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. The necessary solutions could only be found by joint decision making within the AIE. There could be no question of a return to the pre-2009 period where notions of human rights, market economy, democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of the press had been alien concepts as far as the Moldovan Government was concerned. She welcomed the support of its European partners in the process of European integration, pointing out that Moldova had assumed a number of responsibilities and outlining progress achieved in this respect. A draft anticorruption strategy had been drawn up in August for the reform of the Centre for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption (CCEC), with the assistance of the EU mission. The mobility of Moldovan citizens was expected to increase in the coming period, following the initialling on 26 October 2011 of the EU-Moldova Agreement regarding common airspace, which would enter into force fully in a few months time.

Regarding regional cooperation, Moldova was diversifying its relations in the form of bilateral cooperation with a view to the implementation of joint declarations concerning its integration within Europe, which had been signed with a number of countries: Romania, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia and Cyprus. Moldova attached great importance to the EU Black Sea Strategy, which had been launched during the Romanian Presidency of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organisation. The strategy reflected EU support for the settlement of ingrained conflicts, more in-depth cooperation for the accession of Moldova to the Energy Community and support for the continuation of dialogue between Moldova and the EU regarding relaxation of visa requirements. Reforms of the judicial system had already got off to a good start with the adoption of the relevant strategy for the years 2011-2016. Similarly, a bill had been drawn up for the prevention and combating of organised crime. These measures all took account of the need for coordinated EU standards. On 16 September 2011, a round-table discussion had been held on the proposed anti-discrimination bill. In this connection, Ms FUSU was confident that EU policy towards Moldova would remain as consistent and as encouraging as in the past, referring to its increasingly satisfactory cooperation with Romania, involving exchanges of experience, fruitful cooperation in the coordination of legal systems, structural reforms and the organisation of a number of programmes and initiatives. Concerning the Transnistrian separatist region, Moldova was hoping that the EU would adopt a proactive role backed up by sufficient resources. Concerning its relations with the Russian Federation, Moldova was counting on EU support in urging Russia to adopt a more constructive approach to launching more in-depth negotiations and facilitating a comprehensive and lasting solution to the conflict. She took the view that the Transnistrian region should be included within the scope

D-MD\893718\EN 4/46 PE 467.637 EN of the association agreement and the dialogue on a deep and comprehensive free trade area (DCFTA). Moldova was counting on EU support to make it more competitive, enabling it to benefit from the opportunities offered by a free trade area. She hoped that the work of the meetings would be organised efficiently and harmoniously in the interests of both EU and the citizens of Moldova.

Since Mr Iurie LEANCĂ was at the government headquarters, Ms FUSU gave the floor to Mr Eugen CARAS, Deputy Head of the European Integration Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration.

Mr CARAS mentioned that in 2011 Moldova had managed to consolidate the initiative of the previous year, reaching maturity in its political and sectoral dialogue with the EU. Referring to the European Parliament resolution of 15 September 2011, which touched on a number of major aspects of relations between Moldova and the EU, he expressed his thanks to MEPs for their firm support for the European direction being taken by Moldova. The tone of the resolution and its visionary outlook would serve as a guide to the European institutions and the Moldovan political classes and society as a whole. European prospects for Moldova meant the consolidation of civic values and Parliament’s unwavering support in this direction would encourage both sides to focus their human and institutional resources on the priorities of the Moldovan-EU Agenda. In Chisinau it was above all the European Parliament which was perceived as upholding democratic values and he thanked it for its support in both good times and bad.

The final declaration issued by the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw eloquently reflected the achievements of the last two years since the launching of this initiative in May 2009 in Prague, which had provided a number of platforms for ongoing dialogue with the EU. Mr CARAS stressed that Moldova was its most dynamic member, welcoming the progress made by negotiations on the Partnership Agreement, reflecting a commitment to closer cooperation between the EU and Moldova. The negotiation and subsequent implementation of the agreement would pave the way for irreversible rapprochement between Moldova and the EU.

Moldova was keen to launch DCFTA negotiations as soon as possible. The democratisation of society, the modernisation of the country and its degree of alignment with the EU would depend on the speed with which reforms could be pushed through. A number of judicial reforms had been achieved but further progress was necessary. It was with regard to the relaxation of visa arrangements that dialogue between Moldova and the EU was proving to be the most fruitful. Thanks to the support of numerous bodies in Moldova, it had been possible to implement the relevant action plan successfully. The objective was to implement the relevant policies and adopt the legislative framework by the end of 2011. He stressed the key role of the Moldovan Parliament in the process of legislative harmonisation and adoption of the regulatory framework, indicating that sectoral cooperation had proceeded extremely well in 2011. DCFTA negotiations could hopefully be launched by the end of 2011. Initiatives in the field of health, plant health, competition, state aid and financial services had made sufficient progress for negotiations on a free trade area to be launched. In October 2011, negotiations had been finalised with the Commission concerning a common airspace agreement. The document, which would provisionally enter into force immediately on signature, would result in the removal of all restrictions on frequent flights and market access for EU and Moldovan airlines. Arrangements with the EU for the liberalisation of air services would make it possible to attract new airlines into Moldova, including low-cost companies,

D-MD\893718\EN 5/46 PE 467.637 EN thereby reducing prices, increasing the choice of destinations and making it possible to provide quality services.

The participation of Moldova as a full member of the Energy Community was actually intended to serve the objective of creating a common European energy area, in other words, a common energy market in the gas and electricity sectors. Similarly, a number of priority projects had been launched to provide the electricity cables and gas pipelines necessary to connect Moldova to the EU energy system. Moldova would adopt EU standards and legislation in accordance with its obligations under the Energy Community Treaty. In the next three to five years fundamental changes could be expected in the energy sector with regard to the partnership arrangement between Moldova and the EU. Moldova’s objective was to reduce its current level of energy dependence, boost competition and diversify natural gas sources. It had actively participated in the strategic review of European Neighbourhood Policies and had welcomed the joint statement by the Commission and High Representative of 25 May 2011. Confirmation of the ‘more for more’ principle and the principle of differentiation would enable Moldova to progress at its own speed in cooperation with the EU. Political and financial support from the EU would be reciprocated by greater commitment on the part of Moldova. Investment in Moldova, including political investment would undoubtedly bear dividends, first and foremost, for the citizens of Moldova, but also in terms of democracy and regional security.

It had been possible to cultivate a spirit of solidarity surrounding a set of EU values and principles. Moldova greatly appreciated EU support for settlement of the Transnistrian question. Confidence building and EU dialogue with its partners would facilitate the reintegration process, while the EUBAM mission was supporting EU efforts to secure this region. On 14 November 2011, the fifth meeting of the Group for European Action in Moldova had been held, co-chaired by Romania and France. The convocation of this group of friends of Moldova provided undeniable proof that cooperation between Moldova and the EU has reached a new height based on trust, mutual interest and understanding of the need to create a common future. The list of measures indicated above, while far from exhaustive, inspired faith in the existence of excellent and highly promising multi-dimensional cooperation with the EU.

Mr Dirk SCHUEBEL, Head of the European Union Delegation to Moldova, gave an overview of the development of the EU-Moldova relations. He echoed Ms MACOVEI in welcoming the adoption of the judicial reform strategy, which was one of the preconditions for the EU undertaking to support Moldova in 2012 (providing an amount of € 52 million). He underlined that the intensity of top-level dialogue between the EU and Moldova had increased in 2011, as reflected by the number of presidential and ministerial meetings held in Brussels and Chisinau. Negotiations on the Association Agreement had progressed well with the completion of the eighth round, although, in the short term, there would be no conclusion of discussions on Moldova’s EU accession prospects or visa exemptions. Mr SCHUEBEL was optimistic regarding the opening of negotiation on the free trade agreement, which is part of the Association Agreement, before the end of 2011. He mentioned the very dynamic progress made by Moldova on the visa dialogue, referring to the start of the second phase of this dialogue, the successful implementation of the visa facilitation and readmission agreement, the joint facilitation centre and the EU-Moldova mobility partnership. He also referred to the Aviation Agreement that would provisionally enter into force and should be signed in March 2012. This Agreement should increase market competition in Moldova and be beneficial to air travellers. Another achievement was the inclusion of Moldova under the

D-MD\893718\EN 6/46 PE 467.637 EN EU Seventh Framework Programme of Research. The participation of Moldova in the Energy Community Treaty was also praised. The extension of the EUBAM mandate for four years played an important role in the improvement of Moldova-Ukraine relations and was also a positive development in the process for the settlement of the Transnistrian question. High- level meetings had been held for developing customs cooperation and EU quotas for Moldovan products, including wines had been increased. Overall, the exchange between the EU and Moldovan business communities was developing well, while five European Info Centres had been opened in Moldova, including one in Tiraspol. As regards the Transnistrian region issue, the resumption of the 5+2 talks and the railway traffic with the Transnistrian region were very positive developments. The EU supported the conflict settlement process, and for that purpose, had considerably increased the budget for confidence-building measures up to €41 million. Mr SCHUEBEL expressed confidence that Moldova would greatly benefit from the increasing financial assistance of the EU Neighbourhood Instrument up to 2013 and the new ‘more for more’ approach. Finally, he mentioned the efforts which needed to be made to intensify the fight against corruption and improve trade, investment and anti-discrimination legislation.

4. Follow-up to the recommendations of the 13th meeting of the EU-Moldova PCC and the progress of reforms in the Republic of Moldova

Ms FUSU introduced the next item on the agenda concerning recent political developments from the point of view of each of the parliamentary groups and gave the floor to Mr Valeriu STRELET, Chair of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM).

Mr STRELET indicated that the current political situation in Moldova and developments of the autumn-winter parliamentary session reflected the urgent need to make the governing alliance – the Alliance for European Integration – more functional and efficient and improve the quality of the present government. The priorities listed by the Alliance in its governing program ‘European Integration: freedom, democracy, affluence’ still stood. However, many of them (reintegration, rule of law, combating poverty, quality public services, sustainable economic growth, the decentralization of powers, etc.) required a maximum degree of involvement and mobilization for the achievement thereof so as to ensure decent standards of living and confidence in the future for all Moldovan citizens.

He stressed the importance of efficiency and a sense of responsibility on the part of public- sector employees, even if they did hold jobs for life, under the current government, in view of the situations which had recently arisen when the Moldovan business sector was disrupted by a number of hostile takeover operations.

Moldova was facing a number of major challenges, including poverty, continuing dependence on outside energy resources, uncertainty regarding market outlets, the technological gap, economic imbalances, lack of qualitative economic growth not based on consumption and a manifestly outdated social security system.

The citizens of Moldova, most of whom had in one way or another been affected by rising food and energy prices and a shortage of jobs, were now anticipating a genuine improvement in their quality of life following the economic growth registered over the last two years.

Furthermore, as recent events hade shown, there was a danger of the political situation in Moldova degenerating into an ongoing conflict between groups or individuals seeking to

D-MD\893718\EN 7/46 PE 467.637 EN defend their own ambitions and interests. The unsuccessful attempt to hold presidential elections on 18 November 2011, or rather the decision to postpone them, had made it clear to both Moldovans and their external interlocutors that the best thing that could be said about some of their political representatives was that they were engaging in petty, not to say amateurish ‘politicking’. It was with this in mind that the PLDM and its parliamentary party had established their short-term priorities, paying particularly close attention to the needs of Moldovan citizens and giving the government the support it needed to ensure high-quality, consistent and continuous governance.

He expressed concern that the debate surrounding the presidential elections had sidelined social and economic issues. The parliamentary agenda currently contained 40 priority projects for adoption by the Government. Any delay in the examination and adoption thereof was likely to undermine political support for the present government, as well as short and medium term prospects for social and economic stability. In order to ensure that the country had a budget for the coming year, and that pensions, wages and salaries were accordingly paid on time, that roads and other infrastructures could be built and maintained, and that schools, kindergartens and hospitals could function normally, it was necessary to give priority to the necessary legislation.

In view of this, the PLDM intended to work intensively on the legislative agenda, giving priority to resolving the country’s most pressing problems. Only after the budget had been adopted and the public reassured that it would not suffer as a result of party political disagreements surrounding the presidential elections, would it be possible to return to this matter adopting a more serious and responsible approach.

The speed with which it would be possible to muster support for this essential legislation regarding social and economic stability in Moldova and, by implication, once more establish a date for the presidential elections would depend on the politicians.

Parliament had five more weeks before the current session came to an end. It was accordingly necessary to make greater efforts to ensure the adoption of the above legislative instruments, first and foremost the state budgets including the principal and secondary budgets, as well as instruments relating to budgetary and fiscal policy and other important matters.

It was necessary to be aware that the political situation in Moldova and the outcome of the current political processes would greatly influence not only public attitudes to politicians but also relations with the European Union and other development partners.

Political activity in a modern state required a moderate political environment while, when it came to resolving political disputes, consensus was a fundamental democratic value. A common approach to principal government objectives, responsibility towards the public and constant concern for their needs were the principles which must guide the Alliance for European Integration. These were the standards of government to which we must aspire. Mr STRELEȚ thanked his listeners for their attention.

Ms FUSU thanked Mr STRELEȚ and gave the floor to Mr DIACOV, Chair of the Democrat Party (PD).

Mr DIACOV welcomed those present and thanked his colleagues for their contribution to the debate. He indicated that in 1995, when Moldova joined the Council of Europe, he had been

D-MD\893718\EN 8/46 PE 467.637 EN rash enough to assert that it would be a model pupil in its relations with the European institutions. Unfortunately, it had proceeded to create major problems for the European institutions over the years and was continuing to do so, notwithstanding the comments made by Ambassador SCHUEBEL, who had spoken for around 20 minutes, outlining a host of projects, initiatives and other highly important matters for Moldova, for its citizens and for its future. All the political parties were aware of and supported these efforts to promote European integration. Unfortunately, problems were arising in practice, a number of political parties being unable to rise to the challenge and meet the expectations of our outside partners. At the same time, he welcomed the desire of the coalition and opposition parties to achieve real progress regarding Moldova’s relations with the European institutions, pointing out that Parliament had, on a number of occasions, been able to rally unanimous support for specific projects. In 2005-2006, the Democratic, Communist and other parties had voted unanimously in favour of the first texts concerning the need to speed up the Moldovan accession process. It now remained to elect the President and bring the political crisis to an end, bearing in mind that Ambassador SCHUEBEL and his colleagues in Brussels were sometimes better informed than national MPs about what was happening in Moldova. However, he expressed the hope that this would be a coming of age and that Moldova’s politicians, having learned from their unfavourable experiences of previous years, would be able to resolve the deadlock and end the political crisis. While they were lacking in European political culture and tradition, it was to be hoped that they would learn from their own mistakes. The agenda was a very full one and he hoped that it could be completed in the remaining five weeks up to the end of the year and that the country would commence the year 2012 with an elected president, an adopted budget and adoption by the Moldovan Parliament of all projects and commitments undertaken by Moldova, including the most sensitive issues, making it possible to establish sincere and open relations and create an atmosphere of mutual trust. Both he and his colleagues present in the room understood the importance of the task facing the politicians and very much hoped that as a result, things would take a turn for the better in Moldova so that the Committee would be able to report substantial progress at the next meeting in Brussels.

Mr DIACOV thanked those present for their attention and wished the Committee every success, expressing hopes for favourable developments in relations between Moldova and the EU in many areas.

Ms FUSU thanked him and gave the floor to Mr Ion HADÂRCĂ, Chair of the Liberal Party (PL).

Mr HADÂRCĂ pointed out that the convoluted ways of modern politics applied to the post- totalitarian world in which we live showed not only that the sleep of reason produces monsters but also that the dark recesses of the Constitution were also capable of harbouring formidable political aberrations. Hence, the shortcomings of a constitution mangled by the Communist regime, compounded by political instability, economic recession, social polarisation, the inability of the authorities effectively to combat corruption and crime and establish the rule of law in the overall context of a full-blown global crisis, was irremediably undermining the hopes of our fellow citizens, fuelling euroscepticism and nostalgia for ‘the snows of yesteryear’.

According to the most recent public opinion polls, 83% of those consulted considered that Moldova was on the wrong track. This was a matter of great concern to Moldovan politicians. The report on the implementation of the social security budget for 2010 revealed that the

D-MD\893718\EN 9/46 PE 467.637 EN average pension was 874 lei, approximately EUR 54, while the minimum pension was 640 lei, that is to say less than EUR 40.

The recently adopted law amending the national budget law for 2011 provided for a mere 8% pension increase consisting of a 4% index plus a real increase of 4%. However, given that inflation was around 10% this was in fact a reduction. Despite macroeconomic forecasts of a 6.5% increase in GDP from 2010 and a 10% increase in industrial production, no improvement was being felt by individual citizens. This explained the jaundiced reaction of the public to the rose-tinted view of things being taken by the Government and in particular the Prime Minister in presenting their famous ‘success story’ above all to the outside world. The speaker regretted that he had felt obliged to criticise a government of which he was part but pointed out that the figures spoke for themselves.

The political situation in Moldova was going through a profound crisis, which could be attributed to the shortcomings of the Moldovan Constitution. Superficial amendments to the basic legislation during the political crisis of 2000 had in fact created over 60 constitutional loopholes in turn sparking a further political crisis in 2009-2011. The Constitution did not allow the voting threshold in the Moldovan Parliament, which consisted of 101 Members, from 61 votes to 50+1. The president of a European constitutional court had described this as a ‘constitutional graveyard’.

The opposition was evidently speculating on this, hoping that the citizens would weary of interminable elections and once more trying to convince them, as in 2001, that the process of democratisation was synonymous with crisis, thereby definitively undermining democratic values and bringing about a total reversal of Moldova’s geostrategic direction. From the beginning of the meeting, the existence of deep-rooted communist opposition and a lack of parliamentary cohesion in putting over the principal message of the Alliance for European Integration had been unmistakable.

The speaker was unhappy to note evidence of political opportunism on the part of not only the Communist Party, which was refusing dialogue, but all other political movements. He himself was convinced that the governing alliance should first and foremost focus on dialogue. The Liberal Party itself had renounced the post of Speaker of Parliament for the sake of creating AIE 2. Unfortunately, others had failed to display the same understanding or spirit of cooperation and were holding separate discussions and reaching separate agreements with the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) outside the AIE. Any dialogue seeking to resolve national problems should be encouraged, provided that it was coordinated and not intended to achieve separate agreements behind the back of Alliance colleagues, including external agreements negotiated at diplomatic level.

To turn to another matter, the PL electorate would not be able to accept the ‘solution’ put forward by three PCRM defectors, with a view to facilitating the problematic presidential election process – at least this was how the Dodon-Greceanîi group had justified its split from the PCRM. It was a shame that the group had shown itself to be so intransigent, loftily declaring that its political aim was to make the AIE disappear ‘like a bad dream’. By insisting on the candidacy of Ms Greceanîi, an extremely controversial figure who had been Prime Minister when the PCRM was in power, Mr Dodon’s newly emerging socialist cell was openly admitting an apolitical candidate from outside the AIE as if apolitical socialism or, more to the point, apolitical democracy actually existed.

D-MD\893718\EN 10/46 PE 467.637 EN It was necessary to find a solution which would satisfy not only Moldova’s politicians, but also its citizens and its European partners. Measures to overcome the current crisis, the election of a president and a willingness to continue with negotiations were of vital importance. On the other hand, the presidential elections should not be made dependent on adoption of the budgetary package.

While the Liberal Party had a number of negotiating positions and proposals, it had no intention of playing to the press gallery like a number of its colleagues in the Alliance and was not seeking to undermine the agreement setting up the AIE. Secondly, much depended on the position adopted by colleagues in the Alliance, for example regarding the sole presidential candidate, the reestablishment of dialogue procedures which were still unsatisfactory and restoral of mutual trust. The speaker was convinced that there was sufficient common ground for an amicable approach by MEPs, the European political groups and Moldova’s extra- parliamentary parties. At the same time, there was the danger that the snappy electoral slogan ‘Moldova without the Communists’ would, at the last moment, be met with the counter- slogan ‘Moldova without the Alliance’. Finally, the speaker concluded that the success stories were indeed nothing more than just stories and that politics in Moldova were following a totally unpredictable, not to say illogical pattern. In other words, if a political system existed in Moldova, it was, in the words of Caragiale, completely apolitical.

Ms FUSU thanked the speaker and gave the floor to Ms Inna ȘUPAC to speak on behalf of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (PCRM) party.

Ms ȘUPAC expressed the hope that Ms MACOVEI would be more attentive to what she had to say than she had been towards colleagues from other parties. Today, more than ever, it was necessary for MEPs and Moldovan deputies to engage in open and sincere dialogue within the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, since this was the only way of putting into proper perspective the current political situation in Moldova.

Over the last two years, under the governing Alliance, Moldova’s stock with the European institutions had, to say the least, been extremely high, as evidenced by the participation of ‘high-level EU consultants’ in the activities of each of the government ministers and in the granting of substantial loans, grants and different forms of financial aid to the Moldovan Government, for example in the final days of the campaign for the early elections in November 2010. European leaders and functionaries visiting Moldova had always been unequivocal in calling on the present government to continue with its ‘progressive reforms’. At European level, the political catchphrase coined by the governing Alliance describing Moldova as a ‘success story’ was judged extremely apt.

The continuing increase in EU political support for the policies of the governing Alliance was directly proportional to the dramatic loss of confidence felt by Moldovan citizens in European integration. According to the most recent survey, 83.5% of Moldovan citizens now believed that the country was on the wrong track, 19% more than in May, while the number of Europhiles in Moldova had fallen by 15% to its lowest level in recent years – 47%, the level of support having been relatively high and stable over the previous four years with 70% of Moldovans in favour of EU membership in November 2007. To airily to attribute such results to the EU economic crisis alone, even at this stage, would be to imply that Moldovan citizens were lacking in character, given that, in political debate, the leaders and representatives of the current government were holding up the European Union as a shining example to be emulated without delay, so much so that the Alliance members were

D-MD\893718\EN 11/46 PE 467.637 EN vying with each other in promising visa-free travel or the signature of partnership agreements in the shortest possible time. The first prize could, however, not be awarded to Mr Leancă for his promise of visa-free travel in the EU by the end of 2012, Mihai Ghimpu, acting President and one of the Alliance leaders having already promised in September 2009 that the Association Agreement would be signed by the end of that year.

The reasons for the disaffection of Moldovan citizens with the idea of European integration were complex and could only be understood by means of open and frank dialogue concerning the political situation in the country over the last two years, during which democratic principles and values had been buried. The Alliance leaders had officially recognised that the presidents of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Audiovisual Media Coordinating Council, the Court of Auditors, the Information and Security Service, the Customs Authority, the Public Prosecutors Office and the Central Office for Combating Corruption and Economic Crimes were all political appointments.

In this way, the governing Alliance had secured control of the entire judiciary, the mass media, the organisation of election campaigns, including vote counting, the monitoring of its own activities and the prosecution of criminal and other offences. It had in effect been created on the basis of written and verbal power-sharing agreements.

Moldova was clearly doing nothing more than pay lip service to the idea of European integration. Over the last two years, no legislation had been submitted to the Moldovan Parliament seeking to achieve this objective. When the opposition called for a plan of action making it clear what laws would be adopted by parliament under EU legislation and when, the responses had been misleading. It had been claimed that the principal plan of action, indeed the only one, concerned measures to relax visa requirements. However, this could not be a substitute for measures to bring Moldovan legislation into line with that of the EU. The judicial reform strategy had been initiated by the AIE only after a sharp reminder from Mr SCHUEBEL to the effect that the honeymoon between the EU and Moldova was over.

In Moldova, over the last two years, the goalposts had been regularly shifted while the ball was still in play, examples being, amendments to the electoral code on the eve of the general elections and attempts to amend the law concerning the election of the Moldovan President, as well as that most vital and sensitive of national instruments, the Moldovan Constitution. On 18 November, the day of the presidential elections, the parliamentary majority had in fact voted for the usurpation of powers by adopting the decision to recommence the entire procedure for electing the Head of State. Things had finally become crystal clear. Failure to elect the Head of State had not been a constitutional crisis, as a number of internal and external policy makers had tried to make out. It had been a systemic political crisis. Had the Alliance been prevented by the Constitution from registering a presidential candidate by 14 November, particularly given that it had already secured 62 votes? The Communist Party and Mr Voronin, PCRM Chair, frequently pointed out that the government crisis had not been caused by failure to elect a president but, on the contrary, it had been impossible to elect a president because of the presence in the government of political movements which were incompetent from every point of view.

Article 3 of the Decision of the Conference of Presidents of 21 September 2006 stated that one of the objectives of the European Parliament delegations was to promote in partner countries the values on which the European Union was founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.

D-MD\893718\EN 12/46 PE 467.637 EN On behalf of the PCRM Party, Ms ŞUPAC urged those involved in this dialogue and in the numerous deliberations of a similar nature in the various EU bodies, to draw attention to wrongdoing and usurpation of power occurring in Moldova in the name of European integration. Failure to do so would very probably mean that the only remaining link between the EU and Moldova would be mass protests for the defence of social rights and truly democratic principles and values.

Ms FUSU thanked the speaker and indicated that, pending the arrival of Mr Andrei POPOV, who would address Moldova’s relations with its neighbours, she would give the floor to Victor POPA, Chair of the Committee for Legal Affairs, Appointments and Immunities, to address the legislative reform chapter.

Mr POPA observed that the final stage of the legislative reform process involved the formulation and adoption of draft legislative instruments and was guided primarily by the government programme, which was currently centred on a number of objectives seeking to achieve the rule of law, economic, legal and financial policies and strategies and greater public sector efficiency. In this, the deputies were following the provisions of Law No 780 on legislative instruments, which state that, in drawing up such instruments it is necessary firstly to study EU legislation and the case law established by the European Court of Justice in order to draw up suitable regulations for the relevant social sectors. For this purpose, it was essential to take account of the conditions governing the formulation of legislative measures, including the need to bring the instrument into line with EU provisions. In addition, it was necessary to ensure the widest possible participation, including civil society, and for public debates and announcements regarding projected legislation to be organised at national and international level. Clearly the successful promotion of legislative reforms depended on who and what was involved, inducing parliament and government, where legislation was initiated, the civil service and, of course, civil society.

Mr POPA mentioned only a number of the legislative instruments adopted over the last two years on the basis of bills submitted to Parliament and endorsed in committee reports, for example Law No 102 amending and supplementing the law on the legal profession, concerning which a number of amendments regarding legal representation had been prompted by the objective desire to rationalise an area of great importance for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

He also mentioned Framework Law 113 on bailiffs, specifying that they were natural persons appointed by the State to carry out their functions in the public interest and representing the State in the exercise of their duties. Law No 163 of 22 July 2011 winding up the economic and military courts and transferring their powers to the ordinary courts had received the support of the Alliance parties, each of them at pains to point out, albeit with varying degrees of emphasis, that the winding up of economic courts in particular clearly heralded the beginning of judicial reform and the eradication of corruption from the legal system, bearing in mind the enormous risk of improper practices by judges arising from the excessive concentration of powers in a limited number of courts empowered to deal with certain types of case.

Two laws of major importance had also been adopted on 28 July 2011 improving framework provisions for the declaration of income and conflicts of interest. At the same time, the National Committee for Integrity in Public Life was being set up with the express purpose of implementing inspection and verification mechanisms regarding declarations of income and

D-MD\893718\EN 13/46 PE 467.637 EN assets by holders of public office. Decision No 154 of 21 July 2011 concerned the approval of a national anticorruption strategy for 2011-2015, the need for which had been established by the findings of a number of European and Moldovan experts. This was, for example, expected to prevent any political influence being brought to bear on officials working for the Central Office for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption or on prosecutors and judges. Law No 88 of 21 April 2011 concerning compensation by the State for damages caused by failure to complete legal proceedings or implement judgments within a reasonable period of time had provided for the creation in Moldova of effective internal redress procedures in this connection. The need for a national security strategy in Moldova adopted under Decision No 153 of 15 July 2011 had been dictated by changes in the security and defence sector and the need to reform it, making it operational and effective and subject to ongoing democratic control.

Furthermore, Parliament had adopted the judicial reform strategy for 2011-2016, the overall objective being to secure a legal system characterised by accessibility, efficiency, independence, transparency, professionalism and responsibility, while meeting European standards and ensuring the rule of law and respect for human rights. These were only some of the legislative instruments on Parliament’s agenda, which also included others of major importance. Genuine legislative reform could only be brought about if every efforts were made by all government, legal and judicial authorities and by civil society and if steps were taken to raise the awareness of all involved in the legislative process.

He stressed that Parliament’s effectiveness had been influenced by the specific nature of relations between the parliamentary majority and the opposition on one hand and differences within the Alliance itself on the other. The unfavourable impact on the cohesion of the Alliance could also be ascribed to the decision of the parliamentary opposition to boycott legislative activity. These were to a degree combining to affect the legislative process. In general, with regard to Parliament’s legislative activity, it had, despite the existence of a number of major objective and subjective obstacles, managed to adopt a series of legislative instruments with a major impact on society, ensuring compliance with the rule of law and raising living standards for Moldovan citizens. Mr POPA thanked those present for their attention.

Ms FUSU indicated that the next item would by human rights and antidiscrimination. She gave the floor to Ms Cristina MELNIC, Head of the Directorate-General for Legislation in the Justice Ministry.

Mr SÎRBU pointed out that the meeting had voted to hold a debate after each item.

Ms FUSU replied that she would accordingly ask speakers to be briefer, so as to leave time for a subsequent debate within the time available. Mr SÎRBU called for adherence to the agreed procedure.

Ms FUSU asked whether Mr SÎRBU had a question for Mr POPA.

With regard to what he described as the glowing description of reforms in Moldova in this period, Mr SÎRBU said that he had failed to understand which reforms Mr POPA had actually been referring to, given that one-third of the legislative instruments contested and referred to the Constitutional Court had been declared unconstitutional. Major legislative amendments were being adopted, to electoral and local government legislation for example, without the

D-MD\893718\EN 14/46 PE 467.637 EN mandatory consultation of the European institutions or the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission or the Council of European Municipalities and Regions. As had already been pointed out, legislation was being amended and the rules of the game were being changed while the game was still underway. Hardly had the electoral campaign been launched than the relevant legislation was being modified to make it easier for the government to win the local elections. Mr POPA had spoken at length on the wide involvement of civil society and the consultation of EU institutions regarding the harmonisation of national legislation. However, the speaker could not recall such wide consultations ever having taken place. Furthermore, immediately after adoption of the law reforming the legal profession, tens of thousands of citizens would be deprived of their right to choose a defence lawyer and of their right to unimpeded access to justice. This legislation had been contested and would be examined by the European Court of Human Rights. Only a few months after the adoption of amendments to the law regarding bailiffs, the Government had publicly declared them a total failure, following the hostile takeover of companies and financial institutions, necessitating an emergency amendment to the law which Mr POPA had described as successful reform.

Ms FUSU reminded Mr SÎRBU that his speaking time was limited to two minutes.

Regarding the economic courts, Mr SÎRBU pointed out that the winding up of a number of specialised courts, effectively taking eggs out of one basket and placing them in another, could hardly be considered a reform of the entire legal system. It was necessary to identify and seek to resolve the problems facing Moldova through systematic and open debate, rather than populist rhetoric.

Mr POPA requested permission to reply. He commiserated with Mr SIRBU for having such a poor memory so early in life, pointing out that he had failed to note and inwardly digest the basic points that he, Mr POPA, had been making and, finally reminding him of the oriental adage: ‘Dogs bark but the caravan rolls on’.

Mr Adrian CANDU was invited to speak.

Mr CANDU pointed out that the object of the meeting was not to hold a debate between the opposition and Alliance parties or between the Alliance parties themselves but to discuss communication and cooperation between Moldova and the EU. He accordingly asked his colleagues to focus on the matter at hand.

Dr Jiri MASTALKA concurred, pointing out that the Communist representatives had not been the ones to initiate the debate on internal matters, which needed to be resolved primarily from within. Furthermore, having been a politician over the 20 years following the events in Czechoslovakia, he was well aware that legislative reforms alone could not solve the problem of corruption. The principal disagreements were arising within the Alliance itself, which was unable to resolve them. Reforms should be carried out not simply to please the EU but to satisfy the needs of voters and individual citizens. This was the most important task, anything else being a mere distraction. He expressed concern at the situation in Moldova and urged his colleagues to coordinate their deliberations properly in view of achieving cooperation in a European context.

Ms FUSU thanked Mr MASTALKA, pointing out that the purpose of meetings was to hold debates, even if from time to time they proved heated, provided that they were constructive and relevant to the agenda. She gave the floor to Mr GAGAUZ.

D-MD\893718\EN 15/46 PE 467.637 EN Mr GAGAUZ observed that the task of the Opposition was to criticise the Government. EU representatives and institutions should be aware of the major implications of the visa issue for Moldovan citizens. Following adoption of the necessary legislation, visa arrangements would be relaxed. If Moldova were to become a European country on an equal footing, Moldovan citizens should enjoy visa-free travel within the EU with no restriction of their right to freedom of movement. He asked the EU why it had now more than ever chosen to raise the stakes on the question of citizenship, a particularly delicate issue for Moldovans, who were now seeking to obtain Romanian, Bulgarian or Portuguese citizenship, for example, not because they did not love their country, but because they wanted freedom of movement in Europe. An immediate relaxation of visa arrangements would make it easier to resolve, many of Moldova’s problems.

Mr PETCOV agreed with Mr CANDU that the meeting was intended to provide European colleagues with more comprehensive and more accurate information and took the view that the present Government was being less than candid.

In reply, Mr CANDU warned against underestimating the understanding and perceptiveness of their European Parliament colleagues when it came to grasping what was really going on in Moldova. However, everyone was entitled to their opinion and, when it came to legal reform, two or three lawyers could well hold five different opinions. He therefore urged his colleagues to restrict themselves to issues relating to cooperation between Moldova and the EU.

Ms FUSU introduced the next topic for discussion, which was human rights and combating discrimination, and gave the floor to Ms Cristina MELNIC, Head of the Directorate-General for Legislation of the Ministry of Justice.

Ms MELNIC welcomed the fact that high dignitaries from the EU and the Republic of Moldova were present and said that she would run through some of the advances in the field of human rights in the current period. The National Action Plan in the Field of Human Rights for the period 2011-2014 had been adopted in Parliament Decision No 90 of May 2011. By virtue of that decision, the Moldovan Parliament had empowered the government to set up a committee to monitor the implementation of that plan. A draft government decision had been drawn up on the creation of that committee, but the operative rules had already been worked out with the bodies concerned and were soon to be presented to the government for approval. As for the action plan, the first report on the implementation of the measures under the plan would be produced in April 2012.

Ms MELNIC highlighted the importance of the adoption by the Moldovan Parliament on 8 July 2011 of the revised law on personal data protection. The adoption of a new legislative framework on personal data protection had been needed in the interests of harmonisation with Community legislation and the provision of greater protection of personal data during their collection, use and transmission, including as regards cross-border flows of such data. The way in which Directive 95/46/EC relating to this field had been adjusted or transposed had been welcomed and positively assessed by Eurojust experts. At the same time, on 21 July 2011, the Moldovan Parliament had also adopted the regulatory framework for the implementation of the root act. Penalties had been introduced for infringements of the legislation on the processing of personal data, and the national protection body – the National Council for the Protection of Personal Data – had been given a mandate to establish any such infringements. In view of the special importance of the right of freedom of religion both for

D-MD\893718\EN 16/46 PE 467.637 EN individuals and for communities as a whole, a review had also been launched of the law on religious denominations and their component parts. A study entitled ‘Freedom of conscience, thought and religion; the current position and regulatory prospects’ had informed the amending of that law, had been welcomed, and had been presented to the public with the participation of Mr Reiner BIELEFELDT, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. As a result, the law on religious denominations had been amended, and the procedural requirements for the registration of religious organisations had been altered. The title of the law itself had been changed to fit with its purpose, and it was now called the law on the freedom of conscience, thought and religion. At the last minute a new mechanism for alerting religious denominations to instances of violation had been introduced; at present two things could happen: either a one-year suspension or the cessation of religious activity, which was more drastic. Similarly, the rules on the monitoring of religious bodies had been eliminated, and this needed to be reflected in canon law. The state did not tolerate discrimination between religious faiths, as stipulated in Article 15 of the Law, which had been adopted by the Moldovan Government and had already been forwarded to Parliament for scrutiny.

With regard to anti-discrimination policies, Ms MELNIC referred to the new proposals concerning the draft anti-discrimination law, which had sparked heated public debate. In addition to these proposals, it had been proposed that the Council for the Prevention and Combating of Discrimination be reinforced. The idea of burden of proof in cases of discrimination had been introduced, or more precisely had been reversed, both in court cases and in relation to that Council, which would consider complaints on grounds of torture. Ms MELNIC said that the Ministry of Justice was the last stage in the public debate and consultation on the draft anti-discrimination law and it had been recommended that the bill be forwarded to the government for adoption the following week. Se emphasised that challenge for the near future would be to strengthen the parliamentary legal service and the mechanism for the prevention of torture. To that end, a working party had been set up to fine-tune and consolidate the national mechanism for combating torture. Mr Manfred NOWAK, the former UN Special Rapporteur on torture and inhumane and degrading treatment had immediately been appointed an honorary member of that party, which consisted of representatives of the public authorities and civil society. The working party was to meet the following week (30 November 2011).

The government had presented to the Moldovan Parliament a new law on special investigations and other amendments to the criminal code. Ms MELNIC stated that the interception of communications could now only take place solely as part of criminal investigations in a criminal case and not as a special investigative measure as was presently the case.

Concerning children’s rights, Ms MELNIC referred to the amendments to the criminal code which would result in the creation of special minors’ areas so that hearings could be conducted in a child-friendly manner. The majority of these reforms in the field of human rights had been debated as part of the EU-Moldova dialogue and were had immediately been reflected in the EU-Moldova visa liberalisation programme.

Ms FUSU thanked Ms MELNIC and gave the floor gave the floor to Ms Tamara PLĂMĂDEALĂ from the parliamentary legal service, to make a statement on this matter.

D-MD\893718\EN 17/46 PE 467.637 EN Ms PLĂMADEALĂ said that the protection of children’s rights was of great importance in Moldova, as was the introduction of reforms in this area. She said that the Republic of Moldova had done well to appoint a Public Prosecutor for Children in order to protect minors, and to provide monitor of the state institutions in the field of respect for children’s rights. Ms PLĂMĂDEALĂ expressed regret that the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Children did not have sufficient human or financial resources to successfully fulfil its mandate. There were also problems concerning cooperation and communication with the public authorities, both at central and at local level. Ms PLĂMĂDEALĂ highlighted the ease of communication with the Ministry of External Affairs and European Integration, and congratulated that institution on being so open to all the recommendations and calls made by the parliamentary legal service. Recently there had been an improvement in communication with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was taking on board the recommendations made. The worst cooperation was with the Ministry of Education and some city councils, and especially Chisinau City Council, which completely ignored the recommendations made by the parliamentary legal service. These bodies replied evasively or perfunctorily to all the recommendations made to the authorities.

The most frequently-violated of children’s rights in the Republic of Moldova were their leisure-time rights, with no artistic or sports facilities being available for children in rural areas. In fact, they had nowhere to spend their free time, which was a major problem. As for the right to hold opinions, Ms PLĂMĂDEALĂ expressed regret that no ear was given to children’s opinions when reforms were adopted or policies framed in the field of child protection. With regard to the right to education, which was clearly a serious problem area, there was a heavy school programme and an excess of compulsory subjects, which was causing an increasing number of children to fall ill. The biggest problem was that the state was tacitly approving the collection of payments for education, and that nothing was being done, particularly by the competent authorities who should have been monitoring this situation and remedying what was happening by punishing those responsible, as under the Moldovan Constitution education there was meant to be free. The improvements which had been and were being made were not, in the opinion of parents, children and the Public Prosecutor for Children, to their advantage or in their interests, because once again the children’s opinions had not been asked. There were also concerns over children’s safety when travelling on very bad roads in winter, which would lead to a higher school drop-out rate since the parents had already stated that they would not allow their children to travel in winter to schools outside their places of residence.

Concerning the rights of the family, Ms PLĂMĂDEALĂ said that there was a problem with parents migrating and leaving their children behind, without their being supervised by a responsible adult or entrusted to the authorities, and that answers had to be found to this problem as swiftly as possible, because some children were being left with friends or relatives and there had been cases of child abuse and sexual abuse and violence, etc. There were also problems in the field of guaranteed rights to social protection, since the childcare allowances granted by the state were miserly, and not enough even to buy medicines, let alone food and clothing, etc.

Children were being discriminated against at school on the basis of the financial and social standing of the family from which they came. Some children were being neglected and marginalised by teachers. Ms PLĂMĂDEALĂ said that proposals had been brought forward in the Moldovan Parliament to harmonise legislation in the field of the protection of children’s rights, but there was no sign of these proposals being debated or adopted. She said

D-MD\893718\EN 18/46 PE 467.637 EN that she hoped that priority would be accorded to the interests of the child both in the government’s agenda and in that of the parliament.

Ms FUSU thanked Ms PLĂMĂDEALĂ for the attention she had awarded to children’s rights and stressed that one of the chapters in the strategy for judicial reform was devoted to the protection of children and that greater attention should be paid to that area and a genuine European vision developed for it.

Ms FUSU proposed that a discussion be held on the above topic and gave the floor to Mr Zurab TODUA.

Mr TODUA said that certain reports, and particularly those by government representatives and EU representatives, on the achievements in the field of reforms in various domestic policy areas and as regards the cooperation between the EU and Moldova, gave the impression that they must have been referring to a country other than the Republic of Moldova. The truth was not as rosy as they portrayed. Mr TODUA said that the so-called reforms of the Ministry of Internal Affairs had resulted in the crime rate in Moldova doubling in the course of the year, and even more for some types of crime. Reform in the field of public prosecution and combating corruption had seen cases of corruption multiplying. The situation was not good with regard to human rights and the rights of ethnic minorities. In the course of the last two years, during the so-called democracy that had followed the totalitarian regime, the representatives of ethnic minorities (which represented 27%-30% of the population) had expressed great concerns. The measures taken in the last two years predominantly worked against the interests of ethnic minorities. Mr TUDOA gave the example of the sponsoring of a draft act under which the approximately 300 000 Moldovans with CIS passports would be deprived of the right to vote. He emphasised that he knew no European country in which citizens had been deprived of the fundamental right enshrined in the constitution to vote and stand in elections. Similarly, it had been proposed that people unable to speak the official language of Moldova should not have the right to vote. It was not a question of people not wanting to learn the language, since most of the ethnic minorities were able to speak it, but of the fact that they had to sit an exam and, of course, the examiners would require them to meet standards which could not even be met in language institutes. A draft amendment to the constitution had been brought forward which would limit the rights of ethnic minorities and of Russian-speaking officials in Moldova and restrict the rights of the autonomous Găgăuz people, when the justification for this amendment was unclear. There were many other examples too which showed that unfair policies that did not fit with European standards had been adopted in respect of ethnic minorities.

With regard to freedom of speech and media freedoms, Mr TODUA recalled that during the period of so-called totalitarianism between 2001 and 2009, the governing PCRM party had voluntarily given the opposition control of such organisations as the Central Electoral Commission and the Court of Auditors, etc. During that period, one or two TV channels were controlled by the party in power, while the opposition had several TV channels, and far more advertising scope than at present. The PCRM now controlled one TV channel which was being pressured with the threat of closure, fined and blamed for being solely responsible for the lack of democratic progress. These are not the only things which showed the situation in the media sector to be unhealthy. Mr TODUA expressed regret that in the past two year there had been a move towards rehabilitating Nazis who had been responsible for war crimes. There were a host of articles and TV programmes claiming that there were no grounds for stating that the Nazis had done what they were said to have done and giving a host of proof to that

D-MD\893718\EN 19/46 PE 467.637 EN effect. He said that this was alarming and that fewer and fewer people in Moldova now held in European values. Mr TODUA pointed to the fact that if things continued in this manner, the polls would show that a minimum level of Moldovans believed in European values and the prospect of joining the EU and that he did not feel that this was the aim of having an EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee.

Ms Corina FUSU said there was a lot of work still to be done and that one had to explain what was meant by European values and EU-style reforms and what the advantages of subsequently joining the EU would be. This would be a mammoth task.

Ms Tatjana ZDANOKA called on the Members of the Moldovan Parliament not to make the same mistake as their counterparts in Latvia, who had been required to remove from the statute book the need for prospective members of parliament to speak the official language after two cases on this issue had been won at the UN Commission for Human Rights and at the European Court of Human Rights.

With regard to the accusations of fascism, Mr Ghenadie CIOBANU said that the state position was in line with that of the EU and that a distinction had to be drawn between the activities of extremists who might be looking to cause trouble, and the official stance of the state. As for the language issue, he emphasised that such phobias and assumptions had to be ditched, as the state was doing all it could not to disunite the populace and not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Concerning the freedom of the press and the number of newspapers and other types of mass media, Mr CIOBANU highlighted the need for concrete statistics, since according to his statistics that number had not just doubled but risen exponentially.

Mr GĂGĂUZ said that these issues needed to be approached with great caution as they were so sensitive. The east of the country was not under the control of the Moldovan authorities owing to the mistakes made by previous governments precisely with regard to languages and the availability of opportunities to accede to government. Mr GĂGĂUZ said that adopting a radical approach to this matter would purely give grist to the mill of Smirnov regime and that the country would never be reunified using such an approach. If knowing the official language were a prerequisite for becoming a member of parliament, 28 of the country’s elected representatives would no longer be members of parliament. If one wanted to reunify the country such issues had to be addressed in a gentle and civilised manner.

Ms Corina FUSU thanked the speakers and said they would move on to the next item, which was Relations between Moldova and its neighbours. She gave the floor to Mr Andrei POPOV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and European Integration.

Mr POPOV said that forging good neighbourhood relations was fundamental to European countries coexisting. For a state such as Moldova this was all the more important in view of the strategic importance of Moldova’s neighbours in ensuring the success of the country’s plans. There was probably no other European country, either in the EU or in its near neighbourhood with no open access to the sea – except through the port of Giurgiulești – and only having two neighbours. For Moldova, ensuring the best possible relations with its only two neighbours – Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east – was a strategic priority. It was in just spirit that a government programme had been drawn up in September 2009, and ratified in January 2010, which placed relations with neighbouring Romania and Ukraine at the level of a strategic partnership equivalent to other partnerships, with the EU, the USA and the Russian Federation. During that period, major inroads had been made into forging

D-MD\893718\EN 20/46 PE 467.637 EN relations both to the west and to the east. The importance of good relations between Moldova and Ukraine was evident as it was through Ukraine that Moldova received all the gas which it consumed and which also neighboured the Transnistrian region, and therefore had a key role to play in resolving the Transnistrian conflict. Like Moldova, it wanted to join the EU through the Eastern Partnership and it had the same regional cooperation interests and was involved in joint infrastructure projects. Relations between Moldova and Ukraine had in essence been frozen for many years and placed on the back burner, owing to a single set of unagreed issues, which was just one aspect of the very complex relations between the two countries. This concerned the fine-tuning of their territorial relations and the final demarcation of the border, based on the Treaty signed by the two countries in 1999 and ratified in July 2001. For that reason, the main mechanism for ensuring smooth cooperation – i.e. the Joint Committee for Economic and Trade Cooperation – between the two governments had been inactive for over five years, from May 2006 to November 2011. Similarly, for many years there had been no time to hold consultations or discussions in the territorial field. With massive political will and despite certain criticism and conjecture, solutions had been found with Kiev, in a European spirit, to certain highly sensitive issues such as marking out the border, and full relations between the two countries had been restored. Mr POPOV stressed that air links between Moldova and Ukraine had been re-established where there had previously been none, despite both countries having so much in common. Neither was there a rail link between Chisinau and Odessa. All this had happened in 2010, and during 2011 the Transnistrian sector of the border had been demarcated. Of the 450 km involved, 200 km had already been marked out. The Joint Moldova-Ukraine Parliamentary Committee had started to meet again, and had resolved certain contentious issues. It had been agreed that the discriminatory duty imposed on Divin Moldovan brandy for many years should be abolished and that Ukraine would facilitate the export of Divin.

It had also been agreed that negotiations would be finalised in the near future and an ecology agreement signed, especially with regard to safeguarding the Dniestr river basin. After many years of there being no bilateral exchanges, there had been four meetings between at chief of state level between May and November 2011 alone. The Prime Minister had met with the Ukrainian leader, there had been meetings between the foreign ministers, the Ukrainian foreign minister had visited Chisinau and many measures had been implemented. After five years, the only matter still under discussion had been the border dispute at Palanca, and this had been resolved to the satisfaction of both states and in accordance with the border treaty ratified in July 2001. The dialogue between Moldova and Ukraine was now focused on building up a forward-looking agenda hinging on a range of joint strategic projects.

The fact that Moldova bordered Romania made this a unique case in terms of the EU neighbourhood as the same language was spoken as in an official EU state – some in Chisinau called this Moldovan, and others Romanian, but it was the same language. None of the other 16 states bordering the EU enjoyed the advantage of sharing a language into which all the EU documents had already been translated. This facilitated the process of drawing on the experience and expertise accumulated by Romania in the pre-accession, accession and post-accession periods. Romania was the only geographical interface with the EU, and its only neighbour that gave it geographical access to Europe. Relations with Romania had been revived after the two countries had nearly broken off diplomatic relations in autumn 2009, when the ambassador of a neighbouring EU country had been given 24 hours notice to leave and a visa system which discriminated against nationals of that EU country was introduced, again within the space of 24 hours. The EU, in the name of solidarity, had been unable to stand by, and had adopted a set of conditions and blocked the reports which formed part of the

D-MD\893718\EN 21/46 PE 467.637 EN dialogue with the EU. The approval to open negotiations the association agreement was made dependent on eliminating those discriminatory measures, which happened when a new government was elected in September 2009. Mr POPOV stressed that never in modern times had Moldova had better relations with both its neighbours – Romania to the west and Ukraine to the east.

Ms Corina FUSU thanked him for his intervention and confirmed that Moldova had fully reconciled itself with its neighbours, which was the European way.

Mr TODUA said that it was good that Moldova’s relations with its neighbours were developing in a positive manner, but that it was regrettable that no basic treaty had yet been signed with Romania, or any border treaty. It was strange that for a long time the EU had paid no attention to this matter, just as it paid no heed to the fact that the President Băsescu of Romania had, both officially and unofficially, cast doubt on the continued sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Moldova. The EU’s position was important, because the statements made by Mr Băsescu had caused alarm not only in Moldova but also in Ukraine, as this was a sensitive issue tied in with removing the vestiges of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Mr TODUA asked whether one might hope for a basic treaty and border treaty with Romania to be signed sooner or later. He said that Romania was the only European country not to recognise its own eastern border, which was unusual.

Mr Andrei POPOV said that there were many misunderstandings surrounding the border arrangements. Under international law, when new borders were established between two states, as had been the case with Moldova and Ukraine, an agreement had to be reached on the national boundaries. This was not necessary if boundaries were simply being confirmed and rights of succession had been established. The Republic of Moldova had taken over the obligations incumbent on the USSR under the agreement it had struck with Romania in 1948 and hence those under the border regime agreement. Romania had not signed any form of border treaty with any neighbouring country, but had entered into border regime agreements – with Bulgaria in 1992 and with Hungary in 1996 and then with Ukraine. In title and content, the agreement signed by Moldova and Romania on 8 November 2010 in Bucharest was identical to the one concluded between Romania and Ukraine in 2003. The content of that agreement had not been altered in any form since the compromise version was agreed in 2008. Mr PETCOV had been in Bucharest in person, as a presidential adviser, in 2003 when the decision had been taken not to sign the agreement initialled on 28 April 2000. The basic treaty between the Republic of Moldova and Romania had been initialled, but Moldova had declined to sign the final version, insisting on a new agreement.

Ms ŽDANOKA said that Moldova was not a unique case, linguistically speaking, because Switzerland, which was not an EU Member State, had three official languages, all of which were official EU languages.

Mr GĂGĂUZ expressed the opinion that there had been no freedom of the press in the past, nor at present. With regard to the territorial relations with Ukraine, he said that, contrary to what Mr POPOV had claimed, the previous government had addressed this issue. Similarly, there had been border demarcation, and even if the current government might be doing this more swiftly, every government had acted in the best interests of Moldova.

Ms FUSU welcomed Pawel Robert KOWAL, a conservative MEP. Ms Monica MACOVEI added that Mr KOWAL was the head of the Interparliamentary Delegation to the Ukraine.

D-MD\893718\EN 22/46 PE 467.637 EN Mr PETCOV said that Ms IONESII, who was there when the agreement was scrapped in 2003 as a member of the delegation headed by Mr Marian LUPU, was also present at this meeting. Mr PETCOV emphasised that there were indeed problems with Moldova’s western neighbour, which at first sight were not crucial, and that the texts of the agreements were indeed almost identical. He said that international public opinion should not be misled and that while the texts were identical, the procedures followed to arrive at those texts were quite out-of-keeping with normal bilateral relations between neighbouring states. Mr PETCOV pointed out that there were currently many cases of tens of hectares of sovereign Moldovan territory, following incidents or simply as a result of the River Prut changing its course, ending up on the right bank of the Prut, with the Moldovan authorities doing nothing concrete about this when they were informed. With regard to the issue of relations between Moldova and Ukraine and the text submitted for their consideration, he emphasised that he would like to know what discussions Moldova might hold with Ukraine on the Dniestr Pumped Storage Power Station.

Ms GUȚU addressed Ms ŽDANOKA on what Mr POPOV had said concerning Moldova having the advantage of sharing its neighbour’s language. Ms GUȚU said that Romanian was spoken in Moldova and that this was an official EU language, regardless of whether some in Moldovan called it Moldovan and others Romanian. It was the same language. In this; Moldova was unique among the Eastern European countries which bordered the EU. As for the so-called ‘language heaven’ that was Switzerland, the three official languages – German, French and Italian – were indeed spoken in the Swiss Parliament, but Germanophone MPs could not speak French, Francophone MPs could not speak German and Italophone MPs could speak neither German of French, not to mention the Romansch speakers, who had no national legislation in their language as there were 60 000 of them.

Ms Corina FUSU gave the floor to Mr MAŠTÁLKA.

Concerning the setting in stone of borders, Mr MAŠTÁLKA pointed to the experience of the Czech Republic and said that the Czech President continued to highlight the issue of borders remaining.

Mr POPOV said that the Czech and Slovak Republics had had to establish a new border. The two countries had managed to finalise the territorial arrangements very quickly – six years – in a European manner, and in accordance with the two to one principle. Moldova and Ukraine were two former Soviet republics with little shared property, and a thousand times less than that between the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, and yet the process had still not finished. Mr POPOV, responding to Mr GĂGĂUZ, said that progress had indeed also been made in the Communist period, and it was just that between the meeting of the Ukrainian State Property Fund and the Moldovan Public Property Agency in May 2006 and the next meeting, held in May 2011, there had been a five-year gap. Mr POPOV asked Mr PETCOV whether he would be prepared to offer an apology if, in 20 minutes time he presented him with a 6-point document dated 6 June 2008 and signed by Presidents VORONIN and IUȘCENKO, the first paragraph of which clearly referred to ‘the Dniestr Pumped Storage Power Station’.

Mr SÎRBU reminded Ms GUȚU that the name of the language was laid down in the Moldovan Constitution and Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina shared the same language but gave it a different name.

D-MD\893718\EN 23/46 PE 467.637 EN Mr GĂGĂUZ said to Mr POPOV that since 2006 Ukraine had had a shortage of negotiators, owing to the political situation there.

Ms Monica MACOVEI said that no concrete measures had been proposed with regard to bailiffs or in any other such area and she called for substantial discussions to be held. The role of the opposition was not just to criticise, but also to vote through laws that were in the national interest. She emphasised that in a democratic country that would be the rule.

Ms FUSU announced that the next item for discussion was public administration and judicial reforms and combating corruption and organised crime and she gave the floor to Mr CHEPTĂNARU, Deputy Minister for Internal Affairs.

Mr CHEPTĂNARU described the implementation of the reforms in the field of combating organised crime in the Republic of Moldova. The situation which arose in the 1990s had resulted in the appearance of a large number of organised crime groups with international and regional links. The development of organised crime had created the need for fundamental research into all aspects of this phenomenon and led to the combating of that scourge being enshrined as one of the country’s legislative and regulatory priorities. As a result, a process had been initiated of drawing up legislation to combat organised crime and a strategy for doing so. European experts had been actively involved in the research and documentation phase when drafting that legislation, which hence took into account the judicial practices and doctrines in the field of combating organised crime in many European states: Austria, France, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Romania and Lithuania. Major emphasis has been placed on international cooperation in this field, on strengthening the existing cooperation with EU states in relation to the growth in cross-border crime, and especially crimes committed by Moldovan citizens outside their home country, which was an increasingly common theme at international meetings. To that end, with a view to joined-up legislation, a national strategy had been developed with the involvement of European experts and with reference to the standards, programmes and recommendations of the Council of Europe and the UN and the strategies developed by EU Member States. The national strategy for the period 2011-2016 had defined the risk factors and the underlying principles of the prevention and combating of organised crime, and had established general and specific objectives, as well as the means to be used to achieve these and the responsibilities of each of the institutions competent for combating that phenomenon in the light of the priorities and the resources allocated. The strategy served as an appropriate institutional framework that enabled the state authorities to react promptly to the main risks to society and address vulnerable areas, while simultaneously creating the necessary conditions for the short- and medium-term planning of coordinated actions by the competent authorities and enshrining the government’s commitment to combating this scourge both inside and outside Moldova. In the perspective of implementing the strategy and the relevant legislation, the government had drawn up and adopted an implementing plan for the strategy on combating organised crime for the period 2011-2016. The plan laid down the concrete measures to be taken and by whom, and was divided into six main implementing fields. A key aspect of the plan was the creation of the National Centre for the Coordination of Actions to Combat Organised Crime and the setting-up of an interdepartmental and intersect oral advisory working party. Special attention had been awarded to the provisions of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime. The government had adopted an act on the special measures needed to strictly regulate the procedures and tactics used by the operational bodies, in order to ensure respect for human

D-MD\893718\EN 24/46 PE 467.637 EN rights and fundamental freedoms, and supplemented the national legal framework with modern investigative methods and technologies that met EU standards.

A national anti-drug strategy for the period 2011-2018 had been adopted with a view to fulfilling the commitments entered into the field of combating drug addiction and the trade in drugs. A national anti-drug commission had been set up on 4 July 2011 to monitor the implementation of that strategy. At the same time, the National Committee for the Combating of the Trade in Human Beings had proved itself effective in monitoring and drawing up two-yearly action plans and coordinating the activities of all the responsible players at national level. The state’s key objectives under the national security strategy, and the policy priority of the Internal Affairs Ministry for the following three years had been identified as stepping up efforts to prevent and combat the factors underlying crime, eliminating organised crime groups operating inside Moldova and in other countries and destroying their technical facilities and materials.

Ms FUSU gave the floor to Mr Gheorghe RUSU, Vice-Director of the Centre for the Combating of Economic Crimes and Corruption (CCEC).

Mr RUSU thanked her and said that since the previous meeting steps had been taken to step up the fight against corruption. To that end, the legislative framework for combating corruption had been improved, institutional reforms had been launched and cooperation with high-profile international institutions intensified. One positive outcome in the legislative field had been the adoption of new national anti-corruption strategies for the period 2011-2015. Moldova had adopted and implemented its first anti-corruption strategy in the period 2005- 2010, which had been a major step towards combating corruption and led to a string of successes. The new strategy met all the relevant standards and was based on the recommendations made by European experts and on state requirements. The strategy extended the scope for regulating anti-corruption efforts in vulnerable sectors such as local public administration and the judiciary. The mechanism for implementing the strategy had been amended to include a system of oversight by means of performance and progress indicators. Implementation of the strategy was being monitored at the highest level, and the role of the parliamentary committee on national security, defence and public order was to act as a general coordinator for the implementation of the strategy. An action plan for the implementation of the strategy in 2012 was currently being drawn up and would subsequently be presented to the government and submitted to the Moldovan Parliament for adoption. Moldova had signed up to international instruments in the field of combating corruption such as the UN Convention Against Corruption and criminal and civil conventions against corruption, and joined GRECO (Group of States against Corruption). One major step forward in this respect had been the implementation of GRECO’s recommendations to Moldova as part of the second round of evaluation. The CCEC had directly contributed to this by drawing up six draft legislative and regulatory acts amending national legislation. Two of these had become law, two had been adopted at first reading at committee stage, and two were being considered by parliamentary committees. One of the recommendations made in the final declaration issued at the previous meeting of the Cooperation Committee concerned the Moldovan Government committing to full participation in the Eastern Partnership and to harnessing all the opportunities it offered. In that connection, the Eastern Partnership project in the field of good governance and combating corruption had been launched in July 2011. Moldova had received funding for two pilot schemes to develop anti-corruption strategies for local communities and for the funding of political parties. Further European support had come in the form of assistance in implementing institutional reforms. Reform in the field of

D-MD\893718\EN 25/46 PE 467.637 EN combating corruption could not be implemented without a complete overhaul of the judicial system. A strategy had been created for the reform of the CCEC itself. This was based on three basic components: independence, capacities and public support. The CCEC was bolstering its efforts to attack corruption and deepening regional and international cooperation in this field. This took the form of active participation at meetings of the Council for the Coordination of Regional Anti-Corruption Initiatives, the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities and the Group of States Against Corruption, at which discussions had been held on the prevention and combating of corruption and projects had been launched in the field of regional and international cooperation. Mr RUSU said that clear political will and concrete action was needed in order to prevent and stamp out corruption. That was why the effective implementation of the anti-corruption reforms continued to be a priority CCEC activity and would also be so in the future.

Ms FUSU thanked Mr RUSU for the information and gave the floor to Mr Ruslan POPOV, Public Prosecutor and Head of the Directorate for the Monitoring of Criminal Proceedings and Methodology Assistance at the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Moldova.

Mr POPOV emphasised the fact that the idea of a reform process and the need for it was nothing new for Moldova. There had been words and actions to that effect as soon as Moldova became independent and had continued through the 1990s to the present. On the other hand, politicians had turned their attention seriously to this matter in the past two years, making a policy statement through strategic political-judicial texts, action plans and substantial financial expenditure programmes. Mr POPOV highlighted the considerable efforts made in this connection by the Ministry of Justice, under whose authority core working parties had recently been set up and the two latest basic strategy documents drawn up which were to be used as a guide in the final stages of the judicial reform: the strategy paper adopted in the Moldovan Parliament and the Action Plan. The Public Prosecutor’s Office had approved those strategy documents and had already undertaken to participate actively in conjunction with the judicial institutions, the criminal prosecutions bodies and the other institutions involved in the launching and implementation of the strategy and action plan. Working parties had already been set up within the Public Prosecutor’s Office, especially with regard to criminal law and institutional issues. In common with the other institutions concerned, the most urgent issues had already been identified and responses proposed. However, there were certain problematic matters which the Public Prosecutor’s Office and criminal prosecutions bodies considered crucial which were not covered by the action plan. Mr POPOV expressed the hope that, after the opinion issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office had been considered, those proposals would be taken over in the form of the strategic guidelines, specific fields of intervention and measures to be taken under the plan. With regard to the criminal law facet of the reform of the judicial system, which was the area in which the main area of competence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the pre-trial stage in criminal proceedings was the most problematic part of the Moldovan criminal justice system. Mr POPOV expressed the belief that if solutions were found in this and the other target areas proposed under the reform, this would result in effective judicial mechanisms for combating crime and especially corruption and organised crime. With regard to the institutional reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself, the main areas targeted were internal and external institutional independence, alteration of the procedure for electing the Public Prosecutor and consolidation of the Office’s advisory and self-administration capacities. Achieving the institutional, material and criminal procedural objectives for which the Public Prosecutor’s Office had drawn up concrete proposals amending the current legislative framework would

D-MD\893718\EN 26/46 PE 467.637 EN improve the quality of justice as a public service and increase public confidence in the state in general, and in judicial bodies in particular.

Ms FUSU gave the floor to Mr GUMENE, Head of the Policy Coordination Section of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova.

Mr GUMENE emphasised that the reform of the central state administration had continued in line with the government’s programme of activities and contained three facets: root and branch reform of the central state administration, ensuring a transparent and efficient decision-making process and the development of a meritocratic public service with professional civil servants. Concerning institutional restructuring, there had been a delimitation of the policy-making functions typical to ministries and the policy-implementation functions typical to authorities subordinate to the ministries. At the same time, the government had approved the draft act on the specialist central state administration, in coordination with the EU. It was also in the process of drafting the Code of Administrative Procedure, which would be finished by the end of the year.

All the ministries were developing strategic development programmes in the field of the reform of the decision-making process. The national strategic planning paper entitled ‘A National Strategy for Development 2020’ would be approved by the government towards the end of the year and forwarded to the parliament. There was on-going improvement in the secondary context of the implementation of the law on transparency in the decision-making process. Up to that point in 2011, 89% of all regulatory acts had been consulted in accordance with that law, when in 2010 that figure had been just 83%, and in 2009 38% lower. Communication with civil society had been improved, and the web portals particip.md and date.gov.md had been launched. With a view to ensuring transparency in the reporting process and reducing the reporting burden, the government had for the first time launched its own action plan in this area. The web portal raportare.gov.md had been launched and ministries would now have to describe on line all the measures they took. With regard to the creation of a meritocratic public service, the Act approving a single classification of public posts had been adopted and the government had approved a draft act concerning the civil service pay system, and the possibility of instituting the position of state secretary had been aired. For the first time, the procedure for the evaluation of the professional performances had been implemented.

Ms FUSU gave the floor to Mr Igor CORMAN, chair of the Committee on External Policy and European Integration, to speak on the theme: Regional cooperation: Moldova and the Eastern partnership.

Mr CORMAN began his remarks with an overview of the role of the Eastern Partnership, with particular reference to its parliamentary dimension. He saw this partnership as a framework provided by the EU which it is in Moldova’s interest to make maximum use of, and as an EU strategy which, he believed, represents a step forward for the development of the neighbourhood policy. The EU, he felt, needed such a strategy for its eastern neighbours taken together. He was aware of the problems existing and of the very different characteristics of the various partners, i.e. Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia. The creation of EURONEST had been marked by considerable difficulties, with the issue of the participation of Belarus taking up a whole year’s discussions. The parliamentary dimension of the initiative had seen the light of day on 3 May 2011. Mr CORMAN recalled his participation on 14 and 15 September 2011 in a key meeting held in Strasbourg on the eve

D-MD\893718\EN 27/46 PE 467.637 EN of the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw. It had been hoped that EURONEST would be in a position to adopt a forceful resolution for the summit, but this had not proved possible, thanks to the marked divergences among the participants and the diversity of the interests at stake. It was clear that Moldova and Ukraine are more in tune with the European agenda. With specific reference to the Caucasus, there was a visible divergence between Azerbaijan on the one hand and Armenia and Georgia on the other with regard to formal questions, which reflected the existence of local conflicts. Mr CORMAN stressed that this organisation can only have a future if the necessary effort is made to move beyond mutual recriminations, cease viewing it as a platform for helping resolve local conflicts, and conceive it as a forum for creating closer links between the participant countries and the EU. There had been a prior resolution of the European Parliament, of major significance in that it laid stress on Article 49 and proposed closer relations with the EU for ‘deserving’ countries, but the declaration that emerged from the Warsaw summit could scarcely be said to have privileged recognition of the European aspirations of the participant partners. Positive trends could be discerned in both political developments in the neighbourhood countries and the current review of the neighbourhood policy, while the principle of differentiation should be considered correct, and should be employed to benefit those showing genuine commitment. 14 December 2011 would see the adoption by the European Parliament of a report on the review of the EU’s neighbourhood policy. Mr CORMAN stressed that Chisinau was taking the right line in giving greater importance to the bilateral relationship with Brussels and to implementing the agenda that exists. He further emphasised the need to advance as rapidly as possible with the negotiations (currently encountering difficulties) for creating a free trade area and liberalising the visa regime. Moldovan law now made detentions easier, and numerous Moldovans were working abroad: visa liberalisation by the EU no longer appeared to involve risks, and would send out a positive message.

Mr CORMAN said that EURONEST should enable all possibilities to be exploited to the full. This year had seen the creation of the Moldova-Poland Parliamentary Assembly: it was to meet in Warsaw in February 2012. It had been agreed with the Polish partners that the agenda would be as specific as possible, with a view to making full use of the legislative experience on offer in terms of implementing European standards and adopting the requisite legislative framework. Also in existence was the tripartite Parliamentary Assembly bringing together Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. Mr CORMAN believed every effort should be made to secure the incorporation of Moldova into that assembly. He further referred to the impending creation of a joint Moldova-Romania committee for European integration, stressing that Chisinau had already adopted a decision appointing its Moldovan members. Such platforms could be used by Moldova on a pragmatic and realistic basis: the aim was to move forward with less declarations of intent and more concrete results. He emphasised the need to ensure political stability in Moldova.

Ms FUSU thanked Mr CORMAN and gave the floor to Ms Inga IONESI, head of the Directorate-General for Trade Policy at the Ministry of the Economy. Ms Ionesi spoke on the theme: Preparation for the negotiations for a ‘deep and comprehensive’ free trade agreement (DCFTA).

Ms IONESI expressed her appreciation of those present. She said that, in the light of the EU’s role over the last three years as a major trade partner of Moldova, it was now even more important to ensure that negotiations are launched as soon as possible with a view to agreeing on a free trade agreement (DCFTA). Last year, following the Commission’s evaluation mission, recommendations had been drawn up, and the government had adopted an action

D-MD\893718\EN 28/46 PE 467.637 EN plan for their implementation, the aim being to prepare Moldova for the negotiations. The relevant government decision provides for quarterly reports from both the European Commission and the Moldovan government. Three progress reports have been submitted: the most recent one was submitted by the Commission on 30 October 2011, covering all actions undertaken by Moldova. The main achievements were: the adoption of an action plan for the elimination of non-tariff trade barriers, and the adoption of a strategy for food security for 2011-2015, together with a series of draft laws, adopted by the government and presented in the Moldovan parliament. These are: draft laws concerning, respectively, the amendment of 53 legislative acts concerning the banking sector, the protection of competition, state aids, standardisation, and activities relating to accreditation and evaluation of conformity (for applications under Commission Regulation No 765); and a project for the amendment of Law 647 on weights and measures.

Ms IONESI emphasised the importance of the above draft legislation in the context of implementing the Commission’s recommendations: once these laws are adopted, it will be possible to launch the negotiations for the free trade agreement. The day of the meeting and the previous day had seen a meeting of the Moldova-EU Subcommittee on Trade and Investment. The Commission had sent out a highly encouraging message as regards opening the negotiations, recommending adoption of the legislative package by the end of the year.

Ms FUSU proposed that Mr Eugen CARAS and Mr Dirk SCHUEBEL should speak on the subjects concerned and answer any questions. It was agreed that there would be a Q & A session.

Mr PETCOV said that Moldova was fully sympathetic to the EU and European civilisation in general, and that this sentiment had existed for centuries. The Moldavian princes had protected not just the Orthodox faith, but European civilisation as such. Disturbingly, the last two years had seen a drastic decline in pro-European sentiment in Moldova, at least according to the opinion polls, which indicated a fall from 70% in 2008 to 47% today. He felt this was due to rampant misinformation in the country. As he saw it, Moldova’s European partners had made an unfortunate mistake in listening to the triumphalist rhetoric of the country’s rulers rather than assessing their real abilities. Bombastic reports concealed a reality of declining living standards. The last few years alone had seen a fall of 108 000 in the active population, and yet against such a backdrop, the government insisted on seeing things through rose-tinted glasses. He believed that Mr SCHUEBEL’s optimism had no basis in reality. Today, schools were being closed without the local authorities being so much as consulted.

Ms FUSU asked Mr PETCOV to answer the questions put to him and not to make a speech.

Mr PETCOV said that the Moldovan electoral code had been amended, as had the legislation relating to audiovisual services and other sensitive areas, without any input in terms of expertise from the European institutions: this had been the case even though Moldova was currently subject to monitoring by the European Commission. The Moldovan Ministry of Defence believed it had the right to threaten journalists investigating arms sales in the conflict zone. Senior members of the Moldovan parliament controlled the market in audiovisual services, and the parliamentary committee on the media was in the hands of people with a direct stake in the sector. The members of the legal establishment were appointed on purely political grounds.

Ms FUSU reminded Mr PETCOV that he was not there to monopolise the meeting.

D-MD\893718\EN 29/46 PE 467.637 EN Mr PETCOV said that it was vital for government and opposition to join ranks in the national interest.

Mr CIOBANU said that Moldova’s firm commitment to Europe had been confirmed on numerous occasions by its European peers. Nonetheless, the members of the PCRM party on the Committee for European Integration had designs of a very different nature, in a context where it was vital to affirm the integration, not the disintegration of Europe.

Ms FUSU gave the floor to Mr Dirk SCHUEBEL. The speaker began by stressing that, as far as the free trade agreement was concerned, there had been a positive outcome from the meeting of the subcommittee held the previous day in terms of agreement on the requisite health measures. The legislative package, including the competition law, needed to be adopted. Mr SCHUEBEL said he was hopeful concerning the DCFTA negotiations, which were likely to begin this year. He apologised for any impression he might have given that all was perfect, stressing that much work remained to be done. In this connection, he emphasised that the aim of Moldova’s efforts was not to please the EU but to offer its citizens a better life. He was sceptical over the opinion poll findings cited, as he had seen a poll four weeks previously which pointed to a far higher level of support for European integration. The exit polls at the parliamentary elections held on 28 November 2010 had failed to predict the results accurately. On his visits to Moldova he had generally found people sympathetic to European integration. He had never said that Moldova and its government were perfect, only that Moldova is a young and evolving democracy. Mr SCHUEBEL added that his role was to ensure that all points of view were heard: he was aware that Brussels had listened to the positions of the PCRM in its role as party of the opposition, especially on the audiovisual sector. He had suggested to the PCRM members that they should participate in Moldova’s Europeanisation process: it was the PCRM that had begun that process, even if less intensively than might have been the case, and the process was now being continued by the new government. Much still needed to be resolved in terms of internal policy, but bilaterally constructive and positive work had been done. Mr SCHUEBEL said he hoped that the PCRM would prove itself to be a genuinely pro-European party, despite a number of remarks he had heard that week which might appear to point to the contrary. He believed it would be desirable to close ranks on two subjects: European integration and Transnistria. His advice to the opposition was to involve itself in those processes: the EU would contribute, as he too would himself, with a view to an outcome favourable to both parties.

Ms FUSU thanked Mr SCHUEBEL for his presence and his valuable and fair-minded advice. She stressed that only if Moldova’s political parties close ranks around the national interest - defined by Mr SCHUEBEL as integration with the EU and a solution to the Transnistria conflict - will it be possible for government and opposition to act together with the national interest as their shared goal. She agreed with Ms MACOVEI that the role of the opposition was not so much to engage in criticism for criticism’s sake as to criticise the government’s mistakes and propose better solutions. Ms FUSU then gave the floor to Mr Eugen CARAS, deputy director of the Department for European Integration at Moldova’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs and European Integration.

Mr CARAS praised the effort which had been made institutionally regarding the negotiations for the association agreement, stressing a series of EU documents: the communication of the Commission and the High Representative made in May 2011, the final declaration of the Eastern Partnership summit in Warsaw, and the European Parliament’s resolution on

D-MD\893718\EN 30/46 PE 467.637 EN Moldova, with its crucial importance for the country. This articulation with Moldova’s European aspirations and the direct reference to Article 49 of the Treaty of Lisbon - a new development - represented excellent news. Between January 2010, which had seen the launch of the negotiations running parallel to the association agreement, and the present, eight plenary rounds had taken place, complemented by over 130 videoconferences, bringing together experts from Moldova and the EU. The chapters relating to political dialogue, reform and cooperation in external policy and security had all been provisionally closed; the same was true of virtually all those in the sphere of justice, freedom and security. The main issue which still needed finalising was that of mobility in the context of visa liberalisation. All the chapters under the rubric ‘human contacts’ had been closed. In the field of economic and sectoral cooperation, 21 of the 25 chapters opened had received provisional closure. Both the Moldovan and the EU experts believed that this represented laudable progress. Mr CARAS said he hoped that the negotiations for the free trade area could be launched by the end of the year. He was sure Moldova’ commitment would match that of the EU, and vice versa.

Mr CARAS said the action plan for liberalising the visa regime with the EU was fully viable and could be implemented soon. The dialogue had been launched in June 2010, and the plan had been adopted in January 2011, following which the necessary actions had been initiated to adjust the relevant legislation. Of a total of 41 legislative and regulatory acts, 24 had been adopted by the Moldovan parliament or government. Things appeared to be moving smoothly in this area too. The aim was to have the first phase completed in 2011, in order to move on to the second (implementation) phase in 2012, following an assessment by the European Commission and the EU Member States. Mr CARAS said he believed Moldova was the most forward-looking member of the Eastern Partnership. Its commitment at national level and the strong and consistent support offered by the EU were not to be denied or underestimated: they were realities and were officially appreciated as such, in both Chisinau and Brussels.

Ms FUSU gave the floor to the last speaker, Mr Vlad LUPAN, Member of the Moldovan Parliament.

Mr LUPAN spoke on two subjects, namely communication and the ‘deep and comprehensive’ free trade agreement. He regretted the communication deficit between the AIE and the opposition, adding that the PCRM had held a plenary in which it had called on the AIE to hand over power to it without holding an election. These were difficult times, he said, and he believed the PCRM needed to abandon its ‘the show must go on’ attitude and cease making statements which could affect Moldova’s European integration process. He further stated that the PCRM was examining the option of a ‘Euro-Asiatic union’ as an alternative to European integration.

Concerning the free trade agreement, he stressed the need to adopt the relevant legislation: some of the draft laws concerned were now on the agenda of the national parliament. He asked the MEPs for their views on drawing up a common EU-Moldova strategy for communication and on the impact the negotiations for a free trade agreement with the EU were likely to have on the signing of a free trade agreement within the CIS.

Mr SCHUEBEL congratulated Mr LUPAN on his appointment as head of Moldova’s permanent representation to the UN. He welcomed the idea of a common communication strategy, something which had existed in the past in a number of restricted fields, and said he would raise the matter in Brussels. Concerning the CIS free trade agreement, he did not

D-MD\893718\EN 31/46 PE 467.637 EN believe there was any incompatibility between that agreement and the ‘deep and comprehensive’ free trade agreement with the EU.

Still on the CIS free trade agreement, Ms IONESI said she had participated in the negotiations on the matter, and stressed that its provisions would be compatible with WTO rules. The text would be submitted for purposes of coordination to the European Commission and the WTO Secretariat. Once the WTO’s reply had been obtained, the ratification procedure would commence: this had been discussed in the negotiations with the different CIS member states. Ukraine and Russia wished to see the agreement coordinated with the WTO. Moldova had concluded the negotiations of the free trade agreement with the CIS countries, and the new agreement that had been signed was based on new, WTO-friendly ‘rules of the game’. As long as Moldova remained outside the customs union, the fact of signing such an agreement was not liable to affect relations with the EU. Under international law, Moldova had the right to conclude free trade agreements with whatever country.

Ms ȘUPAC thanked the MEPs for their advice, and said that the opposition wished to be involved in the process of informing Moldova’s citizens on the significance of the EU while also pointing out that not all the actions of the present government were compatible with EU standards, an example being the secret agreement among the AIE members to divide up the key state institutions among themselves (she referred to the Supreme Court of Justice, the Audiovisual Coordination Council, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Centre for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption, the Information and Security Service, etc).

Ms FUSU thanked the participants for their contribution and announced that the session would resume the next day at 09.30.

End of first working session

The session closed at 19.10 on 25 November 2011

******

Second working session

Ms MACOVEI opened the second working session of the meeting at 9:30. The following PCC members participated in this 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 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, Ms Tatjana ŽDANOKA, Ms Elena BĂSESCU, Mr Paweł KOWAL.

D-MD\893718\EN 32/46 PE 467.637 EN 5. Prospects for a breakthrough in the Transnistrian conflict

Ms MACOVEI opened the continuation of the 14th meeting of the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. She recalled the favourable resolution on Moldova adopted by the European Parliament in September 2011, with its reference to Article 49 of the Treaty and the European perspective enshrined therein. At the present time of financial crisis, Moldova was the only country to have been referred to in the context of that article. The principle of ‘more for more’, meaning in practice more financial resources for Moldova, had been evoked in the European Parliament. The draft recommendations prepared for the present meeting were positive in nature, stressing the merits of the Moldovan authorities and advocating further reforms. Ms MACOVEI said she believed the European Parliament’s resolution was in the interests of Moldova and its citizens. She then gave the floor to Gheorghe BĂLAN, head of the Office for Reintegration.

Mr BĂLAN spoke on the prospects for a settlement to the Transnistrian conflict, stressing the efforts made so far with a view to reintegration. The key objectives were to resume the official negotiations on a ‘5+2’ basis and to identify viable solutions to the conflict based on respect for Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its recognised international borders. Reintegration remained a priority policy, and was promoted by all institutions on all fronts (territorial, political economic and social). Every effort was being made to ensure respect for human rights and liberties in the region, and democratisation and demilitarisation continued to have priority. Measures were being promoted for confidence-building and support for the population, with a view to creating a positive negotiating climate. Working groups had been set up for purposes of confidence-building, and their work was being encouraged, as was the consolidation of control of the Transnistrian segment of the Moldova- Ukraine border. Over the period covered by the 13th meeting of the Cooperation Committee, ‘5+2’ talks had been held twice for a solution to the Transnistrian conflict - on 21 June and 22 September respectively, in Moscow.

Support from external partners had made it possible to adopt a declaration concerning the official resumption of the work of the Permanent Conference on Political Issues in Process of Settlement, marking a step towards the official negotiations which are scheduled to begin soon. November 2011 saw a joint observers’ and mediators’ visit to Chisinau and Tiraspol. Dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol had continued at the level of political representatives and contacts in the respective regions. The confidence-building working group had met five times. The official Moldovan company registration office was continuing to register Transnistrian economic agents: some 750 such agents were currently registered, and were carrying out import-export activities in conformity with the legislation in force in Moldova. A conference had been held in Moldova on 8 and 9 September 2011 on the consolidation of the confidence-building measures under way, resulting in the adoption of common rules for the confidence-building working groups. Those groups were continuing their work on the basis of those rules.

The pro-integration activity programme for 2011 had been adopted, as had the regulation on the activities of the Moldovan delegation to the Unified Control Committee. A blueprint for reintegration and a development strategy for localities within the security zone had still to be adopted. Among key future events, Mr BĂLAN stressed the first official negotiating round scheduled to take place in Vilnius (Lithuania) on 30 November and 1 December 2011. Progress continued to be made on the removal of barriers to the free movement of people, and closer dialogue was being maintained with the international partners participating in the

D-MD\893718\EN 33/46 PE 467.637 EN regulation process. He hoped that the beginning of 2012 would see the above-mentioned blueprint and strategy presented to the public. The central public administrative authorities would be involved in drawing up an efficient sectoral policy. A significant development had occurred in the shape of the release of two prisoners, Ilie Cazac and Ernest Vardanean. Mr BĂLAN expressed his gratitude to the European Parliament and all the international partners that had played an active role and had pressed for their release. Cooperation would continue with the EUBAM mission with a view to restoring a full service on the Transnistrian part of the Moldovan rail system. Steps would also be taken to promote the implementation, consolidation and extension of the mechanisms for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the region of Transnistria.

Mr KOWAL said that Moldova is seen as a leading light in the European integration process of the Eastern Partnership. Both the launch of the negotiations for the free trade area and the closure of those for the association agreement are impending. He pointed out that the Eastern Partnership countries are frequently charged with being unable to resolve the outstanding conflicts. The Polish-Swedish initiative was conceived not as a quick fix for those conflicts but as a blueprint for unifying Eastern Europe on a basis of common interests and shared values. The ‘5+2’ format had been created specifically for Moldova, but it had not succeeded, given the lack of commitment exhibited by the participant countries. He felt it should be no news to anyone that Russia might have difficulty in shaking off the Soviet past. The internal situation in Moldova was crucial to any solution for the Transnistrian conflict. The current internal crisis was not conducive to progress, but Moldova had to reform. The cause of European integration necessitated that Moldova should have an elected president as soon as possible. Transnistria must not be left out of the integration process: it must be given the opportunity of closer relations with the EU, but in conditions which clearly laid down Moldova’s territorial integrity as a sine qua non. The entire country needed to be offered the real prospect of European integration. Mr KOWAL was convinced that it was the EU’s mission to ensure the future expansion of its area based on values and wellbeing. He welcomed the resumption of talks between Moldova and Transnistria, pending the forthcoming ‘election’ of the region’s leader. In his capacity as chair of the European Parliament delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, he welcomed the relaunching of cooperation between Chisinau and Kiev on border management: in his view, this was one of the most important instances of cooperation within the Eastern Partnership. He believed Moldova should cooperate more closely with Ukraine, since such exchanges of experience were vital for the Partnership.

Mr GĂGĂUZ expressed the view that the integration dynamic was essentially a one-way phenomenon. Further progress would require clarification of the causes of the conflict. National reintegration could only happen if living standards in Moldova were higher than in Transnistria, and when there was political stability and respect for all aspects of human rights. Russia was certainly a factor, but not to the extent of deciding everything: that role fell to the inhabitants of the territory. No progress could be made unless the inhabitants of Transnistria wanted reintegration.

Mr PETCOV drew attention to a specific aspect: the villages under Moldovan jurisdiction on the left bank of the Dniester were now receiving considerably less funding from the Moldovan national budget. Those five villages had been allocated a mere 400 000 lei for capital investment, a sum well below those granted three or five years previously, which had seen the creation of (in some cases totally new) infrastructures on the Dniester’s right bank. The cut in subsidies was obviously leading to the wholesale transfer of the inhabitants to the

D-MD\893718\EN 34/46 PE 467.637 EN jurisdiction of the unrecognised republic. Hundreds or indeed thousands of people, especially in recent months, had accepted Transnistrian citizenship, and this was putting Moldova’s territorial integrity at risk. If this trend continued, the inhabitants of those villages would be lost to Moldova.

Mr BĂLAN confirmed that the last few years had seen a considerable reduction in capital investment, especially in the Dubăsari area. This was the result not of government policy towards the localities concerned, but of the world economic crisis. Spending cuts were mandatory across the board, and capital investment could not be spared. However, that year and for the first time, the sum of 10 million lei assigned in the national budget to national reintegration was divided among the localities in the security zone and allocated to their development (including infrastructure). This reintegration fund had existed for some time, but the action plan for local development was new: it would be continued in the future. Economic recovery and growth could only accentuate the priority status of these security zone localities, and they would receive infrastructural investment. On the issue of ‘Transnistrian citizenship’, it was true that the process was continuing: the ‘Transnistrian authorities’ were now asking for further documentation from those already considered ‘Transnistrian citizens’. Nonetheless, the issue did not pose enormous risks, despite its conspicuousness. Mr BĂLAN agreed that the growing attractiveness of the right bank of the Dniester and the investment in the security zone would improve the area’s image and boost living standards: hence the strategy for local development in that zone and the concrete action plan. All the mayors and local councillors in the security zone had been consulted on the strategy.

Ms FUSU asked Mr KOWAL to speak on the progress of the negotiations for the free trade area with Ukraine, and also asked how close Ukraine was to signing the association agreement with the EU.

Mr KOWAL said in reply that Ukraine was in a position to initial the association agreement with the EU and the free trade agreement at the next Ukraine-EU summit, to be held in Kiev in December. From the technical viewpoint, after 21 meetings of the negotiators, all was now in place for the initialling, following which it should be possible to move towards signing within a few months. However, the initialling could yet not happen at the summit because of the dispute over the arrest of Yulia Tymoshenko. The technical conditions for signing the agreement had now been met, but initialling could prove impossible thanks to the political climate generated by the Tymoshenko case.

Mr KOWAL added that at the last moment the Ukrainian side had decided to emphasise the European perspective and had expressed the desire to see that aspect given greater stress in the agreement. Up till now, no association agreement had included a clause directly evoking the prospect of EU membership. He believed the draft association agreement with Ukraine was the best such text yet, even when compared with that signed with Poland in the 1990s. The December summit would give the parties the opportunity to sign a joint declaration confirming that all technical aspects of the negotiations were now completed. It could then be possible to proceed downstream to the initialling phase and pave the way for signing. Whatever happened as regards initialling, the main aspects which would dominate the signing phase would be the political dimension, the internal situation in Ukraine, and the relations between opposition and government. Mr KOWAL further stressed that, while the situation was complex, technically speaking the negotiations should be considered concluded.

D-MD\893718\EN 35/46 PE 467.637 EN Ms FUSU asked Mr BĂLAN to provide information on the process of mutual definition of Moldova’s and Ukraine’s borders as far as Transnistria was concerned, and to specify the official Moldovan position as regards including Transnistria in the ‘deep and comprehensive’ free trade area.

Mr BĂLAN said that the border definition process had been suspended for a time and had resumed a year ago. A solution had been reached, but unfortunately the Ukrainian side was more active. Barriers were being erected, material means were being devised and the process was continuing, albeit slower than it should thanks to the uncooperative and highly dubious attitudes prevailing on the Transnistrian side. On the subject of including Transnistria in the free trade area, Moldova’s position was that this idea should be supported: indeed, the deputy minister Mr Calmîc, who was also the chair of the working group on economic aspects on the Moldovan side, had forwarded all the relevant documents to the chair of the Transnistrian working group, and had offered him the chance to participate in the pre-membership process under the umbrella of the Moldovan delegation.

6. The Moldovan government’s policies in the field of social protection

Ms MACOVEI gave the floor to Vadim PISTINCIUC, Vice-Minister for Labour, Social Protection and the Family, to speak on the theme: The Moldovan Government’s policies in the field of social protection.

Mr PISTINCIUC said that social protection was a priority objective in Moldova, as should be clear from the government’s key planning documents and from its programme, most of the actions under which impacted directly on welfare matters. The existing social protection system in the country was far from ideal. All proposed reforms were taking place in a climate characterised by major challenges. An ageing population raised the question of the financial sustainability of the social insurance system, as well as the need to target welfare payments more effectively. The sustainability issue was compounded by migratory pressures: migration led to children being left without parental care, and arrangements had to be made to repatriate Moldovan citizens and their children from abroad. Another significant aspect was the need to ensure welfare provision, via the social services, for specific groups such as the disabled, victims or potential victims of domestic violence, children without parental care and HIV/AIDS sufferers. The government programme had set out a number of extremely clear objectives, which were being implemented. Since 2009, with a view to the better targeting of non-contributory benefits, an ongoing effort had been in place to develop the social aids system. This system was based on means-tested benefits, thus marking a break from a category-based approach, and was in line with policy in most countries which aim to have a properly performing welfare system. After three years of implementation of this system, the allocation in the 2011 budget for such aids was 3.4 times higher than before, and the system was now visibly more effective. Under this system, some 68% of resources were now being targeted on the least-favoured strata, as opposed to 17% under the previous system of individual benefits.

Concerning the development of social services, Mr PISTINCIUC said that a strategy was in place for the creation of an integrated social services system. Over the period 2010-2011, the accent had been on developing services for the disabled, on the basis of the deinstitutionalisation of this group and the provisions of the action plan for human rights. The strategy entailed creating a consolidated system with some 100 service units throughout the country.

D-MD\893718\EN 36/46 PE 467.637 EN A series of reforms had been carried out relating to pensions. Pension conditions had been equalised for certain groups of pensioners who had previously had privileged status: this had proved a painful reform and had provoked heated discussions. Further major reforms were slated for the future: there would be a root-and-branch overhaul of the entire Moldovan pensions system, with a view to improving the indicators for the replacement rate and the system’s financial sustainability; it was hoped that the shortfall in the welfare system could be made good by means of budget transfers. The last year had seen a focus on various at-risk groups at national level. Stricter measures were in place to fight human trafficking and illegal immigration. A new national reference strategy had been established to follow up those measures and other social protection actions, and for the first time Moldova had registered progress on these matters in terms of its ranking among the countries of origin of the trafficking phenomenon.

Mr PISTINCIUC added that policy towards the disabled would be reformed when possible. The previous year had witnessed ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. A number of actions needed to be carried out to bring Moldova into line with that Convention in an initial phase. Work was being done on modifying the basic provisions on disability and establishing social services. Next year, Moldova would submit a voluntary report to the UN committee responsible for the Convention’s implementation. The government was now considering new legislation on the social inclusion of the disabled.

Special attention was being paid to combating abusive phenomena such as domestic violence. In 2010, a series of legislative amendments had been tabled proposing tougher penalties for domestic violence and introducing arrangements for protecting victims. These were priorities for the medium term. The most urgent priorities were to create a more efficient system of non- contributory benefits and to reform the pensions system (the latter task had been postponed for over eight years now).

Mr PETCOV, at Ms MACOVEI’s request, made it clear which party he belonged to. He then asked Mr PISTINCIUC to comment on the official statistics according to which total employment had recently fallen by 108 000. Mr PETCOV asked what problems this was likely to give rise to.

Mr PISTINCIUC said in reply that the state of the labour market certainly posed a challenge, but the facts should not be taken out of context. Between 2005 and 2010 (a period straddling two governments) the labour market had contracted, with 413 000 jobs being lost. It should not be a structural conclusion from this that more than 100 000 people could simply fall out of the active economy in the space of a single year. Adverse factors could induce workers to move from one sector to another. He stressed that the official statistics needed to be read in terms of the context in which they were drawn up. Workers did change activity. The number of pensioners was rising fast; Moldova’s welfare system offered diverse forms of modest financial compensation. There were currently some 1.1 million people in Moldova who were covered by the social protection system, with pensioners numbering approximately 770 000 and the disabled 175 000. With regard to the labour market, the data obtained by the National Agency for Employment pointed to a gentle fall (about 7%) in unemployment over the last few months, and to a slight increase in job offers, albeit mostly in the public sector.

Ms ȘUPAC said that between the previous and the present year the total budget allocation for vulnerable social groups had fallen from 137 million to a mere 3 million lei. The revision of

D-MD\893718\EN 37/46 PE 467.637 EN the rules governing welfare had slashed the number of recipients, in a single year, from 580 000 to 27 000. She did not believe that 553 000 people had managed to raise their living standards and cease to need state aid in the space of a year. In the field of education, she said the government planned to carry out maintenance and improvement work on 370 village schools, which would therefore not be open for classes - this at a time when, according to UNICEF, one in ten Moldovan children, or 38 000 children of school age, are not attending school. The authorities had not earmarked any funds for the travel expenses of those children who would now be obliged to attend schools away from their place of residence, even where it was known that they would have to travel miles. Civil service staff cuts and pay freezes, a higher retirement age and the abolition of concessions for internal collaborators: all these measures pointed to a policy not of social protection but of social deterioration.

Ms GUȚU expressed the view that the social reforms should be correlated with the new approach to social welfare. Of a total population of 3.5 million, one million people were beneficiaries of welfare programmes. At a time of global crisis, welfare dependency could not be encouraged any more. With regard to educational reform, for the past eleven years Moldova had been stuck in a demographic black hole: it was not possible to tolerate a situation in which schools were kept in existence when they had more teachers than pupils. This was a reform which should already have been launched when the Communist Party was were in power: in reality, she believed, today’s contradictions were the result of the Communist government’s failure to act during its eight years in power. Regarding the increase in the contribution period for the social fund - a measure affecting all Moldovan citizens, politicians included - Mrs GUȚU said this was a development to be welcomed: there were politicians who retired at 36 or 38 and were perfectly healthy, and continued to live off the state drawing pensions that were far higher than some civil servants’ salaries.

Mr CIOBANU said it was necessary to move from a rudimentary and stagnant system which encouraged welfare dependency to a different economic system, that was based on the European model and was oriented towards enterprise. For this, Moldova would need the EU’s support. The voters knew what that rudimentary system was like, with its dependency culture, and needed no encouragement. Only with the support of a different economic system, viewed as a model, could Moldova’s problems in this area be resolved.

Mr VACARCIUC said that expenditure reform had begun in 2008, when the Communist Party was still in power. There had been no attempt to prepare society or local authorities for a 20% cut in the national budget, coming at a time of deep recession. Over the last two years, pensions and wages had not been cut, as had been the case in the neighbouring countries; in fact, they had risen slightly.

In reply to the question as to when Moldova might be able to undertake a transition to non- state pension funds and alternative pension and health insurance systems in terms of strategy and timeframes, Mr PISTINCIUC said that on the technical level the country was already ready. All necessary feasibility studies had been carried out together with the development partners, a World Bank team of experts and the EU. In terms of time, there would be a transition period for pensions of four to five years. Should it be decided to secure greater accumulation and a significant increase for pensions, the period would still not exceed five years, but much would depend on the degree of political stability. It would not be possible to debate or vote on the legislative package on pensions in the pre-election period (elections are in two years’ time). Mr PISTINCIUC stressed that the current period was one of transition, recalling that the state pension system will have to be restructured and additional guarantee

D-MD\893718\EN 38/46 PE 467.637 EN funds will therefore be necessary. The first phase of technical implementation for these measures would require two years, and the second, four. With regard to the budget, he stressed that the welfare benefits in existence were of a varied nature. In 2010, there had been over 300 million lei more in circulation in the welfare system than in 2009: this was not necessarily a good thing. 2011 had seen an end to the index-linking of benefits, and the annual budget stood at 290 million lei. The social aid budget stood at approximately 400 million lei, as opposed to 117 million in 2009. Cuts had been applied to less important welfare benefits, while others had received increased funding.

Ms MACOVEI announced that there would be a thirty-minute break during which the two delegations could separately negotiate amendments, following which they would be put to the vote.

The sitting was interrupted at 10:30 on 26 November

******

The members of the delegations examined the recommendations and the amendments.

******

The sitting resumed at 11:00 on 26 November

7. Discussion and adoption of recommendations

Ms MACOVEI proposed to read the tabled amendments and to proceed with voting on every of them. The adoption of amendments was subject to the majority of votes of the two Moldovan and EP components of the PCC. Both Moldovan (MD) and EP delegations, made up of respectively 12 and 4 Members agreed on this procedure.

Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 3, with the amendment tabled Ms ŽDANOKA, as follows:

3. calls on the European Commission and the Moldovan authorities to ensure that the negotiations on the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) shall start before the end of 2011, in line with the European Parliament Resolution of September 15, 2011 and previous Recommendations; states that the early negotiation of the DCFTA as a component part of the Association Agreement shall promote economic integration of the Republic of Moldova into the EU and to attract foreign investments, increase productivity, reduce dependence on foreign remittances and help create competitive export-based market economy; recalls that the DCFTA covers as well the Transnistrian region, as an integral part of the Republic of Moldova.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 for, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

The amendment from the paragraph 5 proposed by Ms SUPAC was unanimously adopted, as following:

D-MD\893718\EN 39/46 PE 467.637 EN 5. welcomes the efforts and strong support provided to the Republic of Moldova by the European Parliament and welcomes the adoption on 15 September 2011 of the Resolution including recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations between the EU and the Republic of Moldova on the Association Agreement;

The amendment from the paragraph 7 jointly tabled by Ms MACOVEI and Ms ŽDANOKA was unanimously adopted, as following:

7. agrees with the necessity of the strategic review of the European Neighbourhood Policy, expressed in the Joint Communication of the European Commission and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on “A new response to a changing Neighbourhood” of 25 May 2011; welcomes the much higher level of differentiation among Eastern Partners and considers that the Republic of Moldova should benefit from the much higher level of differentiation among Eastern Partners and this new approach, taking into account its firm determination to implement reforms and commitment to European values;

The amendment from the paragraph 8 proposed by Ms SUPAC was unanimously adopted, as following:

8. considers that the allocation of funds among the states included in the European Neighbourhood Policy should be made on a merit-based approach, following the concrete results achieved in the implementation of reforms; believes that the EU principle of “more for more”, more funds for more reform, should enable the Republic of Moldova to consolidate its position as a successful example of EU’s Eastern Partnership and should stimulate the Moldovan authorities to accelerate the implementation process of the necessary reforms;

The amendment from the paragraph 9 jointly tabled by Ms MACOVEI and Ms ŽDANOKA was adopted with unanimity, as following:

9. welcomes the fact that the Eastern Partnership has created a meaningful political framework for deepening multilateral relations, while accelerating political association processes; welcomes reiterates the positive role played by the RM in the Eastern Partnership where the Eastern European Partners are linked by recalling the strong geographical, historical and cultural ties with the EU between the RM and the EU;

Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 12, with the amendment tabled Ms SUPAC, as follows:

12. urges the Moldovan authorities to finalize by the end of 2012 the implementation of the measures contained in the RM - EU Action Plan in the area of the visa liberalization regime, officially presented on 24 January 2011; urges the Moldovan authorities to continue the implementation of sustainable reforms in the areas highlighted in the Commission’s first progress report of September 2011 in particular the fight against corruption, combating organized crime, and data protection; welcomes the progress made by the Republic of Moldova in the modification and adjustment of the national legal framework to the EU norms and standards in the area of justice and home affairs; insists on the need to modify and adjust the national legal framework to the EU norms and standards in the area of justice and home affairs;

D-MD\893718\EN 40/46 PE 467.637 EN The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled Ms SUPAC, proposing the deletion of the paragraph 16. The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 22, with the amendment tabled Ms SUPAC, as follows:

22. welcomes the firm pro-European commitment and the comprehensive reform program of the Government of the Republic of Moldova and underlines the importance notes the reform program of the Government of the Republic of Moldova and stresses the importance of implementing and consolidating the initiated reforms; welcomes the adoption by the Commission as of July 2011 of the Annual Action Programme for the Republic of Moldova and recalls that parts of the 78,6 million Euro package must be directed towards the accelaration of sustainable reform of the justice sector and the increase of its efficiency; calls for coordinated action on behalf of the EU and other development partners to support such reforms;

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 23, with the amendment tabled Ms SUPAC, as follows:

23. calls on all political parties to strengthen the current dialogue, given that political stability in the country is essential for the continuation of the reform process reform implementation; calls on Moldova's political leadership to find a solution to overcome the current constitutional stalemate and avoid early parliamentary elections; calls on all political parties to strengthen the current dialogue given that political stability in the country is essential for the continuation of the reform implementation.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms FUSU withdrew her proposal for amending the paragraph 24, considering the amendment tabled by Ms MACOVEI. The latter proposed to insert and read the following text, as a new paragraph 25:

25. calls on the Moldovan Authorities to continue the full, transparent and impartial investigation of the events of April 2009; recommends that further findings are made public and calls on competent national institutions to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crimes and severe violations of human rights during the riots and street protests that followed the 5 April 2009 elections;

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI proposed to vote on a compromise amendment as regards the paragraph 24, inserting "to implement" into the following text as proposed by Ms SUPAC, but without deleting "to continue":

24. calls on Moldovan authorities to continue to implement the domestic reforms, thus improving the business and investment climate, which is important for sustainable economic growth; notes the importance of focusing efforts in the field of strengthening the rule of law and the good governance, the judicial reform, the prosecution and police, fighting corruption;

D-MD\893718\EN 41/46 PE 467.637 EN This compromise amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled by Mr SERGIU, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Warns the Moldovan authorities on the need to respect the Constitution and non- admission of the delay of the electing procedure of the President of the Republic of Moldova in order not to be blamed of the attempt of usurpation of the state power.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Mr TODUA withdrew the amendment proposing the deletion of the paragraph 26.

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled Mr SERGIU, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Shows concern of the attempt to politically subject the Constitutional Court.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI proposed to split the amendment as regards the paragraph 27, tabled by Ms FUSU. She read the first part of the amended paragraph as follows:

27. welcomes the progress made concerning the freedom of expression and the freedom of media and insists that its independence is a priority; encourages the authorities of the RM to strengthen and support a pluralistic media climate, to ensure the independence of public broadcasting in the RM, which will improve the transparency of the political decision- making process; stresses the importance of approximation with EU standards concerning the freedom of media and pluralism;

The amendment regarding this first part was adopted with unanimity. Ms MACOVEI then read the second part of the amended paragraph, as follows: avoidance of the media focusing within the property of certain economic or politic interest groups and the transparency assurance of this process; encourages the European Commission to help developing the digital television and prepare the technical support for the successful completion of the digitalization of the television in 2015.

The amendment regarding this second part was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms SUPAC withdrew her proposal for amending the paragraph 27.

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled by Mr SERGIU, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Shows concern of the actions of the authorities towards the intimidation of opposition by ignoring its rights and initiating several political cases etc.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

D-MD\893718\EN 42/46 PE 467.637 EN Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 28, with the amendment tabled by Mr CIOBANU, as follows:

28. stresses the need for calls on the Moldovan Government to pay increased attention to the situation of the disadvantaged social categories and to take urgent measures to combat poverty and social exclusion;

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

The amendment tabled by Mr SERGIU and referring to the elucidation on the events of 7 April 2009 was withdrawn.

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled Mr PETCOV, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Calls on the Moldovan authorities not to admit under any circumstances discrimination of the Republic of Moldova citizens, holders of soviet identification documents; manifests concern on possible deprivation of the right to vote of this segment of citizens – around 330 thousand people.

Ms ŽDANOKA expressed support to this amendment. The amendment was rejected (EP: 1 for, 3 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendments tabled Mr PETCOV, proposing the insertion of three other additional paragraphs, as follows:

Welcomes the commitment of the Moldovan authorities to modernize the broadcasting legislation, insists on the non-admission of political influence and parliamentary majority control over this field. In this context, insists on returning to the manner of naming the members of the Broadcasting Coordinating Council, as well as the members of the Supervisory Board of the National Public Broadcaster Moldova-1, so that they are named following the broadest consensus between the representatives of the parliament.

Manifests concern on the multiple informed cases of unauthorized access to personal data, these cases being classified as flagrant breach of human rights.

Manifests concern for the official statements on sharing judicial bodies on political criteria and considers them anti-democratic, undermining the rule of law principles.

These amendments were rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI proposed to split the amendment tabled by Mr PETCOV proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph. She read the first part of the new paragraph as follows:

Considers intolerant the practices of breaching children’s rights, including the children’s rights to education;

The amendment regarding this first part was rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against). Ms

D-MD\893718\EN 43/46 PE 467.637 EN MACOVEI then read the second part of the new paragraph, as follows: calls on the Moldovan authorities to strictly take into account the conclusions of the Ombudsman for Children’s Rights.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 for, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendments tabled Mr PETCOV, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Is concerned about Moldovan weapons sales in conflict regions, welcomes the unanimous decision of the Moldovan Parliament on the constitution of an Inquiry Commission on latest weapons transactions; considers that any armament sales can take place only with strict respect of legal norms, as well as international inspections shall be allowed, in order any possibility of illegal weapons traffic not to be admitted.

The amendment was rejected (EP: 1 for, 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI proposed to vote on a compromise amendment as regards the insertion of a new paragraph proposed by Mr TODUA while considering deletions:

Calls not to adopt the laws, which directly or indirectly discriminate representative of the national communities (national minorities), which compose no less 27% in the Republic of Moldova, according to national, linguistic or other principles

The amendment was rejected (EP: 4 for, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled by Mr TODUA, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Calls not to admit limitation of functioning of the Russian language, which exercises the function of the language on interethnic communication;

The amendment was rejected (EP: 3 against, 1 abstention, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms FUSU withdrew her proposal for amending the paragraph 31.

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled by Mr KOWAL, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows:

Welcomes the renewed cross-border cooperation between Moldova and Ukraine which serves as a good example for other Eastern Partnership countries.

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendments tabled by Mr TODUA, proposing the insertion of two additional paragraphs, as follows:

D-MD\893718\EN 44/46 PE 467.637 EN Express concerns as regards the declarations of president of Romania, which directly or indirectly leave in doubt the right for existence of the independent and sovereign state the Republic of Moldova;

Calls the Romanian authorities to initiate, in the reasonable terms, the procedure of preparedness and signing of the Basic Treaty and Treaty on frontier with the Republic of Moldova;

Those amendments were rejected (EP: 4 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms ŽDANOKA withdrew her proposal for amending the paragraph 34.

Ms MACOVEI proposed to vote on a compromise amendment as regards the insertion of a new paragraph proposed by Mr SERBIU while considering shifts in the text: warns encourages the authorities on the need to provide logistic and financial support to the localities on the left side of Nistru river, under the jurisdiction of the RM in order not to admit straining situation to avoid tensions and not to encourage the citizens to apply for the so- called Transnistrian citizenship.

The compromise amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 36, with the amendment tabled by Ms BĂSESCU, as follows:

36. welcomes the continued commitment of the Moldovan authorities to find a solution to the Transnistrian region situation by peaceful means, in the 5+2 format, in accordance with the principles of respect for the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova; notes the informal consultations in the 5+2 format in 21 June and 22 September 2011 in Moscow; notes the signature of the common declaration on 21 of November by officials from Chisinau and Tiraspol which provides a permanent character to the official negotiations in the 5+2 format, expects the first round of official negotiations in the 5+2 format for the settlement of the Transnistrian conflict, scheduled from 30 November to 01 December 2011 in Vilnius, to be a significant step forward for the settlement; welcomes the support of the European Union for the peaceful resolution of this conflict.

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 37, with the amendment tabled by herself and Ms ŽDANOKA, as follows:

37. calls on the European Commission, the EU Member States and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and all the other parties involved to increase diplomatic efforts aimed at the withdrawal of to withdraw the Russian military troops from the sovereign territory of the Republic of Moldova, in accordance with the international commitments assumed by the Russian Federation at the OSCE summit in Istanbul in 1999, which will open clear perspectives on the settlement of the Transnistrian issue;

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

D-MD\893718\EN 45/46 PE 467.637 EN Ms MACOVEI read the paragraph 3, with the amendment tabled by Ms ŽDANOKA, as follows:

38. calls for the adoption of confidence-building measures, including the joint definition of rehabilitation programs and the promotion of people-to-people contacts, with a view to strengthening civil society and cultural exchanges, taking into account that there is no actual conflict on the ground of the Transnistrian region;

The amendment was rejected (EP: 1 for, 3 against, MD: 4 for, 8 against).

Ms MACOVEI presented the amendment tabled by Ms BĂSESCU, proposing the insertion of an additional paragraph, as follows: welcomes the decision to create a working group to oversee the law enforcement activity as well as the intention to organize official talks between experts from Chisinau and Tiraspol in order to solve the problem of telephone and postal connection, and the use of radio waves.

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI proposed to vote on a compromise amendment as regards the insertion of a new paragraph proposed by Mr PETCOV while considering shifts in the text: welcomes the progress on the availability of all parties to resume the negotiations in the 5+2 format, recalls that one of the basic principles of the European Union is the right to free movement. In this context, calls on all the participants of the negotiation process, especially EU and OSCE to make sustained efforts in order not to admit the violation of the right to free movement of the citizens on the entire territory of the Republic of Moldova, to make sustained efforts and to eliminate all the imposed barriers towards the citizens, willing to move freely and unchecked and to allow the free movement on both sides of the Nistru river.

The amendment was adopted with unanimity.

Ms MACOVEI proposed to proceed with the final vote of the whole resolution.

The resolution was adopted with 8 votes in favour and 4 against within the Moldovan delegation, and 4 in favour within the EP delegation.

8. Date and place of next meeting

Ms FUSU announced that the next meeting of the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee would be held in the first half of 2012, at a date still to be set, in Brussels.

D-MD\893718\EN 46/46 PE 467.637 EN