Shear walls are lateral load resisting elements that are intentionally designed for resisting seismic loading, therefore there is no question for shear walls to be included in elements that are not intended to resist seismic action. On the other hand beams and columns may or may not be designed for lateral loading.
But sometimes there are some elements that can not resist the forces that are got from structural analysis, in such a manner we can ignore them, I can name for example the gravity columns.
We may have a wall in the structure that is not to resist the seismic force, So how about them?
I believe walls should always be considered to be part of the seismic force resisting system. When correctly proportioned, they will resist their part of the seismic forces. On the other hand, not including frame members would not have the same effect as not including walls. The beams and columns do not know they are not part of the seismic system - it is our assumption not to include them.
It ( EUROCODE-8 )says the stiffness of the secondary element stiffness should be less than 15% of the total stiffness of the structure but it does not separate the walls.
Section 18.14 is dedicated to structural members not designated as part of the seismic-force-resisting system are required to be designed to support gravity loads and the load effects of vertical ground motion, while subjected to the design displacement.
In this case, in my opinion, a wall not designed as part of the seismic-force-resisting system cannot be considered as a shear wall; therefore, this section does not include shear walls. I mean this definition only referred to bearing walls, and you can find design limits for bearing walls in section 14.3.
As a result, section 18.14 is dedicated to the columns, beams, wall piers and so forth, which makes perfect sense. There is no change in the definition of these structural members with and without seismic loads.