation ("old" versus "new" caseload) in the light of the existing financial assistance. Other issues included the upcoming elections (notably the voters' lists) and developments on the EU-Georgia Association Agreement negotiations. The EU was particularly called to help Tbilisi to implement its strategy of "engagement without recognition" in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

February 2009 - 11th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Brussels With this meeting taking place in the aftermath of the August 2008 war, the Russian recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia featured prominently in the debates; the situation of IDPs remained extremely worrying, and lengthy debates further followed on the country's economic recovery, but also on dealing with the social consequences of the war.

17 April 2008 - 10th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Tbilisi The UNOMIG accompanied the EP Delegation to Kutaisi and Gali (Abkhazia), which allowed MEPs to be briefed in situ on the current situation – hearing the views of the de facto authorities, but also focusing on education issues or the (appalling) living conditions of IDPs - themes which were later discussed also with President Saakashvilli.

June 2007 - 9th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Brussels The implementation of the ENP Action Plan was particularly reviewed, as well as the efficiency of EU assistance. Economic and social issues included environment protection, poverty reduction, and reform of the health-care system or gender equality issues. Most participants underlined the need for a more active role for the EU in regional security terms.

September 2006 - 8th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Tbilisi MEPs dedicated one day to a field-trip to Tskhinvali, in South Ossetia, where they met representatives of the de facto authorities as well as military from the Joint Peace-Keeping Forces in South Ossetia – a visit organised under the auspices of the OSCE.

June 2005 - 7th meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels This meeting was dedicated to human rights issues, democratisation, economic development and efforts to tackle corruption. Little progress was reported on the internal frozen conflicts; Members also discussed the state of play of relations with the EU, the USA and Russia.

November 2004 - 6th meeting of the EU-Georgia PCC - Tbilisi Regional cooperation within the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy was focused upon; while MEPs expressed their concern at the levels of corruption, Georgian MPs' priority was rather the critical situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both sides agreed that economic and social prosperity was hampered by such protracted conflicts.

November 2003-March 2004 The European Parliament sent 4 ad hoc delegations to observe the troubled electoral developments: the first two focused on the two rounds of parliamentary elections in November 2003, which were found to be deeply flawed and were partially annulled following the resignation of President Shevardnadze. Two further delegations subsequently observed the presidential elections on January 2004 and the rerun of the parliamentary elections on March 2004 – which constituted a significant improvement.

June 2003 - 5th meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels Talks largely focused on the need to ensure that the parliamentary elections to be held in November 2003 would comply with the highest international standards; other issues raised included the Baky-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the need for a rapid appointment of an EU Special Envoy for the South Caucasus region.

February 2003 - Ad hoc delegation to Abkhazia, Georgia At the invitation of the Georgian Parliament, an EP ad hoc delegation visited Abkhazia under the auspices of the UN and met with the de facto authorities in Sukhumi. In its final declaration the delegation underlined its support for the territorial integrity of Georgia and called for a peaceful resolution of the dispute.

April 2002 - 4th meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Tbilisi

18 Discussions underlined the strategic political and economic importance of Georgia in a post September 11 world; Worrying developments were shared, such a the unauthorised movement of Russian troops in the Kodori Gorge and a clear lack of progress in resolving the overall internal conflicts in the country was judged to be worrying.

June 2001 - 3rd meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels EU aid - such as humanitarian aid (Food Security Programme) or the assistance in border management were the issues which dominated talks. Deep concern was expressed at the unilateral introduction by the Russian Federation of a visa regime for Georgia, while at the same time exempting from such requirements residents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which could lead to the facto annexation of these regions.

May 2000 - 2nd meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Tbilisi Welcoming the accession of Georgia to the WTO, members underlined the steps taken to continue economic reforms, as well as the anti-corruption campaign. The PCC dealt with a number of other topics, including religious freedoms, situation in prisons, allowing alternative military service, but also the need to reach a political settlement of the unresolved conflicts in the region.

April 1999 - 1st meeting of the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee - Brussels The PCC urged the government to strengthen its anti-corruption campaign and to continue reforms of the tax collection system and the EU to continue its support. As to the consolidation of democratic institutions, the PCC called the government to step up judicial reform and fight against corruption in the judiciary and the police force.

meetings held prior to the PCC being set up

June 1998 - 5th EP-Georgia Inter-parliamentary Meeting - Tbilisi Talks focused on the protection of fundamental human rights, and on the national plan to guarantee extensive rights to national minorities. The meeting stressed the prospects of the region to become a major transit route between Europe and Asia, and Members underlined the importance of finding a prompt and peaceful solution to the conflict in Abkhazia.

May 1997 - 4th EP-Georgia Inter-parliamentary Meeting - Strasbourg The EP delegation recognised the important role of Russia in the region but fully supported Georgia's territorial integrity. It considered that the international community should have worked more actively in the resolution of the Abkhazian conflict and deployed a real peacekeeping force.

June 1996 - 3rd EP-Georgia Inter-parliamentary Meeting - Tbilisi The discussions dealt with regional conflicts, the economic and social development in the country, and Georgia's rapprochement with Euro-Atlantic organisations.

1992 - 1996 - Early meetings The Interparliamentary dialogue between the EP and the Georgian Parliament was, from the very beginning, the most advanced in the region. A first ad hoc EP delegation visited the country in 1992. In November 1995 an EP delegation observed the parliamentary elections and considered them well organised.

19