082353/EU XXIV. GP
Eingelangt am 24/05/12
COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 23 May 2012
10332/12
PE
COEST
COHOM
NOTE
from:
to:
Subject :
223
169
118
General Secretariat of the Council
Delegations
European Parliament Plenary session in Strasbourg on 22 May 2012 - Situation
in Ukraine, case of Yulia Tymoshenko (debate)
Mr Füle, on behalf of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,
Ms Ashton, delivered the speech set out in the Annex.
For the political groups, the following speakers took the floor:
•
Mr Brok (EPP, DE) underlined that a comprehensive rule of law and democracy were
prerequisites for a country with an EU perspective. He pointed out the systemic problem
of politically motivated sentences which meant that the opposition would not be in a
position to take part in the next elections, which could not therefore be free and fair.
•
Mr Rouček (S&D, CZ) also highlighted serious deficiencies in the Ukrainian legal
system. He acknowledged that some reforms (e.g. the code of criminal procedure) had
taken place, but more needed to be done and he called for the entire legal system to be
reformed. As to Ms Tymoshenko's case, he underlined that it should be handled so as to
ensure that her release was in accordance with both international and Ukrainian law.
10332/12
ID/nr
DRI
1
EN
•
Mr van Baalen (ALDE, NL) said that Ukraine was at a cross-roads, and would either
become a dictatorship such as Belarus or a modern democracy. He acknowledged some
progress on the rule of law, but in his view this was limited. In this context, he
considered the Tymoshenko case as a sort of a test case. He opposed the boycott of the
Euro 2012 Football Championship, as he saw it as an opportunity to draw attention to
the human rights situation in Ukraine. He hoped that the forthcoming elections would be
free and fair, and mentioned the issue of homosexuals.
•
Ms Harms (Greens/EFA, DE) highlighted the systematic persecution of high-ranking
individuals from opposition parties. As regards the boycott, she called for a political
boycott of Ukraine itself including its President (but not affecting its citizens) and hoped
that the problem of selective justice would be resolved before the games started. She
added that the forthcoming elections had to demonstrate that there had been movement
towards meeting the EU's demands on the rule of law and the participation of the
opposition in elections.
•
Mr Kowal (ECR, PL) focused on the reforms of the judiciary and local government and
called for the situation of sentenced people to be resolved. He also stressed that the EP
should send a delegation to monitor the next elections and invited Mr Füle to join it.
•
Mr Ziobro (EFD, PL) expressed his concerns about Ukrainian human rights' issues. He
questioned the link between boycotting Euro 2012, improving local democratic
standards and resolving the Tymoshenko case, and believed that the boycott could
simply push Ukraine into the hands of Russians. He pointed out that the Ukrainian
opposition did not support the boycott either, as Euro 2012 represented an opportunity
for Ukraine to become more European.
•
Mr Kohlíček (GUE/NGL, CZ) criticised the tendency to link Euro 2012 with the
Tymoshenko case. He disapproved of the special conditions of imprisonment and
treatment for privileged people and the granting of political asylum to oligarchs.
•
Mr Mölzer (NI, AT) said that neither the release of Ms Tymoshenko nor reform in
Ukraine would be achieved through political pressure, and saw a risk that people would
see it as an unacceptable imposition from Brussels. Furthermore, he questioned whether
the EU's relations with Ukraine should be based on the Tymoshenko case.
10332/12
ID/nr
DRI
2
EN
A large number of members took the floor during the subsequent discussion and a large number
raised blue cards. Most MEPs referred to the issues of democracy and violations of human rights
and the rule of law, with several cases being mentioned, including that of Ms Tymoshenko. Mr
Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (EPP, ES), together with Mr Tabajdi (S&D, HU), considered that in
these circumstances the Association Agreement with Ukraine should not be signed and ratified.
Ms Bozkurt (S&D, NL) added that the EU should be clear as to the consequences when the
commitments under the Agreement were not respected. Selective justice and a lack of
differentiation between criminal and political responsibility was also condemned (Mr Vigenin
(S&D, BG) Ms Roithová (EPP, CZ), Mr Lisek (EPP, PL), Mr Millán Mon (EPP, ES), Mr Kukan
(EPP, SK), Ms Ibrisagic (EPP, SE), Mr Mauro (EPP, IT)) and Members called for the independence
and transparency of all judiciary processes.
Members also called for free and fair elections, including the possibility for the opposition to take
part (Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Mr Vigenin, Mr Siwiec (S&D, PL), Mr Kovatchev (EPP, BG),
Mr Grzyb (EPP, PL)) and supported the observers' mission to monitor the elections (Mr Lisek),
even though some were sceptical about achieving this objective (Ms Roithová, Mr Schulz
(Greens/EFA, DE)). Mr Lambsdorff (ALDE, DE) inquired about the next steps of the EEAS in this
area.
As to the boycott of Euro 2012, Members were in general opposed to the idea. Mr Kelly (EPP, IE)
said the measure should be a last resort. Mr Legutko (ECR, PL) said that EU representatives should
go at their own expense. Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra thought that the EU should have a joint and
coordinated response and speak with one voice. Mr Millán Mon was surprised by the lack of
coordination among the EU institutions. Mr Kovatchev considered that Euro 2012 should be used as
an opportunity to promote reform in the country.
Some Members criticised the fact that EU relations and negotiations with Ukraine were being
linked to the case of Ms Tymoshenko. They pointed to the fact that her government, whilst in
power, had had the opportunity to take all the measures which the current Ukrainian government
was being criticised for not taking (Ms Flašíková Beňová (S&D, SK), Mr Vajgl (ALDE, SI)) and
also found it inappropriate to criticise Ukraine for corruption without addressing the issue inside
Member States (Ms Flašíková Beňová, Mr Vigenin).
10332/12
ID/nr
DRI
3
EN
Other issues raised were the memorandum on joint activity between the S&D group and Ukrainian
regional partners, and calls for this activity to stop (preferring instead direct contacts with civil
society); the anti-gay climate and anti-gay law; fears of change to a one-party system; the use of the
Tymoshenko case to block Ukraine's path to the EU, and the EU's engagement that should avoid the
polarisation of the Ukrainian political scene.
In his concluding remarks, Mr Füle reiterated that the EU should do everything possible to help
Ukraine to transform, in line with the legitimate aspirations of the people, but at the same time the
EU should never compromise on its values and principles. Concerning the boycott of Euro 2012, he
reiterated that neither the Council nor the Commission used the word "boycott". He explained that
Mr Barroso had no intention of attending Euro 2012 events in Ukraine and this position was shared
by the College. However, Commissioners could attend in a personal rather than a professional
capacity. As to the elections, he underlined the importance of sending as many observers as possible
as part of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission. Regarding the Tymoshenko case, he
hoped that the Court of Cassation would offer a different picture of justice and the rule of law in
Ukraine. He said that the case should not slow down the association process, but Ukraine should
show respect for the spirit of the Association Agreement before the EU allowed it to enter into
force.
_______________
10332/12
ID/nr
DRI
4
EN
Check against delivery
ANNEX
Speech by Mr Füle on the situation in Ukraine, case of Yulia Tymoshenko, Plenary session of
the European Parliament, 22 May 2012
Mr President, honourable Members – and Yevgenia, it is very nice to see you out there – the
European Union has expressed its indignation at the use of selective justice in Ukraine on a number
of occasions over the past year.
The statements from Brussels and from Member States, and the messages passed directly to the
authorities in Kiev, refer not only to the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, but also to cases against
members of the former government such as Mr Lutsenko and others. Politically motivated justice is
a systemic problem in Ukraine, and it needs a systemic solution in the shape of comprehensive
judicial reform.
We have indicated to the Ukrainian authorities that a first step towards regaining confidence would
be to ensure an environment conducive to Ms Tymoshenko’s recovery, whether inside or outside
Ukraine, and I am glad that President Schulz and Prime Minister Azarov agreed last week that the
European Parliament would play an important role in this respect.
Access to independent visitors is especially important if we are to build a clear picture of former
Prime Minister Tymoshenko’s situation, and in this respect I welcome recent visits, including by
Members of the European Parliament. Most important, in terms of Ms Tymoshenko’s legal rights, is
that Ukraine’s Court of Cassation should announce its decision on her case at the end of June, and
that the European Court of Human Rights can announce its own decision shortly afterwards. This
also applies in the case of Mr Lutsenko, whose sentence was recently upheld on appeal.
Any future trials should strictly respect the provisions of the new Ukrainian Code of Criminal
Procedure, thus providing for equality between defence and prosecution, and should operate without
pre-trial detention.
Our concern about selective justice remains strong. Last Tuesday, at the Cooperation Council with
Ukraine, we clearly set out to Prime Minister Azarov how we believe Ukraine can get back on the
road to political association. The political relationship between the European Union and Ukraine
will not improve without firm commitments and an effective demonstration that the rule of law and
respect for fundamental values are applied systematically in Ukraine.
We have repeatedly stressed to our Ukrainian partners that we will not be able to move towards
signing our association agreement if they cannot show that they live in the spirit of political
association. To this end, we expect Ukraine to make visible progress. The recent adoption of the
new Code of Criminal Procedure in Ukraine was certainly a step forward, and it should improve the
quality of future prosecutions and trials. However, Ms Tymoshenko and other victims of politically
motivated justice have already been sentenced. Action to reform the Criminal Code, defining what
is to be considered a criminal offence, is needed to get to the heart of this problem.
10332/12
ANNEX
ID/nr
DRI
5
EN
Check against delivery
I welcome the initiative taken by President Schulz in asking Prime Minister Azarov to accept that a
person of high international repute be sent on behalf of the European Parliament to observe the
second trial, with full access to judges, lawyers and documents. The parliamentary elections in
October will also be an important test. We will observe very closely the conditions in which the
electoral campaign and the voting process proceed. It is important, if Ukraine wants to fulfil its
European aspirations, that the elections should be free and fair beyond doubt.
I also wish to mention the European Parliament resolutions calling on the Commission to support
judicial reform in Ukraine. In December last year the Commission signed a financing agreement of
EUR 10 million with Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice. It aims to accelerate sustainable reforms in the
justice sector in Ukraine, with a particular focus on criminal justice reforms. We have also recently
agreed to engage with Ukraine in an informal dialogue on judiciary reform, drawing on the
expertise of the Council of Europe.
To summarise, what we expect from Ukraine before we can once again move forward is: firstly, a
concrete strategy to redress the effect of selective justice and prevent any recurrence of it; secondly,
free and fair elections; and thirdly, the resumption of delayed reforms already agreed in the joint
EU-Ukraine ‘Association Agenda’ which has now been in force for two years.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing your views.
_______________
10332/12
ANNEX
ID/nr
DRI
6
EN