• EN - English
Állásfoglalásra irányuló indítvány - B8-0183/2016Állásfoglalásra irányuló indítvány
Ez a dokumentum nem érhető el az Ön nyelvén. A dokumentumot a nyelvi menüben felajánlott nyelveken tekintheti meg.

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION in Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars

2.2.2016 - (2016/2556(RSP))

with request for inclusion in the agenda for a debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law
pursuant to Rule 135 of the Rules of Procedure

Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Ignazio Corrao on behalf of the EFDD Group

Eljárás : 2016/2556(RSP)
A dokumentum állapota a plenáris ülésen
Válasszon egy dokumentumot :  
Előterjesztett szövegek :
Viták :
Elfogadott szövegek :


European Parliament resolution on Crimea, in particular of the Crimean Tatars


The European Parliament,

-having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in the Black Sea basin, and more specifically on Ukraine and Crimea;

-having regard to  the Reports of the Human Rights Assessment Mission on Crimea conducted by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM);

-having regard to the Human Rights Watch World Report 2016 published on 27th January 2016;

-having regards to the statements of the Spokesperson of the VP/HR of the European Union, and in particular the statements released on 18th September 2014 and on 18th May 2015;

-having regard to the Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August to 15 November 2015, published by the OHCHR;

-having regard to the joint Report of the Human Rights Assessment Mission on Crimea released by ODIHR and HCNM;

a)Whereas the tension regarding Crimean Tatars dates back to 1944, due to the URSS-decided mass deportation, mainly towards Uzbekistan, that affected more than 230.000 innocent people, and gravely damaged many of them, even causing the death of a significant proportion of this population; sadly, the survivors and their families were not allowed to start returning to Crimea till the mid-80's;

b)Whereas the discriminations and long-term consequences of this deportation affecting this minority remained unsolved during these decades, under the URSS and then under the Ukrainian Governments, undoubtedly dating back to much before the 2014 disputed annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation;

c)Whereas, despite the fact that this long-term human-rights issue has been known for decades, regrettably only recently the European Parliament started to deal with this deeply rooted discrimination of the Tatar minority;

d)Whereas, according to many Reports and statements, several violations of human rights occurred also very recently in Crimea, affecting the Tatar minority and others;

e)Whereas, in particular, Crimean Tatar leaders, such as Mustafa Dzemilev and Refat Chubarov, were from the outset of the annexation process banned from entering into Crimea, and now are allowed to, however under threat of arrest;

f)whereas, among other political leaders, human rights' defenders and activists, Sinaver Kadyrov, the coordinator of the Committee on Crimean Tatar Rights Protection was deported from the territory of Crimea in Hamuary 2015 as a citizen of Ukraine for violation of the 90-day period of stay, Oleg Khomenok, the well-known media-trainer, on October 29, 2012 was banned from entering the Russian Federation for the period of five years, while his place of residence was registered in Crimea and his relatives still live in Crimea and his property is still there; Ismet Yuksel, an ethnic Crimean Tatar, a Turkish national, was not admitted to the territory of Crimea, and received a ban on entry into the territory of the Russian Federation for a period of five years;

g)whereas citizens of Ukraine, who expressed, in accordance with Article 4 of Federal Constitutional Law No6 "their desire to retain their other existing citizenship and (or) citizenship of their minor children or remain without citizenship" are now unsuccessfully trying to get Russian residence permit;

h)whereas as there are Ukrainian nationals now domiciled in Crimea who can not cross the border freely in virtue of legal restrictions or the use of discretionary powers of the State Border Service employees;

i)whereas such actions are not only a violation of the liberty of movement, but also a restriction of one's access to property;

j) Whereas Crimean Tatar intellectuals, journalists and ordinary citizens who disagree with the local authorities denounce to be threated and they have fear to die and/or to be victim of torture;

k) Whereas several groups, including religious minorities, declare they are facing severe difficulties in performing their missions, due to restriction of freedom of association, expropriation of their property, non-prolongation of documents and administrative authorizations, regular searches conducted in the remaining premises of the religious organizations;

l) Whereas in any case the National and International Authorities should ensure the respect of fundamental rights and of the rule of law, without any discrimination of minorities, which should be integrated and respected in all their individual rights;

m) Whereas the only way to address such long-term problem is to deal with it through a long-term approach;

n)Whereas the European Union and all the good willing International Institutions have an unavoidable responsibility to deal - straigthforwardly and clearly - with human rights violations, but in the same time, for the sake both of their own credibility and of the effectiveness of their action in this domain, should avoid any interferences of other purposes or interests with this most important role and task;

o)whereas the above mentioned Institutions, in fulfilling their tasks, should avoid to give pretext to any international suspicion that such legitimate intervention in the human rights scene could obey to oblique goals of intervention in the geopolitical framework;

p)Whereas although juridical and political uncertainty persists on the new status of Crimea, following its de facto annexation in the Russian Federation this status should not affect in any way the respect of human rights and minorities rights within its territory;

1. Strongly condemns any form of violation of human rights and discrimination against minorities in the territory of Crimea, as in any other part of the region or of the world;

2. Expresses its concern for the fact that, after many decades, the violation of human rights still affects people pertaining to Tatar minorities in Crimea, and believes that the only way to address such long-term problems is to face them since their origins, decoupling the human-rights approach from the current situation of geopolitical tension in the area;

3. affirms the need to ensure the respect of fundamental rights of all minorities, included people of Russian language in other States, with a special attention to their choice of representative community bodies, and their linguistic and cultural preferences, and their representation in all the sectors of society, at political, social, cultural and economic level, ensuring in any case the respect of the rule of law in all the region;

4. stresses the importance of guaranteeing freedom of speech and political activity, allowing people to freely express their ideas and organise events, and if necessary protests and other demonstrations, without violence, constraint, harassment or threats against organisers of or participants in demonstrations;

5. deplores any attempt to use the defence of human rights in order to reach other specific political goals and interests and believes that, in any single case of violation of human rights, the international institutions should fulfil their commitment of monitoring and intervening, especially when it affects so many people and such deeply rooted situations;

6. deplores the attitude held by the European Institutions during these years and the absolute lack of any strategic vision of the problem by the former and the actual VP/HR of the EU; both the presence of the EU at the Black Sea basin, which conforms part of its own Eastern border, and its commitment for peace and regional stability, should orientate a balanced, strategic approach, going beyond the acritical adhesion to a project of tactical exploitation of the differences between third parties;

7. underlines that a peaceful integration of Tatars is possible as demonstrated by the example of other areas, both out and within the Russian Federation, as in the Tatarstan region around Kazan, highly industrialised and with an excellent economic development;

8. calls on any authority exercising its jurisdiction in Crimea, regardless of the legality of its exercise of power, to respect the human rights and to guarantee them for any people within the territory of competence;

9. calls on Russian Federation and local de facto authorities in Crimea to collaborate with the other international institutions in order to have transparency and clear evidence, regarding all the cases in which there is a suspect of violation of human rights, and allow any monitoring mission under the guidelines of UN and of any other specialized institutions; underlines the opportunity that Tatars settled in other regions should participate in those monitoring missions, in order to ensure the best-tailored understanding of the plights of this minority;

10. calls on the European Union to take any effort in order to promote and support any impartial monitoring mission to ascertain the current situation of human rights in Crimea;

11. calls on the European Union to play a proactive role in order to decrease tension in the Region through the dialogue between all the parties involved and promoting the peace on a base of respect and harmony, favouring new relations rather than condemnation and build-up of tension;

12. calls on the European Union to offer freely its expertise and advise to the other countries over the region, in order to join forces for a solution of problems affecting human rights and minorities rights; but acting in a respectful, non-judgmental and friendly way, without wielding the fundamental rights issue as a weapon of unilateral condemnation considering that dogmatic superiority approaches in the field meet stronger resistance and are less effective.

13. calls on the countries in the region to join such effort not just to meet their ethical and legal political duties, but also for their own interest, in other to defuse internal and external tensions.