Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad

Poniedziałek, 22 października 2012 r. - Strasburg

24. Wspólne ograniczenia wizowe dla urzędników rządu rosyjskiego zamieszanych w sprawę Siergieja Magnickiego (krótka prezentacja)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Kristiina Ojuland im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten mit ihrem Vorschlag für eine Empfehlung des Europäischen Parlaments an den Rat zur Einführung gemeinsamer Visabeschränkungen gegen Amtsträger aus Russland, die für den Tod von Sergei Magnitski mitverantwortlich sind (2012/2142(INI)) (A7-0285/2012).

  Kristiina Ojuland, rapporteur. − Mr President, the name of Sergei Magnitsky is well known to the European Parliament. It was in December 2010 that we adopted the Annual Report on Human Rights, which called for justice for this courageous Russian lawyer, who died fighting corruption.

Although former president Dmitry Medvedev promised to cast light on this case, we still have not seen justice served. Last week the court hearing in Moscow again showed too little progress – of the 60 individuals implicated in his death, just two prison doctors have been charged with negligence.

Nearly three years have passed since the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky in custody, after torture and non-provision of medical assistance. His horrific treatment and torture resembles the case of another young lawyer, Vasily Alexanyan, who was legal counsellor to Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yukos and who died after unlawful imprisonment.

Instead of facing justice, these people are still in office. They are travelling in the EU, they spend their dirty money in the EU, they buy real estate in the EU and they educate their children here.

This recommendation suggests that the EU Member States should stop these practices. Visa bans and asset freezes are concrete reactions to such behaviour and demonstrate the EU’s value-based policy.

Colleagues, Putin’s regime has turned its back on liberal democratic values and the rule of law. Corruption has become a byword for governance in Russia. The Transparency International index shows Russia, together with Nigeria, to be at the bottom of the list. It is therefore especially arrogant of Putin to ask for visa liberalisation for the holders of the so-called ‘blue passports’ that are used by the representatives of the state administration. Does he really believe that the EU should welcome the masters of corruption?

Just two weeks ago, the monitoring report on Russia’s commitments was debated next door, at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Instead of showing goodwill and cooperation and respecting the rules of the Council of Europe, Russia’s representatives criticised the organisation for its so-called interference in Russian domestic issues. We also witnessed Russia’s threats to stop its financing of the Council of Europe.

It is not only cooperation between the EU and Russia that is being challenged; the Russia-NATO dialogue is being similarly affected. Russia’s attitude to its membership of the WTO demonstrates once again that the common rules of the club do not matter. Russia simply takes the WTO ‘à la carte’.

Let us be clear. The Magnitsky case is more than the tragedy of an individual fighting organised crime. His personal fate reflects the complexity of the transition that Russian society is going through. The degradation of political and institutional life has translated into epic corruption on the one hand and the reanimation of civil society, claiming its constitutional rights, on the other.

As Russia stands at the crossroads, with civil society struggling for the rule of law, we cannot let EU banks accept the fortunes of corrupt individuals, stealing from the Russian people. Standing, as we do, for the universality of human rights, and issuing resolutions in favour of democracy and the rule of law in Russia, we are obliged to live up to our declarations.

I would, of course, ask colleagues to vote in favour of this recommendation tomorrow.

Catch the Eye

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Sergej Magnitský je bojovník za ľudské práva a to, že bojuje proti organizovanému zločinu, je vlastne tiež súčasť boja za slobodu, za demokraciu, za ľudské práva. To je niečo, čo musíme podporovať, čo z tejto pôdy Európskeho parlamentu musíme kvitovať a musíme, povedal by som, vyslať jasný signál aj Ruskej federácii, že takýto spôsob, takéto zaobchádzanie so svojimi občanmi nie je prípustné. Veď čo je to za demokratickú krajinu, ktorá neposkytne lekársku starostlivosť, keď takýto človek – odsúdený – je bitý, trápený, sužovaný a je mu odopretá lekárska starostlivosť. A záverom by som chcel povedať, že aj v rokovaniach s Ruskou federáciou musí Európska únia pripomínať ľudské práva.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). - Zgadzam się ze wszystkim, co powiedział poseł Mikolášik, oprócz jednego: Siergiej Magnicki nie był bojownikiem o prawa człowieka. Był on przyzwoitym, zwyczajnym, normalnym facetem, który nie chciał kraść. I tylko dlatego, że nie chciał kraść – że nie chciał uczestniczyć w procesie korupcji – zginął, został zakatowany w rosyjskim wiezieniu. Ma Pan więc absolutnie rację, że dzisiaj naszym obowiązkiem – i to mówiła również posłanka Ojuland – jest upomnienie się o tego człowieka, o tego zwykłego człowieka, zwykłego Rosjanina, który nie chciał kraść, który nie chciał uczestniczyć w tym przemyśle, który dzisiaj jest być może najbardziej wydajnym przemysłem w Rosji, czyli przemysłem korupcji. Naszym obowiązkiem jest właśnie robienie tego minimum – tego, co proponuje sprawozdanie posłanki Ojuland – to znaczy wprowadzenia wiz, zamrożenia aktywów tych, których podejrzewamy o to, że mogą być zamieszani w proces zabójstwa tego niewinnego człowieka – człowieka, który próbował w niemoralnej sytuacji, takiej, w jakiej mamy do czynienia w Rosji, zachowywać się moralnie. To jest nasz obowiązek, to jest nasza powinność. Jeśli poważnie traktujemy to, co nazywamy wartościami europejskimi, jeśli poważnie traktujemy siebie, to powinniśmy całą mocą zapobiec temu, co miało miejsce, i dać temu wyraz.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Zacznę od takiej bardzo prywatnej refleksji. Wychowałem się w mieście, gdzie stacjonował garnizon rosyjski. Dzięki temu poznałem wielu normalnych, zwykłych Rosjan, bardzo przyzwoitych ludzi. Już jako parlamentarzysta europejski miałem okazję spotkać się z liderami opozycji rosyjskiej, ale też ludźmi, którzy może nie są na pierwszym froncie, ale są zaangażowani w proces zmiany Rosji w stronę europejską, bardziej demokratyczną. I chcę w ich imieniu powiedzieć jedną rzecz – to jest oburzające, że państwo, które leży w Europie, państwo, które chce być państwem europejskim, chce być traktowane na równi, tak jak my traktujemy siebie, tu w Unii Europejskiej, dopuszcza się takich praktyk. Po pierwsze, takiej korupcji w organach władzy i organach sprawiedliwości, a po drugie – takich metod eliminowania ludzi, o których mówił pan poseł Migalski, którzy chcą się uczciwie zachować, dochodzić prawdy, dochodzić uczciwości. Niekoniecznie są wielkimi bojownikami, ale zwykłymi, przyzwoitymi ludźmi.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the Magnitsky case on behalf of the Vice-President/High Representative. The European Parliament’s recommendation to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case is a significant initiative.

Parliament has been vocal and consistent about this case in recent years, from the European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2010 to a number of hearings and debates and the recommendation the House will vote on tomorrow. All these initiatives testify to the great importance the European Parliament and the European public at large attach to the Magnitsky case. These initiatives lend much weight to our common efforts to prompt the authorities in Moscow to investigate the case swiftly and thoroughly. They give further legitimacy to the EU’s continuous pressure on the Russian Federation to bring the Magnitsky case to a thorough conclusion.

For our part, the Vice-President/High Representative has consistently called on Russia to ensure a proper investigation. We are raising this with the Russian authorities at all levels. Indeed, the Magnitsky case is consistently part of the agenda for our twice-yearly human rights consultations. Moreover, it is regularly brought up at ministerial level as well as at our summits.

Last month, Vice-President/High Representative Ashton addressed the Magnitsky case in this House. During the debate on the political use of justice she noted with great concern that the continuous lack of progress on the Magnitsky case was part of a general trend of worrisome legislative and judicial developments in activities in the Russian Federation. This trend is of serious concern to the European Union. The speech and the debate that followed were reported by the Russian press.

In April of this year, President Van Rompuy, in a very significant political gesture, wrote a letter to the then President, Medvedev, specifically on the Magnitsky case. President Van Rompuy made three important points in this letter. First, he urged the Russian Government to bring the case to a comprehensive conclusion. Second, he called on Russia to close the posthumous prosecution of Mr Magnitsky. Third, he called for an end to the intimidation of Mr Magnitsky’s mother and widow.

The European External Action Service keeps reminding the Russian side that a response to the letter remains outstanding. All these points, as well as the outstanding response to President Van Rompuy’s letter, were also reiterated most recently by Commissioner Malmström at the Permanent Partnership Council on Freedom, Security and Justice which took place on 2 October in Nicosia.

We have taken this matter very seriously and will continue to do so, for three very good reasons. First, because of the nature of the case itself. It is a case of a Russian citizen and a lawyer, a young father being arrested and mistreated by law enforcement officers for standing up against suspected fraud and abuse by government officials. As such it is a case of grave abuse of the law and of human rights.

The European Union is founded on the core values of human dignity, freedom, the rule of law and respect for human rights, and we are committed to defending these. The Magnitsky case has become one of the emblematic cases in this respect, not only for the Russian people but also for the EU.

The second reason why we continue to be active in the Magnitsky case is that we believe that Russia itself should have a great interest in solving it. The case has come to symbolise the state of the judiciary and the rule of law in the Russian Federation. Business people consider this a litmus test for the stability, predictability and safety of Russia as a destination for investment.

Particularly as this is a multifaceted case with a strong undercurrent of corruption, anti-corruption efforts are being woven into Russia’s modernisation efforts, on which we are working together with them. Solving this case would send a strong signal to partners and investors that Russia is serious in its anti-corruption efforts.

Thirdly, it is in the interest of the EU to have at its borders a stable, democratic, economically-viable Russia with a well-grounded rule of law. Steps like Russia’s recent accession to the WTO are important in integrating Russia into global rules-based systems. This is a step in the right direction to gaining global confidence in this marketplace. Cases such as Magnitsky’s, unfortunately, do exactly the opposite.

What is needed now is concrete action on the part of the Russian Government: a clear decision to properly and thoroughly investigate the Magnitsky case, bringing those responsible to justice. As has been said, we take very careful note of the recommendation Parliament addressed to the Council on restrictive measures on Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case. It sends a clear and strong message. Acting on this recommendation would require unanimity from all the Member States. As those responsible for the overall relationship between the European Union and Russia, we must carefully balance our actions towards our neighbour. Restrictive measures by the EU are a very sensitive instrument. Such measures should only be considered in very specific situations and in accordance with existing EU guidelines.

Furthermore, restrictive measures should be used as part of an integrated and comprehensive policy approach involving political dialogue, complementary efforts and other instruments. Let me assure you that the Magnitsky case will remain on the bilateral agenda in our contacts with Russia. Sanctions should be used only as a last resort, otherwise we risk them becoming the only instrument in many of our relationships whenever such crimes are committed.

In conclusion, let me reiterate once again, on behalf of High Representative/Vice-President Ashton, that we will continue to pursue the Magnitsky case with the Russian Federation at every opportunity.

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2012, um 18.00 Uhr statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Слави Бинев (NI), в писмена форма. - Аз изцяло подкрепям визовите ограничения за всички лица, свързани със случая на Сергей Магнитски. Противопоставям се на всички форми на ограничаване на свободата на словото, на правото на мнение и изказ, на нарушаването на човешките права. Въпреки това гласувам с „въздържал се“ защото вътре в Европа има много сходни случаи, но по тях се мълчи. Всичко казано по случая Магнитски — „злоупотреба с власт, съдебни дела за отстраняване на политически и икономически конкуренти, арести, измъчвания, безнаказаност на нарушителите на човешките права“ са валидни за ситуацията в България в момента. И въпреки многобройните сигнали от моя страна — Европейските институции мълчат, подобни мерки и предложения към Съвета няма. Аз не вярвам, че е правилно Европа да осъжда Русия и в същото време да си затваря очите, когато премиерът на България — Бойко Борисов злоупотребява с властта си. Още повече, че това мълчание и тази безучастност му дават онова усещане за „безнаказаност“, което бива толкова критикувано чрез този доклад!