Foreign Affairs on December 2–15, 2006

Republic of Moldova — Council of Europe

The Committee of Ministers (CM) of the Council of Europe (CoE) has held the last of the six special meetings for 2006 for the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The Committee supervised the payment by respondent states of just satisfaction to applicants (855 cases), the adoption of other individual measures granting the applicants the appropriate redress (127 cases or groups of cases) and of general measures preventing new similar violations (186 cases or groups of cases). The Committee examined among others the Response to the 4th Interim Resolution in the case of Ilascu and others v. Russia & Moldova where the Court found the applicants’ detention in the “Moldovan Republic of Transnistria” to be arbitrary and unlawful and ordered the immediate release of the applicants still in detention; general measures for the prevention of ill-treatments applied by police registered Hungary, Russia and Moldova (Case Boicenco); better detention conditions in Moldova (Case Ostrovar) and Croatia.

On occasion of the international day of human rights marked on December 10, CoE Secretary-General Terry Davis said in an official communication that the imprisonment of Andrei Ivantoc and Tudor Petrov-Popa in an illegal jail in the middle of Europe is “a disgrace and a blatant violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.” Speaking about the ECHR judgment passed two years ago on Ilascu and others v. Russia & Moldova, Davis said that it is unacceptable that the Russian Federation continues to dispute the validity of the judgment as a whole and claims it is unable to secure the applicants’ release. The obligation of Council of Europe member states to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is unconditional and non-negotiable, while the refusal to abide by the Court decision is inexcusable and puts at risk the enforcing mechanism of the Convention, Davis added.

The ECHR has sentenced Moldova in a new case, Nistas GMBH v. Moldova. The applicant, a German society, complained that final judgments in its favour were quashed in supervisory review proceedings, at the request of the prosecutor’s office. In 1997–2001 this company rented a certain number of carriages to the state-owned railway company of Moldova CFM, which should honour some payments. Starting 2001, CFM stopped honouring payments and the German society sued it, with the economic court and the Supreme Court of Justice awarding victory to the applicant. At the request of prosecutor-general, the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the previous judgments in 2003 and reduced the damages for the applicant. Examining the case, the ECHR noted that a final and binding judgment in the applicant’s favour was set aside by a higher court in supervisory review proceedings, following an application by a public prosecutor, whose power to make such applications was not subject to any time-limit, so that judgments were liable to challenge indefinitely. There had therefore been a breach of the principle of legal certainty and of the right of access to a court in the applicant’s case. Accordingly, the Court held, unanimously, that the setting aside of the judgment in supervisory review proceedings violated Article 6 § 1. There being no public interest defence justifying that interference, the Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. The applicant was awarded 60,597 euros for pecuniary damage, 2,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 2,400 euros for costs and expenses.

According to a press release by a representative of the applicant, the Moldovan Government was notified on December 6, 2006 that Megadat.Com S.R.L. has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights against violation of the right to property by being illegally deprived of its licence. The Government was asked whether the company’s right to private property was violated and if the company faced a discriminatory treatment.

Republic of Moldova — European Union

On December 4, 2006, the European Commission released two important documents in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy and Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament on the general approach to enable ENP partner countries to participate in Community agencies and Community programmes. The first communication is accompanied by other documents of the Commission such as: Overall Assessment (of reports within ENP between the European Union (EU) and the first 7 states which signed action plans with it); Sectoral Progress Report and ENP progress reports.

Communication […] on strengthening the ENP outlines the main developments within the ENP, notes that the ENP remains distinct from the E.U. enlargement process, presents the main problems and challenges within ENP and raises proposals aimed to strengthen the ENP and substantially improve the impact of this policy. Overall Assessment presents in a synthetic manner the progresses achieved by Ukraine, Moldova, Israel, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia and Morocco in implementing the action plans, as well as actions taken by the E.U. to support the implementation of these plans. Sectoral Progress Report reveals developments on sectors in the seven states concerned in the ENP context.

ENP Progress Report on Moldova is of a high interest for Moldovan public opinion. The document tells the opinion of the European Commission regarding the way Moldova honoured in February 2005 — November 2006 the commitments assumed in front of the E.U. through the EU-Moldova Action Plan. Unfortunately, the document does not make an exhaustive assessment of implementation of the Action Plan by Moldova and reveals only the main progresses and problems of this process. The report mentions among important and moderate progresses: management of the Moldova-Ukraine border; cooperation with international financial institutions; cooperation with the EU on certain problems of foreign policy; obtaining of the EU generalised system of preferences plus (GSP+); accomplishments against organised crime, including trafficking in human beings; improvement of investment climate; Moldova’s joining to the Bologna Process; reformation of research, development and innovation sector, etc. On the other hand, the main problems include: deficient implementation of reform strategies; lack of clear priorities of action; aspects related to functioning of democratic institutions; restriction of freedom of mass media; wide spreading of corruption; Government’s interference in business; unclear situation of parliamentary immunity; insufficient respect for human rights; limited independence of the judiciary, etc. ENP Progress Report on Moldova notes also that the EU executive has proposed the Council to increase the financial assistance for Moldova, assistance expected to improve the governance, to encourage democratic accomplishments, to promote regulatory reforms and reduce poverty. If the recommendation of the Commission is accepted, Moldova could become the second recipient after Palestinian Authority, depending on volume of financial assistance of the EU. The Commission proposed that a flexible assistance regime for Moldova be introduced starting with 2007 and financial allocations be gradually increased. The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) within ENP stipulates 210 million euros for Moldova for 2007–2010. Also, another 45 million euros will be released in grants to cover the balance of current payments.

Moldovan authorities have received the assessment by the European Commission with a relative satisfaction. But there are independent observers who, though admit some progresses achieved by Moldova in implementing the Action Plan with the EU, note that overall assessment of the ENP by the European Commission places Moldova below performances achieved by Ukraine, Jordan and Morocco within this policy.

Finally, the second Communication by Commission published on December 4 recommends two distinct approaches of participation of states within ENP in: (1) community agencies and (2) EU programmes.

Republic of Moldova — Romania

The Moldovan-Romanian relations have been tense in the period concerned.

The Moldovan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFAEI) convoked the Romanian ambassador in Chisinau, Filip Teodorescu, on December 5 in connection with “defying conduct toward the Republic of Moldova and legitimate authorities of the country” demonstrated by Ion Caramitru, chairman of the Romanian Theatrical Union (UNITER), who has recently visited Chisinau on the 60th anniversary of the Moldovan Theatrical Union (UNITEM). Ambassador Teodorescu was notified over need to respect the diplomatic norms at events involving the Romanian Embassy.

According to observers, Moldovan authorities have been troubled by a series of statements delivered by Caramitru to the newspaper Jurnal de Chisinau. Caramitru said among others that: “It is symptomatic that the communist party did not gain elections in any former Soviet countries, but in the Republic of Moldova only. Let’s hope that this is the last cry of the disappearing bear.”

Contacted by MEDIAFAX, Caramitru said that his statements are not a “defying conduct toward the Republic of Moldova”, while the convocation of Ambassador Teodorescu by MFAEI is “a jump over normality” and the Romanian Embassy did not have any connection with his presence in Chisinau.

As a symmetrical response to the gesture of the Moldovan MFAEI, the Romanian Foreign Ministry has convoked the Moldovan ambassador in Bucharest, Lidia Gutu. According to MEDIAFAX, it was said at the meeting that “the unusual diplomatic request of MFAEI unfits the situation, as the UNITER chairman is a private person free to express his opinions.” Also, the Romanian side noted that the opinions expressed by UNITER chairman cannot be interpreted as official stances of Romania and the declared attachment to the European community of values requires Moldova to respect the right to opinion.

The Romanian side demanded “explanations in connection with tone of some recent statements by representatives of Chisinau executive authorities, criticism against Romania’s concerns to participate in strengthening of the European option of the Republic of Moldova.” The request envisages statements by Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin published by a Russian-language portal on December 1, with the chief of state accusing Romania of meddling in Moldova’s interior affairs. Voronin also noted that “Moldova is capable to achieve the European integrity and internal democratic development of the state and to improve the social-economic condition of workers […] without pretensions and advocates who are imposed to us from the other side of the Prut river.”

In spite of frictions in Moldovan-Romanian relations, Romania has reconfirmed its readiness to back all appeals of Chisinau aimed at bringing Moldova closer to the EU. In this context, Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu noted that Moldova is present in all formats of subregional cooperation in Balkans and other South East European cooperation arrangements thanks to Romania only and underlined that Romanian authorities will continue insisting on Moldova’s inclusion in the package of the Western Balkans and seeking thus a European perspective for Moldova, “no matter what a character or another from Chisinau is saying.”

Republic of Moldova — Russian Federation

Moldovan-Russian relations have expanded in the period concerned. Their “warming up” is considered to be linked to agreements reached by Presidents Vladimir Voronin and Vladimir Putin in Moscow on August 8 and in Minsk on November 28. The resumption of traffic of trains on the Chisinau-Moscow route and the possible restart of wine and meat exports to the Russian Federation on basis of a new scheme are believed to be results of previous talks between the two presidents.

On the other hand, the Moldovan-Russian relations do not progress in the context of settlement of the Transnistrian conflict. Russia reiterated its stance regarding the need of a political solution to the Transnistrian conflict for resumption of the process of withdrawal of its munitions and troops from Moldova, at the December 4–5 OSCE Ministerial Council in Brussels. In its turn, Moldova urged Russia to honour its commitments on withdrawal of its forces from Moldova and to demonstrate respect for Moldovan sovereignty, independence and constitutional neutrality through this gesture.

More details about Moldovan-Russian relations in the context of the Transnistrian settlement and debates held at the OSCE annual meeting in Brussels read in the chapter Transnistrian problem of this issue of the journal.

Republic of Moldova — the United States

Moldovan deputy Premier Andrei Stratan, minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration, paid an official visit to the United States on December 13–15. Stratan met with American high-ranking dignitaries, including U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and J.D. Crouch, deputy adviser for National Security.

The Moldovan minister thanked the U.S. for supporting Moldova’s efforts for territorial reintegration, economic development, advance to democratisation, as well as for the strong stance expressed by the US at the NATO summit in Riga and the OSCE Ministerial Council in Brussels regarding the need of honouring the 1999 Istanbul commitments by Russia. Stratan also highlighted the need of substituting the present peacekeeping operation in the Security Zone with a multinational force under aegis of an international organisation.

In their turn, American officials assured that the US will help Moldova overcome difficulties on way of its development and will continue efforts aimed to settle the Transnistrian conflict.

Elsewhere, Stratan indicated the importance of the assistance program given by the US Millennium Challenge Corporation to Moldova. In this context, it should be noted that the visit of the Moldovan diplomat to Washington coincided with the signing of the Preliminary Program of the Millennium Challenge Corporation in Chisinau on December 15. Moldova will benefit of assistance worth 24.7 million dollars to support anti-corruption reforms.

Moldova in the world

Consultative group of donors for Moldova

Brussels hosted on December 12 a sitting of the consultative group of donors for Moldova under the aegis of the World Bank and the European Commission. That was the third meeting of the Group. The first two took place in 1995 and 1997. Taking part in the sitting was a delegation of Moldovan high-ranking officials led by Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev and representatives of important international organisations such as the World Bank, IMF and the European Commission.

The meeting evaluated the implementation of structural reforms stipulated by EGPRSP and the EU-Moldova Action Plan and decided to grant a joint financial support of 1.2 billion dollars to Moldova. This amount, which exceeds the financial assistance received by Moldova after 1991, will be released within three years to support the promotion of structural reforms. Half of this amount will be unreimbursable credits, while the another half will be long-term credits with an interest rate of up to 1.5 percent a year. Also, 25 percent of the entire amount will go to support budget and balance of payments.

Moldovan prime minister said when he came back to Moldova that the financial assistance will be used: to implement reforms in the judicial system; to implement the public administration reform; for education; healthcare; infrastructure; to create new jobs; to develop agriculture; to offer long-term credits for a low interest rate, etc.

Corruption perception in the world

According to a recent report, the American organisation Gallup ranks Moldova on the 88th place among 101 countries included in a corruption perception ranking that covers state bodies and business structures.

According to the document, Moldova is rated 89 out of 100 available points regarding corruption rate in 2006 and it is ranked the same place with Latvia, after the Russian Federation and Ukraine, which ranked the 93rd place with 90 points, and Lithuania, which was ranked the last place and rated 94 points. Following countries recorded the lowest corruption rate: Finland (12 points), New Zealand (21 points), Singapore (22 points) and Saudi Arabia (25 points). The post-Soviet countries with a low corruption rate include Uzbekistan, which was ranked the 18th place (54 points), Belarus the 26th place (63 points) and Georgia the 31st place (68 points).

For comparison, the 2006 report by Transparency International-Moldova shows that Moldova is ranked the 81st place among 163 countries covered by a corruption perception index.

e-democracy.md