EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee Minutes of the 14th meeting 25-26 November 2011 Chisinau The 14th meeting of the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (PCC) was held on 25 and 26 November in Chisinau under the co-chairmanship of Ms Corina FUSU, Member of the Moldovan Parliament, and Ms Monica MACOVEI, MEP. First working session - 25 November 2011 The following PCC members participated in the first working session: Moldovan Parliament delegation: Ms Corina FUSU, Chair; Mr Ghenadie CIOBANU, Vice-Chair, Ms Ina ŞUPAC, Vice-Chair; Ms Raisa APOLSCHI; Mr Andrian CANDU, Ms Oxana DOMENTI, Mr Simion GRIŞCIUC, Mr Sergiu SÎRBU, Mr Zurab TODUA, Mr Boris VIERU, Mr Miron GAGAUZ, Ms Ana GUŢU, Mr Alexandr PETCOV, Mr Nae-Simion PLEŞCA and Mr Andrei VACARCIUC. EP Delegation: Ms Monica MACOVEI, Chair; Ms Tatjana ŽDANOKA, First Vice- Chair; Ms Elena BĂSESCU; Mr Jiří MAŠTÁLKA and Mr Paweł KOWAL. Ms FUSU opened the meeting at 15.15 and welcomed the participants. She introduced the members of the two delegations. 1. Adoption of draft agenda The draft agenda was adopted with no objection. 2. Approval of the minutes of the 13th meeting of the EU-Moldova PCC held in Brussels on 15-16 June 2011 Ms FUSU submitted the minutes of the 13th meeting for approval. Concerning the agenda, Mr SÎRBU proposed that a debate of at least 10 to 15 minutes be allowed with regard to each item, in view of the reactions to be expected regarding the relevant reports. Ms FUSU accepted Mr SÎRBU’s proposal, taking account of the time factor. Mr VIERU raised an objection to the minutes of June regarding an observation made by him. D-MD\893718\EN PE 467.637 EN EN On the last line of page 10, with reference to Romanian passports, the expression ‘the injustice of 1940’ had been recorded. Mr VIERU specified that he had actually said, ‘following the Soviet occupation of 1940’ and asked for the minutes to be amended accordingly. Ms FUSU proposed that the agenda be put to the vote, taking into account Mr SÎRBU’s proposal. Ms ȘUPAC recommended that the second item on the agenda be entitled ‘Consideration of and approval of minutes’. The agenda was unanimously adopted. Ms ȘUPAC said that the Romanian versions of the ‘Recommendations’ and the minutes which had been transmitted to Moldovan deputies were incorrect. Her proposed amendments, though accepted at the meeting, had not been included in the ‘Recommendations’. Referring to paragraph 25 of the Final Statement adopted on 16 June, in the version proposed by the Romanian MEP Mr UNGUREANU, whose amendments in English contained the phrase ‘mobility of Moldovan citizens’, she had pointed out to Ms MACOVEI that, following adoption of the proposal, this should be translated verbatim into Moldovan. However, this had been omitted from the minutes. The document subsequently distributed to members contained a discrepancy between the English and Moldovan versions of paragraph 25, the Moldovan version referring to ‘citizens of this country’ instead of ‘Moldovan citizens’. She pointed out that the term ‘Moldovan citizens’ had been consistently omitted, which was inadmissible. Regarding paragraph 28, the initial wording of the final document adopted in Brussels, referring to the situation in the Transnistrian region had been as follows: ‘welcomes the continued commitment shown by the Moldovan authorities over the last two years to finding a solution to the situation in the Transnistrian region’. Her proposal, as indicated on page 16 of the minutes, had been to omit the phrase ‘over the last two years’, which was, after a heated discussion, accepted by a majority vote. While the English version distributed to members reflected the outcome of the vote, the Moldovan version remained unchanged. Ms FUSU pointed out that the phrase ‘over the last two years’ had been omitted from the Romanian version, while paragraph 14 of the ‘Recommendations’ included the phrase ‘current constitutional stalemate’ instead of ‘current political stalemate’ as she had proposed in June 2011. Ms MACOVEI pointed out that, on her request, the EP secretariat had checked the texts of the ‘Recommendations’ in English and Romanian, and confirmed there was no difference or discrepancy between the two versions. She indicated that Ms ŽDANOKA had drawn the attention of the EP delegation to this matter during preparations for this 14th meeting. Ms ŽDANOKA pointed out that there were differences between the ‘Recommendations’ document in Romanian, which had been distributed in Moldova immediately after the meeting of 15-16 June 2011, and the official translated version subsequently circulated by the EP secretariat. In particular, she noted discrepancies in the names of the delegation members who had taken part in the vote. She observed that the first document, which had been released to the media, had been accepted as the correct version and that much more attention should have been paid to the accuracy of documents subsequently provided. Mr MAŠTÁLKA, who had not attended the meeting of June 2011, expressed concerns about the possible issuing of several different versions of the ‘Recommendations’. He asked whether the two modifications to the minutes had been adopted by a majority and if this was reflected in the Moldovan version, observing that it was somewhat unorthodox to vote on two D-MD\893718\EN 2/46 PE 467.637 EN different versions of a document without knowing the content thereof. Ms FUSU pointed out that it was the minutes and not the ‘Recommendations’ of the 13th meeting and the implementation thereof which were to be put to the vote. Ms MACOVEI pointed out that, the week before the 14th meeting, delegations members had received from the secretariats the draft minutes, which had been checked against the tapes. The ‘Recommendations’ had been adopted in June 2011 and no changes had been made to the original English version. Moreover, the EP secretariat had informed her that the ‘Recommendations’ document and the accuracy of the translation had been verified Ms ŽDANOKA wondered about the origins of the changes to the version posted on the website of the Moldovan Parliament. Ms MACOVEI assumed that such changes had probably been made under the leadership of Ms SUPAC. Ms ŞUPAC indicated that she would bring this inadmissible state of affairs to the attention of those responsible in the European Parliament and the Moldovan Parliament. Mr PETCOV alleged that the documents of the last EU-Moldova PCC meeting had been falsified for political purposes. He expressed doubts about the moral integrity of Ms MACOVEI and called for her to resign as Co-Chair of the EU-Moldova PCC or face dismissal should she refuses. In reply to Mr PETCOV, Ms MACOVEI upheld the legitimacy of the mandate conferred on her by the European Parliament and refuted his right to challenge her moral integrity. She affirmed that she was committed to fulfil her mandate up to the end of the current legislature and that she had fulfilled her obligations as Co-Chair by asking the EP secretariat to verify the documents from the previous meeting and report on its findings. Mr SIRBU regretted that the proper procedures had not been followed regarding transmission of the minutes. Ms ŞUPAC again referred to some elements of the ‘Recommendations’ which had not been adopted by majority vote. Ms FUSU proposed proceeding with the vote on approval of the minutes. The minutes were approved with 9 votes in favour and 5 against within the Moldovan delegation, and 3 in favour within the EP delegation. 3. The state of play of cooperation between the EU and the Republic of Moldova Ms MACOVEI addressed the participants, first of all thanking the two delegations for their joint contribution to relations between the EU and Moldova. She thanked the Moldovan Government representatives for their hospitality and for updating the PCC members on issues arising in the context of EU-Moldova bilateral relations, such as the action plan on visa liberalisation implementation and negotiations regarding the Association Agreement. She also thanked Mr SCHÜBEL, Head of the European Union Delegation to Moldova, for his support in the preparation of the meeting. She congratulated the Members of the Moldovan Parliament for adopting the judicial reform strategy. This step forward in the country’s political evolution was of importance in the process for visa liberalisation. She referred to the Eastern Partnership Summit of September 2011 in Warsaw, where the Heads of State and Government from the EU and Eastern neighbouring partners had re-affirmed their D-MD\893718\EN 3/46 PE 467.637 EN commitment to achieve the objectives of the Eastern Partnership. They had endorsed the ‘more for more’ principle, seeking to step up cooperation between the EU and its Eastern European partners. Ms MACOVEI said that this should be beneficial to Moldova, given that EU support for partner countries would be dependent of their merits. Ms FUSU then took the floor, referring to recent social and political developments in Moldova and progress recorded at the last committee meeting of June 2011. Over the last two years, Moldova had been undermined by political instability which was both harmful and difficult to remedy. Despite the joint efforts of the three parties belonging to the Alliance for European Integration (AIE), it had not been possible successfully to overcome the constitutional crisis, amend Article 78 of the Constitution or hold a public debate on the new draft Constitution. The appointment of a Moldovan president would give further impetus to the entire reform procedure commenced two years previously and would hence involve the highest stakes. The role of those elected to represent the people was to identify ways of ensuring the continued modernisation of the country.