ქვემოთ იხილეთ ევროკავშირის პასუხი ა.წ. 22 ივნისს ქ. თბილისში გამართული ასოცირების კომიტეტის სამოქმედო დასკვნებში შრომის ინსპექციაზე სადავო ჩანაწერთან დაკავშირებით.

როგორც ნახავთ, ევროკავშირი არ თანხმდება ქართული მხარის შეთავაზებას და არ იზიარებს არგუმენტებს. გთხოვთ, გვაცნობოთ თქვენი პოზიცია და ასევე თუ არის შესაძლებელი, შევიმუშაოთ ალტერნატიული კომპრომისული წინადადება, რომელიც მისაღები იქნებოდა ჩვენთვის და ასევე დააკმაყოფილებდა ევროკავშირსაც. წინააღდეგ შემთხვევაში ეს საკითხი შესაძლოა ასოცირების საბჭოს სხდომაზე დადგეს, რომელიც პრემიერ-მინისტრის დონეზე გაიმართება 8 დეკემბერს ბრიუსელში.

From: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS) [mailto:Pierre.DEUSY@eeas.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:47 PM
To: Lela Garsevanishvili
Cc: RYCHENER Frederique (EMPL); Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS)
Subject: RE: Association Committee

We liaised with DG EMPL, who is in charge of the file, and it is unfortunately impossible for us to accept having a deadline in 2019 (and only the final aim without intermediate concrete steps).

They confirmed that we are not asking for a fully-fledged labour inspectorate covering all the sectors before end of 2017, but that we need to implement this year previous commitments to put in place the legal instrument needed to underpin a fully-fledged labour inspection system. Indeed, the OSH law is a first step in this direction, but only a first step (e.g. as you decided not to take on board all ILO comments).

We need for instance you to define asap what are the highly risky / dangerous activities which will be first covered (+ how?), and to have something (deadlines/planning?) about monitoring implementation and ensuring follow-up and further generalisation. We are open to the precise wording of this commitment, but we need to have this, if not in 2017, at least in the first quarter of 2018.

Georgia also needs to take steps to develop the legal basis allowing for a labour inspection system in other areas than OSH. This should start asap, in 2018.

I hope we can rapidly agree on that line, otherwise, we are likely to be blocked.

Pierre DEUSY
European External Action Service - Service Européen pour l'Action Extérieure
MD Europe and Central Asia – EURCA

EURCA EAST 2
Advisor to the Head of Division for economic and trade-related matters in the Eastern Partnership countries
* RP Schuman 9A - B - 1046 - LOI 5/315
( + 32 2 584 2166 - (from Commission: * 96 2166)
@ pierre.deusy@eeas.europa.eu

From: Lela Garsevanishvili [ mailto:lgarsevanishvili@mfa.gov.ge]
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:42 PM
To: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS)
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); BOUDRON Raffaella (NEAR); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS)
Subject: RE: Association Committee

Thank you for constructive approach towards our comments. All of them are acceptable and as you shall see, I have removed track-changes.

As you indicated, one issue still remains open and that concerns the labour inspection. Our relevant line-ministries would like to maintain the overall deadline and have provided respective explanation as a comment. We hope for your understanding in reflecting this challenging task in this document as proposed.

From: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS) [ mailto:Pierre.DEUSY@eeas.europa.eu]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 6:24 PM
To: Lela Garsevanishvili
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); BOUDRON Raffaella (NEAR); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS)
Subject: RE: Association Committee

Sorry for taking so much time to answer, but it proved to be difficult receiving the necessary feedback from TAXUD…

We managed to satisfy most of your requests, including on Energy where we provided alternative language you should agree with… The only point on which I see a persisting problem is labour inspection (see our comments). We sincerely would like not to be confrontational, but the OC should reflect the reinsurances we got orally during the ACty. Moreover, this is a very old story which needs to be seriously addressed: statistics are worsening and social (ultra-minimal, here) protection is part of the genetics of the EU model. We cannot agree delaying previous commitments beyond 2018.

I do hope that we will rapidly converge to an agreed document on that basis, to be shared with the AC early December

From: Lela Garsevanishvili [ mailto:lgarsevanishvili@mfa.gov.ge]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 9:28 AM
To: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS)
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); BOUDRON Raffaella (NEAR); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS)
Subject: RE: Association Committee

Please find attached the draft AC Operation Conclusions with relevant comments from the line-ministries, as well as the draft report of the meeting with the input from the line ministries. For better reading, I have accepted the agreed track-changes in the OCs.

From: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS) [ mailto:Pierre.DEUSY@eeas.europa.eu]
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:31 PM
To: Lela Garsevanishvili
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); BOUDRON Raffaella (NEAR); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS)
Subject: RE: next Association Committee

Late August is past and early September quite advanced… Any news from your side?

From: Lela Garsevanishvili [ mailto:lgarsevanishvili@mfa.gov.ge]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 2:25 PM
To: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS)
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); HERMAN Janos (EEAS-TBILISI); DEVIGNE Luc (EEAS); BOUSQUET Mathieu (NEAR); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS); REY Vincent (EEAS-TBILISI); DLOUCHY-SULIGA Dorota (EEAS-TBILISI); ANQUETIL Emmanuel (EEAS-EXT); ANDRESEN GUIMARAES Fernando (EEAS); SORENSEN Anne (EEAS); RYCHENER Frederique (EMPL); TROMBETTA Dario (ENV-EXT); CSONTOS Eniko (HOME); DU VILLE Glenn (HOME); VERSTREKEN Kathleen (EEAS); CONTI Erika (ECHO); CURZON Stephen James (ECHO); HOFMANS Bram (EEAS-EXT); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); BOUDRON Raffaella (NEAR); HAUF Michaela (NEAR); FREIGOFAS Ramunas (SANTE)
Subject: Re: next Association Committee

Unfortunately, as many our colleagues from line ministries are on leave, including myself, we can come back on your comments late August/early September.

From: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS) < Pierre.DEUSY@eeas.europa.eu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 3:15 PM
To: Lela Garsevanishvili
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS); HERMAN Janos (EEAS-TBILISI); DEVIGNE Luc (EEAS); BOUSQUET Mathieu (NEAR); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS); REY Vincent (EEAS-TBILISI); DLOUCHY-SULIGA Dorota (EEAS-TBILISI); ANQUETIL Emmanuel (EEAS-EXT); ANDRESEN GUIMARAES Fernando (EEAS); SORENSEN Anne (EEAS); RYCHENER Frederique (EMPL); TROMBETTA Dario (ENV-EXT); CSONTOS Eniko (HOME); DU VILLE Glenn (HOME); VERSTREKEN Kathleen (EEAS); CONTI Erika (ECHO); CURZON Stephen James (ECHO); HOFMANS Bram (EEAS-EXT); MARFI Krisztina (EEAS); BOUDRON Raffaella (NEAR); HAUF Michaela (NEAR); FREIGOFAS Ramunas (SANTE)
Subject: next Association Committee

In spite of the absence of many colleagues here in Brussels, we finally managed to consolidate more rapidly than initially envisaged an EU answer to your demands.

We sincerely tried to satisfy them as much as possible, but it was not always possible.

As you are well aware the mandate of the Association Committee is to support the work of the Association Council and the implementation of the Association Agreement. Association Committee Conclusions do not relate to the respective Parties' relations with third countries but aim to administer the institutional arrangements for developing dialogue, implementing the Association Agreement and furthering our bilateral relations. Furthermore, the EU has already explicitly stated in the Association Agreement that the EU recognizes the importance of the commitment of Georgia to reconciliation and its efforts to restore its territorial integrity and full and effective control over the breakaway regions of Georgia in pursuit of a peaceful and lasting conflict resolution based on principles of international law, and of the EU's commitment to support a peaceful and lasting resolution of the conflict. In the same context the EU has also clearly stated that it attaches great importance of pursuing the implementation of the Six-Point Agreement of 12 August 2008 and its subsequent implementing measures, of meaningful international presence for maintaining peace and security on the ground, of pursuing mutually supportive non-recognition and engagement policies, of supporting the Geneva International Discussions and of safe and dignified return of all internally displaced persons and refugees in line with principles of international law.

Against this background, the accumulation of "consolidate efforts", "mobilize efforts", "intensify dialogue", "take effective steps" and "intensify efforts" sounds like an (unfair and biased) critic of our action. Especially so since, as stressed in Tbilisi, the next SSF will cover Breakaways much much more than any similar document ever did before and since we have issued an unprecedented series of statements in the last months about the conflict. Your PM himself praised and recognised publicly the "crucial" importance of the EU contribution and "pro-active involvement" in this respect on the 13.07 in Tabula… The wording you propose gives the wrong impression that what we do is both insufficient and inefficient, which is certainly not at par with our growing and already huge efforts and commitments.

Unfortunately too, this impression is reinforced by the fact that the sentence you propose are rather vague about ways and means to reinforce our efforts in order to make them more efficient… and that they seem to make as if the EU could decide by its own on some decisive dimensions of the said involvement (e.g. 'reinfrocing' EUMM strictly depends on the MS, and we cannot commit on this). To give a precise example: when you ask to "Take effective steps to ensure observance of non-use of force by Russia, establishment of international security arrangements in Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, and the safe and dignified return of IDPs and refugees, as well as to guarantee security and human rights in the occupied territories of Georgia", it is unclear what is meant with "effective steps", and some MS could choose to interpret such a wording as equalling restrictive measures. In the same vein, the wording "establishment of international security arrangements" also seems to be alluring towards some sort of new political or operational initiative which is neither clear nor would we be able to commit ourselves to something like this without the consulting MS. Moreover there is already suggested a reference to the fulfilment of all provisions of the EU mediated 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement and the existing international frameworks so the proposal seems redundant…

Last but not least, the Association Committee is not really the correct forum to agree conclusions on the EUMM Mission. EUMM is deployed to monitor the actions of the conflict parties. We have always been open to follow up on concerns. But the crucial point is that the Mission has to preserve its impartiality and autonomy. You will understand that we cannot be seen as actively following advice from parties on the ground. This is the only way for the Mission to remain helpful.

Regarding the changes you propose relating to environment, it is clear from the 2014 Association Agreement that environment is a priority in our relationship with Georgia. Even though the country is performing relatively well in several sectors including economic and justice reforms, environment is a horizontal pillar and should be considered as essential for our dialogue and for the long-term prosperity of Georgia. There has been so far significant progress on environment policy and willingness to strengthen environment legislation and approximate EU acquis in Georgia, and we would like to continue in this direction. Therefore, as we do not see ground for a strong justification (especially regarding the deadlines, as we believe these could - and should - be respected) what agreed should remain. We would nonetheless add EU support to Georgia regarding the Espoo Convention (second paragraph, in line with what reported right after) and restate the horizontal importance of environment, which should be progressively integrated in other policy areas, such as the 2014 Social-Economic Development Strategy for Georgia.

Regarding organised crime and in particular property crime, the reason for having "including organised property crime" is that security/organised crime is one of the VLAP benchmarks. Under the revised visa suspension mechanism (on which the Georgians were normally updated by us or in any case during the Senior Officials Meeting of 30 June), the monitoring mechanism has been reinforced, as have been the grounds for suspension. If Georgia should backtrack on the VLAP benchmarks, it could lose the visa-free regime. As Georgia is well aware, the most worrying element in the domain of organised crime is the involvement of Georgians in organised property crime in Europe, notably in Germany, and in committing burglaries. Germany (or another EU country) could well notify the Commission that it considers Georgia not fulfilling all VLAP benchmarks anymore, which would then lead to the start of a procedure in which this would be further investigated. As said, in worst case this could lead to Georgia seeing its visa-free regime being suspended.

Regarding the labour inspection, we can understand that time is needed to effectively establish a full new system, with adequate capacity, but the points in object are more precise, we are pointing to the problem for very long and on them we need a quicker action. The EU indeed needs to report on enforcement system, as a key element of progress in delivering on commitments made in the AA and DCFTA (in relation with the TSD chapter of the DCFTA). Moreover, maintaining bad working conditions have a negative impact on the situation (and on Georgia’s image) : there are regularly new accidents at work in some sectors, that are largely publicized. Therefore, we think it is not on our mutual interest to postpone the timing we proposed, which we think is feasible. Could you please check with the line Ministry and at least provide a more detailed justification for a postponement?

Regarding food safety in agriculture, we factually discussed this point at the Association Committee, which is fundamental for us and absolutely key for the development of the agriculture sector. It is not because it is also and first addressed in the Association Council in Trade configuration that it cannot be addressed too in this format (and it was) nor that it cannot be mentioned in the Operational conclusions.

Beyond that, our colleagues would like to add some additional points to better reflect what we discussed, e.g. on civil protection, justice & good governance, energy and employment (see TC in attached document).

I hope that you will understand that our answer was built in the most constructive spirit and in order to serve your own interest

From: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS)
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 9:47 AM
To: 'Lela Garsevanishvili'
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; TORTA Isabella (EEAS); DEVIGNE Luc (EEAS); Vakhtang Makharoblishvili; PUSTERLA Nicoletta (EEAS); HERMAN Janos (EEAS-TBILISI); REY Vincent (EEAS-TBILISI); DLOUCHY-SULIGA Dorota (EEAS-TBILISI); SCHUEBEL Dirk (EEAS)
Subject: RE: next Association Committee

Thank you for your feedback. It is really sad we could not have it before the meeting…

As you know, quite a lot of our colleagues have already left Brussels for holidays; moreover, you may imagine that what you propose for operational conclusions, which goes quite beyond what was actually agreed in Tbilisi and pretends to determine our bilateral relations with a big strategic partner within our bilateral relation with you, needs further reflection from our side. I thus might not be in the position to answer before September, at best.

As for the draft report, as you know, from our side, we followed, as we always do, the explicit mandate given before the meeting through the DAA (draft annotated agenda, which has been negotiated with our MS, attached), so that we would appreciate your report respecting it when focussing on what we said… which of course doesn’t prevent you to mention freely what you said.

As for conflict resolution, though, we would appreciate that the report do not go beyond what the Georgian actually said then (attached), and that the report say that we strongly reacted toward any so-called 'fading determination towards the resolution of the Russia-Georgia conflict'. We stressed, on the contrary, that our support to GE territorial integrity was not only continued but enhanced, as illustrated by the fact that we decided to have 'breakway regions' both as a cross cutting and as a component of priority 2 within the next SSF, which was not the case previously.

From: Lela Garsevanishvili [mailto:lgarsevanishvili@mfa.gov.ge ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 7:26 AM
To: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS)
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; Salome Shapakidze; TORTA Isabella (EEAS); DEVIGNE Luc (EEAS); Vakhtang Makharoblishvili
Subject: RE: next Association Committee

We have finalized comments on the draft Operational Conclusions of the Association Committee, which I am sending to you attached herewith.

In the meantime, we have also prepared draft report of the meeting, which I will send to you once agreed with the participating line-ministries.

From: DEUSY Pierre (EEAS) [mailto:Pierre.DEUSY@eeas.europa.eu ]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:18 PM
To: Lela Garsevanishvili
Cc: Teona Giuashvili; David Solomonia; VON HANDEL Thomas (EEAS); TORTA Isabella (EEAS); DEVIGNE Luc (EEAS)
Subject: next Association Committee

You said to me in May that you didn't want to discuss the operational conclusions before the committee, but it is important to structure discussions on some basis.

In order to facilitate exchanges on Thursday, here attached is 'our' mandate (i.e. our consolidated draft proposal for operational conclusions, derived from the preliminary draft version sent in May), as defined following various inputs from line DGs in the Commission.

In case you have difficulties with some parts of this document, we would appreciate knowing it, and discussing the points during the Committee.

From :	Maia Nikoleishvili <mnikoleishvili@moh.gov.ge>
To :	sbelkania@moh.gov.ge; mmkurnali@moh.gov.ge
Subject :	Fwd: FW: Association Committee
Received On :	15.11.2017 07:38
Attachments :	image001.jpg image002.png