26 юни 2021






(Third part)


Twenty-second Sitting

Thursday 27 June 2002 at 10 a.m.

5. Address by Mr Boris Trajkovski, President of ?the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?

            THE PRESIDENT.  We now have the honour of hearing an address from Mr Boris Trajkovski, President of ?the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?. After his address, the President has kindly agreed to take questions from the floor.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI (President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia?)

 Mr President, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, and distinguished friends, it is my pleasure and my honour to address the Assembly and to share with you the fact that the conflict of a year ago in the Republic of Macedonia has been overcome.

 The process of stabilisation is making steady progress, although some forces continue to attempt to reverse it.

 We are strongly committed to building our future ever more vigorously on the principles, which we have always cherished, of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

            Those are the cornerstones of the Council of Europe, which deserves our praise for the reaffirmation and promotion of pan-European values of integration and democratisation. 

It is a genuine promoter of the European idea and a vehement supporter of the expansion of the European integration, and it has proved to be an indispensable overreaching organisation.

 Its efforts are visible in the promotion of the idea of a Europe without dividing lines and with peace, justice and stability. 

The Republic of Macedonia stands ready to engage in activities required for the development of the new European institutional structures, including those supported by the Council of Europe.

            Since I last addressed the Assembly, at least two major events have changed the realities of life. The armed conflict in the Republic of Macedonia and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 have emphasised the correlations between internal and external threats to security and stability, and between our internal capacity and our need for external support to deal with such events. 

The armed conflict in Macedonia threatened democracy and inter-ethnic existence. 

Those threats were jointly defeated by our country?s commitment to strive for peace and inter-ethnic stability, on which we received valuable support from the international community, including from the Council of Europe.

            Though the scale and quantity of support varied, the countries of the world recognised that we need each other if we are to meet our challenges. 

Regardless of whether they are in the same continent or region, countries that share democratic values and commitments and see that they have a common future, have more than a moral obligation to help those in need. 

Our response to the new challenge of terrorism must be consistent and uncompromising, while still fully protecting human rights and the rule of law.

            We welcome the support of the Council of Europe for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Macedonia and for its constructive approach to overcoming the crisis. 

The Council has taken an active role in the process of implementing of the Ohrid framework agreement through experts who have invested their knowledge and skills in drafting constitutional amendments and the accompanying legislation that derives from the framework agreement  notably the law on local self-government. 

In that regard I would like to express the appreciation of the people of the Republic of Macedonia for all the efforts that this Organisation is making.

 I restate my belief that joint co-operation will continue in all its aspects, including implementation of the Ohrid agreement.

            Reconstructing the houses of internally displaced persons is one of the most important elements of confidence building. It is of the utmost importance that it should be achieved before the coming winter. 

I ask all representatives of countries here and all members of this Assembly to request twofold support for the reconstruction of basic infrastructure and the homes of Macedonian citizens through your national institutions and through support in the Parliamentary Assembly by the allocation of appropriate funds in a timely and proper manner.

            I will avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Council of Europe Development Bank for its timely response.

 It has alleviated the consequences of the crisis through the donation of $ 1 million for the purchase of basic supplies for IDPs and the loan of $ 5 million for social housing.

            The Parliament of the Republic of Macedonia has made great progress by adopting the amendments to the constitution and the fifteen most important laws on the implementation of the framework agreement. 

With the expected adoption of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, the undertakings of the current composition of the Parliament of Macedonia with regard to the Ohrid agreement will be successfully completed. The remaining obligations will be considered by the new assembly.

            It is of crucial importance that the forthcoming elections in Macedonia should be organised in accordance with international standards and criteria in a democratic manner and spirit. 

Newly elected representatives should have the political authority to implement the rest of the provisions of the framework agreement.

 I am confident that representatives of domestic institutions and civil society and the presence of the international community will be a strong guarantee of fair and democratic elections. 

Members of this Assembly will be monitoring the elections. 

It is my firm belief that after the September elections Macedonia will be reaffirmed as a democratic state with ever-rising standards of democracy. 

The forthcoming parliamentary elections are the third in a row for our democracy. 

At this moment the main issue of concern is still the situation in the former crisis regions, where the principle of the rule of law remains to be fully established.

            To summarise the prospects for my country in mid-term, I see a stable and prosperous Macedonia that is a part of the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance. 

Vision statements are easy to pronounce but difficult to achieve. 

To become a reality they require motivation and, of course, strong efforts.

 The inspiration is the reality of the lives of the people of Macedonia and the motivation is the arrangements that Macedonia has made with the EU and NATO.

 The achievement of that vision depends on the citizens of my country, who must take their destiny and that of future generations into their own hands.

            The Republic of Macedonia, while thankful for the humanitarian and financial assistance it has received, still needs a boost to achieve development and prosperity. 

Political solutions to political and social problems are not the ultimate goal. They are reasonable undertakings only when viewed as the basis for improving well-being. 

Leaders have the moral responsibility for that and for achieving prosperity. Unfortunately, the reality of today's Europe is that unemployed people - predominantly the young, are easily seduced by extremist and military ideals.

 They are more likely to support violent solutions. One way to combat extremism is by having appropriate education and employment opportunities, which will contribute towards higher self-esteem and greater awareness ? the fear from the other is no more than an excuse for the fear of uncertainty.

            I must stress something that is very important. As responsible politicians, we must not allow young people from Europe whose countries are not represented in the EU to feel that, at this important moment for Europe, they are excluded and cannot achieve their expectations.

 Giscard d'Estaing's proposal for the creation of a forum is an excellent opportunity to allow European citizens to listen to the voice of my young fellow citizens.

            My vision is to lead the Republic of Macedonia to democracy and prosperity, building a society that is based on individuals and not ethnic groups ? citizens and not minorities or majorities. 

The country has to build a democracy that is based on individual not collective rights and responsibilities. 

I want Macedonia to be a country where every individual can achieve his or her potential through hard work and merit a country in which all citizens, regardless of background, can fulfil their expectations.

            Although everyone is aware of the significance of the implementation of the Ohrid agreement, we must clearly spell out that no one has the right to misunderstand its aim. 

We must acknowledge that serious attempts are being made to interpret its contents extensively and absurdly, threatening the very meaning of its spirit. 

That could drag us into new tensions and destabilisation, which could be fatal for our state.

            As I said, my main vision for Macedonia is for it to become a fully fledged member of the EU and NATO. 

The process of becoming a full member of the EU was accelerated last year, with the signing of the stabilisation and association agreement, its ratification is progressing successfully. 

In that regard, I call once again on EU countries that have not ratified to do so. That agreement defines the main goals on which Macedonia should focus in order to join the European family of nations. 

This is a joint project and it should be implemented for our mutual benefit. Macedonia's interest in joining NATO is not an issue of political prestige; it is a question of promoting stability and security for the whole region.

 I strongly believe, as do citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, that the Alliance is recognising, in addition to security interests, the moral responsibility to accept Macedonia as a full member in the structures of Nato.

            The stability of every part of Europe is a precondition for the stability of Europe as a whole. We need regional co-operation, which should eliminate stereotypes, mistrust and conflict, and promote good neighbourly relations, strengthening democracy at all levels, including the local one, as well as cross-border co-operation.

 In that context, I recall the recently adopted Vilnius declaration on regional co-operation and consolidation of democratic stability in greater Europe. The most visible role of the Council of Europe is in promoting and strengthening democracy. 

This should be nurtured further. With a view to fostering multicultural dialogue, and dialogue between religions, I would like to inform you that in November I will host a regional forum on dialogue among civilisations. 

It will be conducted in co-operation with UNESCO within the UN global agenda and its action plan on this issue. I am certain that we all agree that the culture of democracy is the only future for mankind, and the best possible way to achieve prosperity.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you very much, Mr Trajkovski, for that most interesting address. Members of the Assembly have expressed the wish to put questions to you.

 I remind colleagues that questions must be limited to thirty seconds and should not turn into speeches. The first question is from Mr Kirilov.

            Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria).  Mr Trajkovski, your speech consolidates our hopes for the process of political stabilisation in your country. Does the implementation of the Stability Pact initiative effectively contribute to the creation of a positive climate of co-operation among the countries of south-east Europe, and what is Macedonia?s contribution, both in general and with particular regard to joint infrastructure projects with Albania and Bulgaria?

            THE PRESIDENT.  Mr Trajkovski, would you care to reply?

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI.  I would like to respond in Macedonian, so that people can hear our language.

            (The speaker continued in Macedonian.)

            His country was an active participant in the Stability Pact. However, he accepted that the achievements of the pact had been disappointing. The pact had promised much and he hoped that it would have led to increased integration. 

He had met the pact co-ordinator on two occasions and he welcomed his idea of reviving it. Its success, however, depended on the attitude of the member states and donors and not on that of the co-ordinator. He thought that in the first instance perhaps too many projects had been planned, and he favoured a concentration of resources on fewer, but more realistic, projects. 

The Republic of Macedonia had played a full role in the pact and was chair of the second working group. He pointed out that the financial resources provided to all the groups was insufficient.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. Mr Kirilov, would you like to ask a supplementary question?

            Mr KIRILOV (Bulgaria).? I would appreciate a follow-up to my question about joint infrastructure projects with Albania and Bulgaria.

            THE PRESIDENT.  I call Mr Trajkovski to reply.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI said that two projects had been agreed. The Corridor project linked all three countries. This had contributed to regional co-operation and his country supported it completely. Technical problems remained but he hoped that these would be overcome.



            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. The next question is from Mr Toshev.

            Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria).  I welcome you to the Chamber for the second time. You have had the courage to fight for the adoption of the Ohrid agreement, despite all the difficulties and some negative reaction in your country. Do you think that the ethnic tensions are now over, and what role do you envisage the enforcement of the agreement of association of Macedonia to the European Union playing in that respect?

            THE PRESIDENT.  Mr Trajkovski, would you reply to that question?

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI replied that his country had had to face the challenge of inter-racial problems. Until recently, it had been held up as a good example of a multi-ethnic society. In most parts of the country there had been no problem and even when difficulty had arisen in some places, harmony continued in most of the main cities. The changes made to the constitution should reduce the reasons for inter-racial tension. There was a desire to move forwards and establish stability within a European framework. In this respect the association agreement with the EU was very important and he hoped that it would be ratified soon.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. Mr Toshev, would like to ask a supplementary question?

            Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria).  I am fully satisfied with Mr Trajkovski?s answer, and I wish him every success.



            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. The next question is from Mr Rivolta.

            Mr RIVOLTA (Italy) asked if there was a genuine movement towards Kosovo attaining legal independence, and whether this was likely to succeed.

            THE PRESIDENT.  I call Mr Trajkovski to reply.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI said that there had been a clear and binding declaration on the future of Kosovo and discussions were ongoing. It was true that the issue of Kosovo had to be resolved, because it was hindering investment and economic development. However, much more important were developments with regard to Kosovo?s political system and the establishment of an environment where all citizens, irrespective of ethnic background, would feel secure. It was important that individual rights were seen as a greater priority than collective rights. It was imperative that the rule of law was established in Kosovo, and that the authorities in Kosovo could provide for the everyday needs of its citizens. There would indeed be more debate and dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina. It was hoped that all the citizens of the region could resolve these various issues as this would be important for the future success of market economy reforms and security. It was regrettable that there were no positive declarations from the Kosovo Parliament regarding Resolution 1244. The failure to do this could lead to extremism. Resolution 1244 needed to be respected. For example, Kosovo had not recognised the delineation of the borders between Macedonia and Yugoslavia; he was pleased that this had been condemned by the international community.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Mr Rivolta, would you like to ask a supplementary question?

            Mr RIVOLTA (Italy) asked what the President thought the consequences might be for the region if Kosovo was to gain de jure independence.

            THE PRESIDENT.  I call Mr Trajkovski to reply.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI replied that this was not on the agenda at the moment. However, there were relevant binding resolutions.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. The next question is from Mr Landsbergis.

            Mr LANDSBERGIS (Lithuania).  It is hard to imagine any other country having imposed on it a name such as ?the former Soviet Republic of Ukraine? or ?the former Soviet Republic of Moldova?. Your country alone, Mr Trajkovski, is sentenced to carry the gross name of a former Yugoslav republic. Do you intend to discuss that with the United Nations and agree the correct name for the new republic of Macedonia?

            THE PRESIDENT.  I call Mr Trajkovski to respond.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI said that this was an interesting question regarding the possible use of the prefix ?former, former?. An irrational situation had been reached whereby Yugoslavia had abandoned the Federation, which might lead to Macedonia becoming a ?former, former? republic. The naming of the Republic of Macedonia was not an issue of prestige but an issue of international legal standards. It was also, perhaps, a political issue and the support of the international community was to be welcomed. His country deserved and expected the international community to respect its position. After all his country had made much progress with regard to its constitution and had even changed its flag.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Landsbergis?

            Mr LANDSBERGIS (Lithuania).  Mr Trajkovski, I only hope that the international community will be reasonable and stop referring to your country as the "former".

            THE PRESIDENT.  I call Mr Trajkovski to reply.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI.  We hope that it will be the former former.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. The next question will be asked by Mr Tepshi.

            Mr TEPSHI (Albania).  You are praised for your important role in building a good climate in your country, and especially for your contribution towards the implementation of the Ohrid agreement, which this Assembly appreciates. Will elections take place in your country on 15 September?

            THE PRESIDENT.  I call Mr Trajkovski to reply.

            Mr TRAJKOVSKI replied emphatically in the affirmative. All the political parties in the Republic of Macedonia were committed to this date and it was the desire of the people that they should take place as scheduled. They would be fair and democratic elections, in line with the best European standards.

            THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. Would you like to ask a supplementary question, Mr Tepshi?

            Mr TEPSHI (Albania).  I want only to congratulate President Trajkovski on his contribution to his country and to the wider region.

            THE PRESIDENT.  Thank you. That brings to an end the questions to Mr Trajkovski. I thank him most warmly on behalf of the Assembly for his address and for the remarks that he has made in answering the questions


Speech made to the Assembly

Thursday, 27 June 2002



Questions and answers

Почетна колекция - Възпоменателен Плик издаден от Съвета на Европа отразяващ участието на Борис Трайковски в сесията на ПАСЕ при първото му гостуване.

Speech made to the Assembly

Wednesday, 28 June 2000



Questions and answers


  ... и при второто му гостуване.



Борис Трайковски се ръкува с Лъчезар Тошев (ЕНП, България), на Среща на Ад-Хок Комисията на ПАСЕ с Президента Борис Трайковски в неговия кабинет, 2001г.


(При моето ръкуване с него (на снимката) той ме заведе до бюрото си и ми показа, че там пази мартениците (наричани от него мартенки ) които му бях изпращал.)


На заден план : Дмитрий Рогозин (консерватор, Русия), Стеф Горис (либерал, Белгия), Андреас Грос (социалист, Швейцария), Роман Якич (либерал, Словения).  



С Борис Трайковски се запознах през 1994г. като наблюдател на ПАСЕ на изборите в (тогава) Република Македония. Тогава той беше директор на отдела за международно сътрудничество на ВМРО-ДПМНЕ.





След това като Заместник-Министър на външните работи, заедно с Марин Райков, тогава Зам. Министър на българското МВнР, договориха формулата за "езикът" - наречен официален според Конституцията, която позволи подписване не само на известната декларация Георгиевски-Костов, но и на голям брой двустранни договори между нашите две страни.

Преговорите за езика бяха водени на езика!

Без преводачи!

Дори мога да свидетелствам, че Борис имаше намерение да заяви, че разликите в официалните езици не са отишли през годините толкова далече, че да се смятат за различни езици. 

Беше спрян да го направи от българска страна, тъй като тогава шансовете да бъде избран за президент щяха да намалеят съществено.

Впрочем, на изборите за президент в неговия екип имаше и български PR специалисти. Те го подкрепиха особено активно между първия и втория тур на изборите, които той спечели убедително.  (Попитайте Юлий Павлов за подробности!)

След подписването на Охридския договор през 2001г., аз си позволих да номинирам Борис Трайковски и Арбен Джафери за Нобелова награда за мир. Тогава имах това право и се възползвах от него.

За да постигне вътрешен мир и да запази държавата си, а също и като убеден християнин Борис Трайковски имаше куража тогава да се изправи дори срещу своята партия. Министър-Председателят Любчо Георгиевски отказваше да го приеме. Тогава той се дигна и отиде пред вратата му, да чака да бъде приет. Разказа ми това с подробности. 

А имаше и един случай, за който не се говори. След подписването на Охридския договор, група въоръжени с автомати македонски ченгета, демонстрираха пред Парламента, на втория етаж на който беше офисът на Президента и искаха оставката му. 

Той беше изведен от охраната си през страничен вход и заведен в една близка казарма, за да бъде охраняван добре. Семейството му замина за Струмица и от там през границата беше изведено в една приятелска държава, където бяха в безопасност.

Но Борис Трайковски не отстъпи, защото искаше да спаси своята държава от етнически конфликт. 

И успя!

Това заслужаваше най-висока оценка.

Номинацията ми за Нобелова награда за мир тогава не спечели, но е добре вече да се знае, че по онова време имаше такава номинация за него и Джафери за тази престижна международна награда за мир.


Борис идваше често на семинари на СДС в България, можеше често да бъде видян в кафенето на Народното събрание в София... Така той успя да съдейства  на своята партия ВМРО-ДПМНЕ да стане член на Европейската Народна Партия, където СДС вече членуваше и окуражаваше приемането на тази нова братска партия в семейството на европейските християндемократи. 

Много от българските политици Борис познаваше лично.

Затова, когато на 26 февруари 2004г. в Народното събрание дойде страшната вест за неговата смърт в самолетна катастрофа близо до Мостар, без никакво колебание и единодушно Народното събрание прекрати своето заседание в знак на траур за загиналия наш приятел. 

Тогавашният ръководител на македонската делегация в ПАСЕ проф.Данило Глигороски ми изпрати един кратък sms: "Здравей, Лъчезар. Нашиот приятел Борис Трайковски го нема веке."

По-късно същата година, в Лихтенщайн по инициатива на принц Николаос фон Лихтенщайн, беше проведена възпоменателна среща в памет на Борис Трайковски. Бях поканен да говоря за Борис на тази среща. 

Тогава на срещата бяха поканени двама души, за които се смяташе че са били близки с покойния президент Трайковски – това беше неговият Главен секретар на кабинета Зоран Йолевски (по-късно посланик в САЩ, Министър на отбраната и пр.) и … аз. Там се запознах и със Жоржина Дюфоа, министър в кабинета на Франсоа Митеран за чиято история по-рано бях писал статия.

На жп-гарата в Сент Маргретен в Швейцария, близо до Боденското езеро ме чакаше лично принц Николаос, който шофирайки сам колата си ме закара до тяхната къща във Вадуц (не в замъка, а срещу него)

 С принц Николаос фон Лихтенщайн в двора на къщата му във Вадуц


Загубили бяхме един забележителен човек, искрен приятел, голяма личност, истински християнин, убеден европеец!

Вечна памет на Борис Трайковски!




24 юни 2021


Днес на сайта на ПАСЕ беше публикувано предложение за Резолюция на Асамблеята инициирано от Ръководителя на българската делегация в ПАСЕ г-н Димитър Главчев и българските депутати от ГЕРБ г-жа Милена Дамянова и г-жа Ивелина Василева. 


Димитър Главчев


Предложението е подкрепено от общо 20 членове на ПАСЕ от България, Швеция, Украйна, Румъния, Литва, Сърбия, Република Северна Македония, Испания, Полша и Италия. 

Подписалите са членове на три от политическите фракции в ПАСЕ - ЕНП/Християндемократи, Европейски консерватори и Групата на либералите и демократите в Европа.


Сред подписалите е и Председателят на Групата на ЕНП в ПАСЕ г-н Александер Почи, както и Ръководителят на делегацията на Швеция г-жа Боряна Оберг, която е българка по произход.


С тази инициатива г-н Главчев и подписалите с него депутати, разширяват пробива по темата, след постигнатия отговор от Комитета на Министрите на Съвета на Европа по същата тема, получен по-рано тази година - на 8 април 2021г. 




Док. 15328

24 юни 2021г.




Предложение за Резолюция

Внесено от Г-н Димитър Главчев и други членове на Асамблеята

 Това предложение не е дискутирано от Асамблеята и ангажира само тези, които са го подписали.

Два писмени въпроса бяха внесени от членове на Парламентарната Асамблея за Руските „Трофейни“ архиви (писмени въпроси № 644

No. 644, Doc. 13310 и № 754 Written question no. 754 (Doc. 15148) of 26 September 2013 и отговор от Комитета на Министрите от 8 април 2021г. ).

В становището си № 193 (1996) ( Opinion 193 (1996) ) относно молбата на Русия за членство в Съвета на Европа Парламентарната Асамблея заявява, че:

  • Парламентарната Асамблея отбелязва, че Руската федерация споделя напълно нейното разбиране и тълкуване на поетите ангажименти, както те са изложени в параграф 7 и възнамерява:
  • (...) да договори претенциите за връщане на културна собственост на други европейски държави на принципа ad hoc, като се прави разграничение между видовете имущество (архиви, произведения на изкуството, сгради и пр.) и видовете собственост (държавна, частна или институционална);
  • (...) да уреди бързо всички въпроси, свързани с връщане на имущество, изискано от държави-членки на Съвета на Европа, особено архивите, прехвърлени в Москва през 1945 г.

Постоянната комисия по Култура, Наследство и Ландшафт (CDCPP) трябва да проведе изследване относно прилагането на Препоръка № R (2000)13 (Recommendation No. R(2000)13  ) на Комитета на Министрите от страните-членки.

Асамблеята – в съответствие със всичко това, изисква от властите на Руската Федерация без забавяне да осигурят свободен достъп до тези „Трофейни“ архиви за всички учени, студенти и други граждани и по-специално за тези от засегнатите страни.


Подписали :

Главчев, Димитър, България, ЕНП/ХД

Оберг, Боряна, Швеция, ЕНП/ХД

Билозир, Лариса, Украйна, ЕНП/ХД

Кристиансон, Александер, Швеция, ЕК/ДА

Цсома, Ботонд, Румъния, ЕНП/ХД

Дамянова, Милена, България, ЕНП/ХД

Хорга, Мария-Габриела, Румъния, ЕНП/ХД

Камелчук, Юрий, Украйна, ЕНП/ХД

Ковач, Елвира, Сърбия, ЕНП/ХД

Кравчук, Йевелина, Украйна, АЛДЕ

Лейте, Кармен, Испания, ЕНП/ХД

Мезенцева, Мария, Украйна, ЕНП/ХД

Николоски, Александар, Република Северна Македония, ЕНП/ХД

Почи, Александер, Полша, ЕНП/ХД (Председател на групата на ЕНП/ХД)

Полидори, Катя, Италия, ЕНП/ХД

Василева, Ивелина, България, ЕНП/ХД

Власенко, Серхий, Украйна, ЕНП/ХД

Яшко, Йелизавета, Украйна, ЕНП/ХД

Зингерис, Емануелис, Литва, ЕНП/ХД


Съкращения на имената на  политическите фракции в ПАСЕ


АЛДЕ – Алианс на либерали и демократи за Европа

ЕК/ДА – Европейски консерватори и Демократичен Алианс

ЕНП/ХД – Група на Европейската Народна Партия/Християндемократи








Implementation of Recommendation No. R(2000)13 of the Committee of Ministers and the access of "Trophy" archives of the Russian Federation

Motion for a resolution | Doc. 15328 | 24 June 2021

Link: https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29356/html


Mr Dimitar GLAVCHEV, Bulgaria, EPP/CD ; Ms Boriana ÅBERG, Sweden, EPP/CD ; Ms Larysa BILOZIR, Ukraine, EPP/CD ; Mr Alexander CHRISTIANSSON, Sweden, EC/DA ; Mr Botond CSOMA, Romania, EPP/CD ; Ms Milena DAMYANOVA, Bulgaria, EPP/CD ; Ms Maria-Gabriela HORGA, Romania, EPP/CD ; Mr Yuriy KAMELCHUK, Ukraine, EPP/CD ; Ms Elvira KOVÁCS, Serbia, EPP/CD ; Ms Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, Ukraine, ALDE ; Ms Carmen LEYTE, Spain, EPP/CD ; Ms Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Ukraine, EPP/CD ; Mr Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI, North Macedonia, EPP/CD ; Mr Aleksander POCIEJ, Poland, EPP/CD ; Ms Catia POLIDORI, Italy, EPP/CD ; Ms Ivelina VASSILEVA, Bulgaria, EPP/CD ; Mr Sergiy VLASENKO, Ukraine, EPP/CD ; Mr Markus WIECHEL, Sweden, EC/DA ; Ms Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ukraine, EPP/CD ; Mr Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Lithuania, EPP/CD


This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only those who have signed it.


Two written questions have been tabled by members of the Parliamentary Assembly on Russian “Trophy” archives (written questions No. 644 and No. 754 and reply by the Committee of Ministers of 8 April 2021).

In its Opinion 193 (1996) on the application by Russian Federation for membership of the Council of Europe, the Assembly notes that:

“the Russian Federation shares fully its understanding and interpretation of commitments entered into as spelt out in paragraph 7, and intends:

  • (...) to negotiate claims for the return of cultural property to other European countries on an ad hoc basis that differentiates between types of property (archives, works of art, buildings, etc.) and of ownership (public, private or institutional);
  • (...) to settle rapidly all issues related to the return of property claimed by Council of Europe member States, in particular the archives transferred to Moscow in 1945.”

The Steering Committee for Culture, Heritage and Landscape (CDCPP) should conduct a study of the implementation of Recommendation No. R(2000)13 of the Committee of Ministers by member States.

The Assembly therefore asks the authorities of Russian Federation to grant free access without delay to these “Trophy” archives for all scientists, students and other citizens and particularly for those from the member States concerned.



Mise en œuvre de la Recommandation n° R(2000)13 du Comité des Ministres et accès aux archives «Trophées» de la Fédération de Russie

Proposition de résolution | Doc. 15328 | 24 juin 2021

Link: https://pace.coe.int/fr/files/29356/html

Signataires :

M. Dimitar GLAVCHEV, Bulgarie, PPE/DC ; Mme Boriana ÅBERG, Suède, PPE/DC ; Mme Larysa BILOZIR, Ukraine, PPE/DC ; M. Alexander CHRISTIANSSON, Suède, CE/AD ; M. Botond CSOMA, Roumanie, PPE/DC ; Mme Milena DAMYANOVA, Bulgarie, PPE/DC ; Mme Maria-Gabriela HORGA, Roumanie, PPE/DC ; M. Yuriy KAMELCHUK, Ukraine, PPE/DC ; Mme Elvira KOVÁCS, Serbie, PPE/DC ; Mme Yevheniia KRAVCHUK, Ukraine, ADLE ; Mme Carmen LEYTE, Espagne, PPE/DC ; Mme Mariia MEZENTSEVA, Ukraine, PPE/DC ; M. Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI, Macédoine du Nord, PPE/DC ; M. Aleksander POCIEJ, Pologne, PPE/DC ; Mme Catia POLIDORI, Italie, PPE/DC ; Mme Ivelina VASSILEVA, Bulgarie, PPE/DC ; M. Sergiy VLASENKO, Ukraine, PPE/DC ; M. Markus WIECHEL, Suède, CE/AD ; Mme Yelyzaveta YASKO, Ukraine, PPE/DC ; M. Emanuelis ZINGERIS, Lituanie, PPE/DC


Cette proposition n'a pas été examinée par l'Assemblée et n'engage que ses signataires. 


Deux questions écrites ont été déposées par des membres de l'Assemblée parlementaire sur les archives «Trophées» russes (questions écrites n° 644 et n° 754 et réponse du Comité des Ministres du 8 avril 2021).

Dans son Avis 193 (1996) relatif à la demande d'adhésion de la Fédération de Russie au Conseil de l'Europe, l'Assemblée prend note:

«que la Fédération de Russie partage pleinement sa conception et son interprétation des engagements contractés, tels qu'énoncés au paragraphe 7, et qu’elle a l'intention:

  • (...) de négocier les demandes de restitution de biens culturels à d'autres pays européens sur une base ad hoc qui permettrait de distinguer les différentes catégories de biens (archives, œuvres d'art, bâtiments, etc.) et de propriétaire (public, privé ou institutionnel);
  • (...) de régler rapidement toutes les questions relatives à la restitution de biens réclamés par des États membres du Conseil de l'Europe, et notamment les archives transférées à Moscou en 1945».

Le Comité directeur de la culture, du patrimoine et du paysage (CDPATEP) devrait mener une étude sur la mise en œuvre de la Recommandation n° R(2000)13 du Comité des Ministres par les États membres.

L’Assemblée demande en conséquence aux autorités de la Fédération de Russie d'accorder sans délai le libre accès à ces archives «Trophées» à tous les scientifiques, étudiants et autres citoyens, et en particulier à ceux des États membres concernés.



Свързани теми :










Русия и българските "трофейни архиви"

Разговор на Г. Папакочев с Л. Тошев



От сайта на БНР-Хоризонт: Казусът със заграбените от Червената армия трофейни архиви е в застой




Последна инициатива в ПАСЕ -

Внесен писмен въпрос до Комитета на Министрите, представляващ правителствата на 47-те държави-членки



Русия и българските "трофейни архиви"

Разговор на Г. Папакочев с Л. Тошев



 Христо Христов :

 Има ли още български архиви, заграбени от Кремъл