[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182
EU-RUSSIA PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION
14 – 17 April 2002
MOSCOW AND SAMARA
Bart STAES, Chairman
30 April 2002
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 2
Sunday, 14 April 2002
14h00 Meeting with Mr SAMODUROV, Director of Sakharov Museum
and visit of Sakharov Museum
Mr Samodurov outlined the work of the Museum, which continues the work of Andrei
Sakharov. In particular the funding problems of the museum were discussed.
16h00 Staff meeting
19h00 Meetings with NGOs (arranged by the EU Commission delegation office in
The delegation met Svetlana Alekseevna GANNUSHKINA, Human Rights Centre ‘Memorial’;
Oleg Petrovich ORLOV, Human Rights Centre ‘Memorial’; Aleksandr Konstaninovich
NIKITIN, Ecological Centre ‘Bellona’; Philippe Royan, ECHO and Boris PANTELEYEV,
Russian Union of Journalists, Centre for Journalism in Extreme Situations.
Giving an overview of the activities of ECHO in Chechnya, acting for the EU, the biggest single
cash donor in the region, Mr ROYAN described the difficulties of operating out of Moscow
with local staff on the spot and access of expatriate experts and workers still extremely difficult.
He underlined the need for those experts in the field to have the possibility of supervising and
controlling their operations, and having access to radio equipment and frequencies to build up
communications. He also raised the problem of not having a VAT exception for foodstuff and
aid being delivered to refugee camps, and the administrative obstacles encountered with the
importation of medical help/all pharmaceuticals.
Referring to a request by Lord BETHELL to explain to the delegation their perception of the
role of President Putin, and to questions by Mr PAASILINNA and Mr KRONBERGER, Mrs
GANNUSHKINA commented on the situation of migration in the Russian Federation. Mr
ORLOV described the new vertical structure of power being established by the Kremlin, and
described the situation in Chechnya as a guerrilla war. It could end either in victory or in
dialogue. Victory now was impossible since it would mean genocide. He therefore
recommended a cease-fire as a first step to stop the violence, followed by talks with all political
groups in Chechnya.
Mr NIKITIN underlined the need for finding a solution for Chechnya by means of general
elections, and commented on the different cases of environmentalists harassed by legal actions
based on secret presidential decrees, in particular the Plasko case. He characterised the Putin
administration as streamlining the government to economic success and stability, without much
concern for constitutional, environmental, or human rights issues.
Mr PANTALEYEV raised the free speech issue, as being guaranteed by the Russian
constitution, but not existing in reality. Mrs GANNUSHKINA raised the matter of racism.
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 3
On the Chairman's request of the Parliament’s proposal of sending a delegation to Chechnya, the
NGOs agreed the possibility and in particular the usefulness and political need of such a visit in
the Northern Caucasus. They insisted that any progress in the field of human rights was due to
NGO and international pressure, as for example Presidential Order 80 about the identifiability of
security forces when intervening in mopping up operations. This came as a result of such a
combined effort, after two and a half years, and still is only respected in about 30 % of
operations. The NGOs considered that the Chechen State Duma member Askachanov was trying
to do his best but was helpless.
Monday, 15 April 2002
8h30-9h30 Briefing by the Spanish Ambassador to the Russian Federation,
representing the Presidency of the European Union, together with other
The increased political stability and economic recovery of Russia were stressed - although
President Putin had stated that there should be economic growth of 5-6% rather than the
government forecast of 3-4%. Important legislative reforms were being enacted. The EU's goal
was to have a stable and democratic Russia that was integrated into a common European space
with regulatory convergence between the two. At present the EU represented 35% of Russia's
trade and this would increase to 50% after enlargement.
The government was actively concentrating on legislation to promote small and medium
enterprises, which were currently 800,000 in number, representing 14% of GDP. There had been
a radical proposal to abolish all taxes for them except an overall tax of 8% on turnover or 20%
The present Duma was elected in December 1999. The Kremlin had been able to operate with
the support of a centre left or centre right majority. The pro-Kremlin majority had deprived the
Communists of control over the Duma secretariat although the Communist President of
Parliament Mr Seleznyov had decided to retain his position (and privileges!)
The bureaucracy remained a problem, as there were as vast numbers of officials who had the
same mentality as in Soviet times and were operating to the same rules as had existed in that
The EU-Russia energy dialogue, which had begun in October 2000, was moving into a more
concrete phase. The Russian population was afraid of increased gas and electricity prices, which
were currently artificially low and should be two to three times higher. However this would
cause severe social problems, particularly as the income of Russian citizens had not increased
between 1999 and 2001 despite the economic growth.
President Putin had struck a bargain with the oligarchs that he would not examine too closely
how they had made their money. In return they would not interfere in politics. Only the press
barons Guzinsky and Berezovsky had not accepted this.
Russia saw Kaliningrad as a test case for EU-Russia relations and its attention was focussed on
the visa issue. Moscow was coming forward with concrete proposals in defence and common
security issues, including de-mining in Afghanistan and help in the fight against organised
crime. There was also cooperation on nuclear safety. EU assistance to Russia via TACIS
amounted to EUR 2.4bn over ten years.
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 4
Fighting in Chechnya was largely "hit and run" operations. There was a problem of lawlessness
among the Russian military, which was often unpaid and forced to live off the land. This had
prompted moves to sharpen discipline. The Russian government claimed that Russian troops
were not trained to fight in conflicts such as the current one. Russian-Chechen contacts were not
progressing, particularly as it was unclear who could deliver a deal on the Chechen side.
Military reform was a key issue with 50 million people dependent on the military. There were
attempts to persuade officers to accept higher salaries in return for obliging them to pay taxes
and lose other privileges.
10h00-11h00 Meeting with Mr PATRUSHEV, Director of the Federal Security Service
Venue: 1/3 Lubyanka Street, (Members only)
The delegation met Mr Patrushev accompanied by Alexander ZHDANKOV, Deputy Director;
Aleksei KUSURA, Michail SHEKIN, Andrei YEGOROV, Ella MALTSEVA, all FSB together
with Vladimir LUKIN, Alexander BELOUSOV, Said ZABITOV, State Duma.
FSB Director PATRUSHEV opened the meeting by referring to the EP resolution of 10 April
2002, and with a lengthy introduction covering FSB achievements in re-establishing internal
security in the North Caucasus region. Commenting on the not overall satisfying international
co-operation with FBI, CIA and MI6 since 11 September 2001, where according to him “double
standards” still prevailed, he referred to the international Working Group under the Command of
General Kusurov, set up to co-ordinate the fight against terrorism. Director Patrushev listed the
number of hospitals, schools, and other public institutions, which have been reopened recently.
Their functioning was proof of a normalisation of civil life in Chechnya. The economic
situation had also been stabilised since the oil wells fires had been extinguished, and now 60
wells were functioning and the economic structure had been restored, including public transport.
He described the enemy structure as “bandit hit and run operation” without strategic back up
Mr PATRUSHEV also referred to the disciplinary problems of troops, a phenomenon, which
could be encountered all over the Russian Federation according to him. He indicates that
measures were now being taken by the Military Prosecution Office, and that in 33 cases
sentences had been passed. District courts had been re-established, and more and more locally
staffed border police were in charge of the permanent checks. Director PATRUSHEV insisted
that the rule of law was about to be restored, and that general elections should follow to create
the necessary institutions and authorities and thus stabilise the region further.
Lord BETHELL put a question concerning the three individual Human Rights cases of the
imprisonment of Mr Titov (MTV), Mr. Obuchov (6 years of imprisonment for espionage) and of
Mr. Pasko (environmentalist publisher). Even though he saw these cases as not being within the
scope of the meeting, Mr PATRUSHEV commented on the co-operation of secret services and
the nevertheless unavoidable counterespionage operations, and responded in detail to the three
cases, going into the legal and procedural arguments and justifications.
There were questions of Mr PAASILINNA on the differences between fighter groups in
Chechnya and of Mr OOSTLANDER concerning the issue of restoring the rule of law and
military discipline in Chechnya. Mr PATRUSHEV answered in a cursory general manner.
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 5
To Chairman STAES’s insistence on the feasibility of sending a parliamentary delegation to
Chechnya and on admitting better technical facilities for ECHO operations in the field, namely
better access to the territory and access to radio communications, Mr PATRUSHEV did not
express any particular opposition in his concluding remarks.
11h00 Meeting with Mr Sergey RAZOV, Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister
Venue: 32/34 Smolenskaya-Sennaya Square
Mr RAZOV stressed that Russia's priority was cooperation with the EU - particularly in areas
such as crisis management, the struggle against terrorism and fighting crime. He supported the
idea of an "Internal Security Council" between EU and Russia.
He believed that the problem of Kaliningrad could be aggravated by enlargement, which would
impact severely on the lives of one million people. This was a problem that was common to both
sides. He favoured policy of no visas for travel and transit. He considered that it would be naive
to see Kaliningrad as either a "Russian Hong Kong" or as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier". He
noted that two thirds of the armed forces in Kaliningrad had gone and the remainder had been
withdrawn into the interior of the territory.
He considered that a "one sided expansion" by the USA of the number of anti-terrorist targets -
such as Iraq - could lead to a crisis in the global anti-terror coalition. He stressed that the
Afghanistan operation was not complete. He warned that anti-American sentiments were
growing among the Russian public, as a result of its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and its
Middle East policy. He stressed that Russia was a Eurasian power - the "Russian eagle looks
both ways" - with a multipolar focus. The prospect of summits with China and India was being
The situation in Chechnya was uneasy and he considered that the EU should show more
understanding of the Russian position. It was a question of safeguarding the territorial integrity
of Russia. Intercepts of Chechen communications by Russian intelligence showed the
ruthlessness of Chechen fighters and their "masters abroad". He agreed to report the problem of
ECHO funded organisations in Chechnya which were not permitted to have access to radio
Mr RAZOV did not object to the sending of an ad-hoc delegation to Chechnya.
13h00 Lunch hosted by Mr Vladimir LUKIN, Vice-Chairman of the State Duma
Venue: State Duma, 1,Okhotny Ryad Street
15.00- Meeting of the PCC working group in the Duma
17.00 Venue: State Duma, 1,Okhotny Ryad Street
Members of the Duma Delegation: Vladimir P. LUKIN, Co-chairman; Alexander N.
BELOUSOV, Valery G. DRAGANOV, Irina M. KHAKAMADA, Vera A. LEKAREVA,
Lyubov N. SHVETS, Leonid E. SLUTSKY
Members of the Federation Council: Alexander EVSTIFEEV, Valentina PETRENKO, Rafgat
ALTYNBAEV, Leonid ROKETSKY, Alexander DONDUKOV, Pavel FEDIRKO
For the EU side the Chairman stressed that the resolution adopted in the European Parliament
the previous week reaffirmed its view that there was no military way to resolve the situation. It
stressed too that human rights were one and indivisible and that all perpetrators of abuses should
be brought to justice and proposed to create a joint working group to monitor the situation and
that there should also be an ad hoc delegation to Chechnya. There should be access to
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 6
frequencies for radio communications of humanitarian agencies. It was also important that the
EU's EUR 65m aid was spent in the correct way. It wanted more information from the Russian
side on the situation, as MEPs were already getting information from bodies such as Amnesty
International, Médecins sans Frontières and Human Rights Watch. It was also stressed that both
sides did "terrible" things.
The Russian side stressed that an ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament could make a
visit to Chechnya - possibly in the form of a joint visit with other bodies. Parliament had based
its resolution on groups with inadequate or outdated information. The question of a joint
working group was more problematic, as such a body already existed in conjunction with the
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Agreeing to such a proposal might open the way
similar groups from many other institutions.
The work being undertaken under ECHO was respected and the Russian authorities would seek
to cooperate with the humanitarian organisations. However their use of radio communications
helped Chechen fighters to intercept Russian communications - this problem needed to be
It underlined that humanitarian work was being carried out - for example dormitories were open
in Grozny for accommodating refugees. Over 100,000 people had returned to the republic.
Crimes committed by the Russian forces were being investigated, although the Prosecutor's
Office needed to work faster. A consultative group for discussing solutions - including a
constitution - had been approved. Within this group all political forces were represented,
including the "so-called opposition". Help from European organisations would be welcome in
this area. Chechnya was an integral part of the Russian Federation and parliamentary elections
could be held in two to three years. The Russian State Duma had helped to promote a
The Russian side stated that it understood the EU's position on the Middle East, with which it
broadly agreed. It stressed the need for the Palestinian people to have their own state and for
Israel to enjoy security. There was a need for a cease-fire, intensive talks, Israeli withdrawal
from the occupied territories and the sending of an international police force. The EU side
stressed that the Union should seek to speak as far as possible with one voice and that it should
avoid being simply a satellite of the USA. Russia and the EU should work together on issues
such as the Middle East.
The Russian side stated that Russia would not become a NATO member but there was a need to
build new machinery for Russia-NATO cooperation on the basis of equality - a NATO-Russia
Council that would discuss issues such as peacekeeping missions and fighting terrorism, sharing
intelligence and monitoring weapons of mass destruction.
The EU side stressed that enlargement would help to promote order and stability in Europe and
it was important that there should not be any new walls across the continent. A trans-border
element was therefore desirable. Kaliningrad was a tiny part of Russia but was an area where the
EU and Russia could co-operate.
The EU side stressed that the October summit in Paris would provide an opportunity to examine
the energy dialogue, which represented a positive development that paralleled the political
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 7
dialogue. It was noted that the role of Russian gas exports to the EU was increasing, although
electricity exports were still limited. The EU needed Russia as a secure and reliable supplier but
the rules of fair competition had to prevail. Key issues included the importance of ensuring
physical security; having long term supply contracts; a new transport infrastructure, a
reinforcement of cooperation in energy science and technology; study into possibilities for
energy saving and renewable energy. Russia and the EU were interdependent as supplier and
consumer. Any energy policy should abandon the "over-optimistic" production figures put
forward by energy companies.
The Russian side agreed that energy dependence would grow as a result of globalisation.
Political partnership in the energy field was also important, in view of Russia's future
membership of the WTO. Problems in the ratification of the Energy Charter were highlighted,
such as the absence of a mechanism for fighting unlawful acts. There was a need to intensify the
dialogue. If these problems could be overcome there was great potential for energy cooperation.
Russia was doing a great deal to enable it to join the WTO - at present 91% of its commercial
activity was covered by the WTO.
The EU side was unhappy at restrictions on a free press, with the closure of TV channels amid
claims that the owners had not paid tax. This was a great loss as the growth of a free media had
been one of the great achievements at the end of the USSR.
The Russian side stressed that freedom of the press existed but that it was not institutionalised.
At an international conference it had been agreed that the legal framework for the media needed
to be changed to attract private investors. There were indications that Messrs Berezovsky and
Guzinsky used their media outlets for their own purposes and the EU should not concentrate
solely on these two cases. Freedom of the press was harder to secure at regional level where
there were fewer safeguards and it was difficult to struggle against regional Governors.
17h30 Leave to the airport
19h05 Flight to Samara via flight E5 749
Tuesday, 16 April 2002
09h30 Visit of the joint-venture company “Eurotekhnika”
The delegation visited the joint German-Russian project JSC "Eurotekhnika" which was
founded in 1998 to provide the Samara region and other Russian regions with high quality
agricultural machinery which meets European requirements.
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 8
11h00 Meeting with V.F. SAZONOV, Chairman of Samara oblast regional Duma
Venue: Samara regional Administration Building
Participants: V.F. SAZONOV, A. BELOUSOV, O.B. DYACHENKO, N.F. MUSATKIN, V.M.
BRYZGALOV, S.N. MATVEEV, S.N. SAVELIEV
MEPs were given an introduction to the work of the regional Duma.
The current Duma was elected in December 2001. It has 25 members and six committees. Its
main task at present is the development of a legal framework for social and economic reforms.
There is good cooperation with the executive and the regional governor. Representatives were
required to work in their constituencies every Wednesday.
A council of representatives exists to bring together the different levels of elected bodies in the
region. On 18-19 April the first workshop would be held with the participation of local
government representatives. This was a means of getting acquainted with the concerns of local
people. In addition an Expert Council would be set up including researchers and representatives
The adoption of a budget law was another major issue. There is the proposal of establishing a
Standing Conciliation Committee to take into account the various needs of the Samara region.
Samara's budget was 15 billion roubles per year making it a donor region in the Russian
Federation (one of only twelve out of 89 regions). It received no subsidies from central
government and, indeed, 45% of its revenue went to Moscow. Its traditional sources of revenue
were income tax and purchase tax. The national Duma determined the balance between federal
and regional taxes and the regional Duma determined the balance between regional and local
taxes. Its major sources of wealth included car manufacturing and the petro-chemical industry.
In order to allow members more chance to keep their electoral promises it was felt that they
should have more power and the opportunity to cooperate with the executive branch. However
at present there was no federal law to deal with this issue. There were areas of shared
competence and it was therefore important for the national Duma to hear from the regional
Dumas. The Samara Duma had a special agreement with Moscow whereby it undertook to
inform the centre of its activities.
The creation of the seven "super" federal districts is the first step towards the reform of public
administration. The federal authorities would examine the EU experience in this matter.
Samara region was economically attractive to investors. The EU absorbed 32% of its trade and
there were joint ventures with western companies such as Coca Cola. There had been around 20
TACIS projects. There was awareness of environmental concerns - a draft law on the protection
of water resources in the region would be adopted in plenary. A Solid Waste Processing plant
was also being built to deal with the problem of household waste. There were plans to build
more such plants.
The European Parliament side stressed the importance of holding meetings outside Moscow. It
noted that the most comprehensive land law in the country had been passed by the Samara
Duma and that the region had one of the lowest rates of unemployment in Russia.
The issue of female representation at decision-making levels was raised and stress was laid on
the benefits that could be derived from studying the progressive approach of the Scandinavian
administrations in this respect. In Finland, for example, there were quotas for men as well as
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 9
The Russians noted that women made up more than 50% of the Duma secretariat, over 70% of
the representation in education and 50% in "decision making" positions. Women also held 15
out of 50 places on the Expert Council. The concept of quotas was, however, rejected. 23 out of
25 Duma representatives were men, nevertheless this was a result of history. The Communists
had introduced quotas for different groups - however this had been a "totalitarian" society.
12h30 Lunch hosted by Samara regional Duma
14h00 Visit to Tacis funded projects in Samara
Department for Social Protection
The department had a large number of staff, however - despite criticism - it actually needed
more personnel. At present there were 17.000 social workers, of whom 87% were women.
Payments had been centralised for 20 years, unlike other regions where the centralised system
had been dismantled. The system had been maintained in Samara because of the personal
position of the governor.
The department had borrowed from European experience through the TACIS programme, by
means of which the United Kingdom, France and Spain had sent experts since 1996. More than
100 staff had been able to study in these three countries and also in some Nordic countries. This
had led to the formation of an association of social workers and an agreement between Samara
and Norfolk Country Council and western universities. There was also a pilot project of social
workers' training centre. The benefits of the cooperation programme had been two-way, with the
western partners benefiting as well. The TACIS programme had led to an increased emphasis on
identification of needs, without which the region would not have had the technical means for
rehabilitation. The help received through TACIS was advertised in such ways as stickers on
wheelchairs. A total of 1,300 staff had been able to train under the TACIS programme.
Work was underway to develop a legal framework to protect the population, especially the
vulnerable sectors. A major problem was that in many cases laws adopted on the eve of an
election campaign were never implemented. Consequently Samara had been obliged to adopt its
own regional laws which aimed to complement federal legislation. One priority here was people
with disabilities and those in need of rehabilitation. There were 212,000 disabled people in the
region and this had led to the development of a partnership with private institutions. A
neurological centre had been inaugurated five months ago which had been co-founded by the
regional administration and a share holding company, including the municipal airport which had
provided six million roubles.
Old people's centre - Samara
Each of the 47 districts in Samara had its own daycare centre, which made it possible to reach
50% of the total population of pensioners. All services including meals in the centre were
provided free at the budgetary expense of about 1 Dollar head/day. The pensioners were able to
engage in cultural activities such as music and other activities such as handicrafts. There was
also a library and a chapel.
Health Care Centre
There were 16.000 GPs in the region, of whom 600 worked in Samara. The centre had been set
up in October 1997 with support from TACIS and the British Department for International
Development. The centre covered a population of 12,800. The specialists were located in a
"polyclinic" that was situated three kilometres away. Currently there were seven GPs - there
should be eight - a figure of one doctor for 1,800 people. 60% of nurses were certified - i.e. they
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 10
had completed postgraduate studies and had several years' experience. Two nurses had qualified
under the TACIS programme in Ireland.
18h00 Classical music concert at Samara philharmonic society
Venue: Samara Philharmonic Society
20h30 Dinner hosted by the Governor of Samara region
Venue: GuestHouse of Samara regional Administration
Wednesday, 17 April 2002
09h30 Meeting Mr K.A. TITOV, Governor of the Samara area
Venue: GuestHouse of Samara regional Administration
Participants: K.A. TITOV, A. BELOUSOV, V. SAZONOV, A.KHASAEV, P. KOROLEV, S.
SAVELIEV, E. HANZHIN, E. MERKULOVA
Mr TITOV stressed that the implementation of the TACIS programmes had made a great
difference to the development of the region - "the EU had not spent its money in vain".
He wanted in particular to develop an effective system for granting mortgages in the region.
This would enable people to apply for real estate loans and then buy their own housing. There
should be training of managers to run real estate funds. He considered too that a law should be
prepared on real estate loans.
Mr TITOV wanted the quality of housing in Russia to be equal to that in the EU. It was
inevitable that tariffs for services would increase. Municipal agencies owned and operated
everything but people often paid for things that they did not use, such as hot water in summer.
There were no metering devices for water and there was a normative value of 280 litres per day
The EU side noted that the Samara region had one of the most extensive land laws in the
country and one of the lowest levels of unemployment. It was pointed out that housing in the
Netherlands for lower income groups was sometimes managed through the support of trade
unions. It was also possible to rent a house and receive subsidies on the rent. This could have
disadvantages, as it was preferable to have a social mix in a district. The poverty trap also came
into play as people could earn more from subsidies than from working. It was important to
ensure that they did not lose all their benefits when they started to earn more. In addition, the
organisation of the settlement of the land represented the oldest form of democracy in the
Netherlands. Farmers should be given the opportunity to buy their land. However it was also
pointed out that housing policy is the responsibility of member states and not the EU. A study
visit for Mr Titov to member states could be arranged.
10h30 Departure to Togliatti city
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 11
11h30 Meeting with Mr Nicolay UTKIN, Mayor and City Council
Venue: 4, Svoboda Sg.
Mr UTKIN noted that Togliatti provided 65% of the Samara regional budget and produced 85%
of the exports of the region. It had a population of 730.000 with an average age of 34 years,
living in three administrative districts. It had never been a "closed" city and had not been
involved in the defence industry. Many foreigners had lived there and the changes of the past 15
years had not created the problems that they had done elsewhere in Russia.
There were two legal personalities in the city - the city mayor-in-office and the city Duma. In
Togliatti the city mayor was not the same person as the chair of the Duma - unlike the situation
in the city of Samara. The Duma could sometimes create difficulties but it was important to
have a system of checks and balances.
There had been support from the TACIS programme and also the United Kingdom's "Know
How Fund". Successful cooperation had taken place with the Netherlands on dairy farms. A
"Britain in Russia" exhibition had attracted 150 companies and a similar exercise - "Finland in
Russia" -would take place shortly. Lessons had been learned on loans to businesses and the
authorities now only provided loans in cases where the business had already raised some money.
In the past some individuals had taken the loans and not carried out their obligations to start up a
The number of people on benefits was lower than the national average. There was a municipal
system of social support - for example 70 veterans had been provided with apartments. Support
was also provided for recreational facilities.
The quality of rubber produced was better than that produced in the USA - white rubber rather
than grey rubber. 90% of rubber was exported. Recycling of used tyres would also be taking
place, based on the example that Mr Utkin had seen in Amiens in France.
The city had celebrated its 170th anniversary. It had previously been known as Stavropol,
however in a referendum the population had voted to retain the name of "Togliatti", although
many had no idea who Mr Togliatti had been.
13h00 Lunch hosted by the City of Togliatti
14h45 Meeting with Mr Alexander DROBOTOV, Chairman of Municipal Duma
Venue: 4, Central square
Mr Drobotov stated that Togliatti had implemented a "classic" scheme of local government that
was fully in line with the Council of Europe Charter on Self-Government. There was an elected
mayor and 17 members were elected in 17 constituencies. This provided checks and balances.
Three were not many TACIS projects in the city, although the authorities would be happy to
have more, particularly in fields such as urban transportation and educational development. The
municipal budget was insufficient to host all the projects. However, TACIS had helped the
development of a wholesale market.
Work was underway to promote a healthy lifestyle among the town's citizens. Drug prevention
programmes were underway and best practice would be disseminated.
15h45 Leave for Samara airport
17h25 Departure of flight E5 750 to Moscow with connection flights to Europe
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 12
European Parliament Delegation to visit Chechnya?
Samara, 16 April 2002. This week MEPs have been in Russia meeting with their counterparts
in the Russian DUMA (Parliament). The meeting is the parliamentary element of the Partnership
and Cooperation Agreement, which regulates relations between the EU and Russia. Parliament's
delegation was led by its chairman Bart STAES (Green-EFA, Flanders).
The visit came a few days after the European Parliament resolution on Chechnya. It therefore
gave MEPs an early opportunity to discuss the issue with their Russian counterparts and to
underline the call in the resolution for the creation of an ad hoc European Parliament delegation
to visit the Northern Caucasus region. This delegation would discuss with he Russian authorities
and Chechen representatives all issues relating to the current conflict. The Russian
parliamentarians -although they were critical of the resolution- responded positively to this
request, declaring that they were "open for such a visit" and will assist in the preparation.
The first ever meeting of an EP delegation also took place with Sergey PATRUSHEV, Director
General of the FSB (the former KGB). The delegation raised the case of Grigory PASKO - a
journalist who has been imprisoned for passing on publicly available information on the
environmental problems arising from the Russian nuclear fleet. Furthermore the discussion
concentrated on the sending of a joint EP-Russian delegation Duma delegation to Chechnya on
humanitarian and human rights issues. Mr PATRUSHEV did not oppose in principle sending
such an ad hoc delegation.
Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey RAZOV agreed to recommend to the presidential
administration that it should find a solution for the logistical problems of the ECHO
humanitarian aid programme -which amounts to 65 Mio EUR since the start of the current
conflict in 1999 - particularly their lack of access to VHF radio communications. MEPs stressed
too the need for monitoring by international staff in order to ensure that aid reaches its target
MEPs had the opportunity to press home other key messages of the EP Resolution, which
emphasises that there is no military way to solve the problems in Chechnya and calls on all
parties involved to seek an immediate cease-fire and a political solution to the conflict. It also
underlines that human rights are one and indivisible and that all perpetrators of abuses should be
brought to justice.
The delegation also travelled to the Samara region. MEPs had chosen this region for its
progressive stance on economic and social issues. They met with the Samara Duma, the Samara
Governor TITOV and visited projects funded by the TACIS programme. Discussions with the
regional Duma focused on the relations between federal and regional level, economic and social
challenges as well as gender issues. The delegation was very well received by their hosts and
appreciated the added insides they got into the everyday live in a Russian region.
In Moscow MEPs also visited the Sakharov Museum which perpetuates the work of the human
rights campaigner Andrei Sakharov, inspiration for the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize.
Bart STAES (Greens/EFA)+32 475 37757 email@example.com
Nicholas BETHELL (EPP) firstname.lastname@example.org
Reino PAASILINNA (PES) email@example.com
Arie OOSTLANDER (EPP) firstname.lastname@example.org
Lissy GRÖNER (PES) email@example.com
Paavo VÄYRYNEN (ELDR) firstname.lastname@example.org
Hans KRONBERGER (Non-attached) email@example.com
[468447EN.doc] PE 318.182 13
EU-RUSSIA PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE
WORKING GROUP VISIT TO RUSSIA
MOSCOW – SAMARA
14 – 17 April 2002
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Mr Bart STAES
Verts/ALE, Belgium Budgetary Control
Lord Nicholas BETHELL
PPE-DE, United Kingdom Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice
and Home Affairs
Mr Reino PAASILINNA
PSE, Finland Industry, External Trade, Research and
Ms Lissy GRÖNER PSE, Germany Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and
Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities
Mr Hans KRONBERGER NI, Austria Environment, Public Health and
Mr Arie OOSTLANDER PPE-DE, Netherlands Foreign Affairs, Human Rights,
Common Security and Defence Policy
Mr Paavo VÄYRYNEN ELDR, Finland Foreign Affairs, Human Rights,
Common Security and Defence Policy
Secretariat of the delegation:
Mr Stefan PFITZNER, Administrator responsible for the relations with Russia
Mr Timothy BODEN, Administrator
Mr Raymond HERDIES, Administrative Assistant
Ms Claudia SIEGISMUND, Administrative Secretary
Mr Reinhold HACK, Principal Administrator
Mr Tim SPENCE, Commission Delegation Moscow
Secretariat of the political groups:
Ms Kirsten LÜDDECKE, Group of the Party of European Socialists
Mr Paolo BERGAMASCHI, Group of Greens, European Free Alliance
Mr Juri LYSSENKO German / Russian
Mr Nikolai ZAITSEV Russian / English
Mr NIKITIN English / French / German
PPE-DE European People's Party/European Democrats
PSE Party of European Socialists
ELDR Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party
Verts/ALE Greens/European Free Alliance
GUE/NGL European United Left/Nordic Green Left