Parliamentary immunity

REPORT on the request for waiver of the immunity of Guy Verhofstadt - A9-0037/2020

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Orders of chivalry, Government, Orders, decorations, and medals, Brexit, Eurofederalism, Guy Verhofstadt, Royal Norwegian Order of Merit, European Parliament, Parliamentary immunity, Parliament of Singapore, European Court of Justice, Legal immunity

on the request for waiver of the immunity of Guy Verhofstadt (2019/2149(IMM)) The European Parliament, having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Guy Verhofstadt, submitted on 15 October 2019 by the Fifth Criminal Division of Warsaw-rdmiecie District Court, in connection with pending criminal proceedings further to civil proceedings brought before the same court (ref.

Key Points: 
  • on the request for waiver of the immunity of Guy Verhofstadt (2019/2149(IMM)) The European Parliament, having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Guy Verhofstadt, submitted on 15 October 2019 by the Fifth Criminal Division of Warsaw-rdmiecie District Court, in connection with pending criminal proceedings further to civil proceedings brought before the same court (ref.
  • X K 7/18), and announced in plenary on 13 November 2019, having heard Guy Verhofstadt in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure, having regard to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011, 17January 2013 and 30 April 2019[1], having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure, having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0037/2020), A.whereas the Fifth Criminal Division of Warsawrdmiecie District Court, in Poland, has submitted a request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Guy Verhofstadt on the grounds of certain statements made by the latter on 15 November 2017 during a plenary debate at the European Parliament in Strasbourg; whereas the grounds for the order of the District Court state that, as it is for the applicant to obtain authorisation to commence proceedings, in this situation the Public Prosecutors Office should be considered the relevant authority, that if the public prosecutor does not intervene in the proceedings and the Court refuses to request that the immunity in question be waived, the civil applicant is deprived of the possibility of exercising his rights against persons protected by the immunity of the European Parliament and that the provision in question [Rule 9(12) of its Rules of Procedure] does not provide that the Court should draft such a request, but merely that it should transmit it.
  • Thus, the request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity in itself constitutes a purely formal transmission of a request from the civil applicant; noting therefore that the request for waiver of parliamentary immunity was communicated by the judicial authorities in accordance with Rule 9(12) of its Rules of Procedure, but drawing attention to the fact that, under Rule 9(1) of its Rules of Procedure, any request for waiver of parliamentary immunity must be submitted by a competent authority of a Member State, the two concepts not being identical; B.whereas Guy Verhofstadt has been accused, in civil proceedings brought before the said court by the authorised representative of a private applicant, of having rashly insulted that private applicant; whereas in statements that he made during a plenary debate on the state of the rule of law and democracy in Poland and which were disseminated by the media, Guy Verhofstadt described the participants in the Independence March in Warsaw in 2017 as fascists, neo-Nazis and white supremacists; whereas the applicant was among the participants in that march; C.whereas, in making those comments, Guy Verhofstadt allegedly publicly insulted the applicant in his absence and allegedly made accusations against the applicant which damaged his public reputation, as a result which the applicant considered himself to be in danger of forfeiting the trust necessary for the performance of duties, the exercise of a profession or engagement in a type of activity, which is an offence defined in Article 216(2) in conjunction with Article 212(2) in conjunction with Article 11(2) of the Polish Criminal Code; D.whereas parliamentary immunity is not a Members personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members; E.whereas, firstly, Parliament cannot be equated with a court, and, secondly, in the context of a procedure for the waiver of immunity, a Member of the European Parliament cannot be regarded as an accused[2]; F.whereas Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union stipulates that Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties; G.whereas Guy Verhofstadt made his statements during a plenary session of the European Parliament, within the precincts where the plenary sitting itself was being conducted, in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament; H.whereas the statements by Guy Verhofstadt were therefore made in the context of his duties as a Member of and his work at the European Parliament; 1.Decides not to waive the immunity of GuyVerhofstadt; 2.Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the Republic of Poland and to GuyVerhofstadt.

REPORT on the request for waiver of the immunity of Gunnar Beck - A9-0036/2020

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Government, Law, Public law, European Parliament, Parliamentary immunity, Gunnar Beck, Parliament of Singapore, European Union law, Privileges and Immunities, Legal immunity, European Court of Justice

on the request for waiver of the immunity of Gunnar Beck

Key Points: 
  • on the request for waiver of the immunity of Gunnar Beck

    (2019/2154(IMM))

    The European Parliament,

    having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Gunnar Beck, forwarded on 29 October 2019 by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in connection with Procedure No 80 AR 137/19 and announced in plenary on 25 November 2019,

    having heard Gunnar Beck in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

    having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

    having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011, 17January 2013 and 30 April 2019[1],

    having regard to Article 46 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany,

    having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure,

    having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0036/2020),

    A.whereas the Dsseldorf Chief Public Prosecutor has requested the waiver of the immunity of Gunnar Beck, Member of the European Parliament, in connection with a possible investigation into the alleged misuse of titles, a crime established and punishable under Section 132a (1)(1) of the German Criminal Code;

    B.whereas the investigation does not concern opinions expressed or votes cast by Gunnar Beck in the performance of his duties, in accordance with Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

    C.whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union states that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of that state;

    D.whereas on the ballot paper for the election of Members of the European Parliament of 26 May 2019, Gunnar Beck was listed as Prof. Dr. Gunnar Beck, Hochschuldozent [university lecturer], Barrister-at-Law fr EU-Recht [for EU law], Neuss (NW); whereas in 1996 Gunnar Beck was awarded a Doctorate in Philosophy in Oxford, Great Britain, while in Germany he obtained the title of neither professor nor doctor; whereas before the constituent part-session of the European Parliament, the Dsseldorf Public Prosecutors Office launched an investigation on the basis of press reports and criminal complaints into suspected misuse of a title under Section 132a(1)(1) of the German Criminal Code; whereas shortly after 5 July 2019 and presumably on 9 July 2019, the investigation was suspended as a result of the election of Gunnar Beck to the European Parliament; whereas on 4 September 2019 the Dsseldorf Chief Public Prosecutor forwarded a request for the waiver of Gunnar Becks immunity to the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection with a view to relaunching the investigation into suspected misuse of a title under Section 132a(1)(1) of the German Criminal Code;

    E.whereas pursuant to Rule 9(8) of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt, or otherwise, of the Member, nor shall it pronounce on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to the Member justify prosecution, even if the committee, in considering the request, acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case;

    F.whereas in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary immunity is not a Members personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members;

    G.whereas the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties;

    H.whereas in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, i.e.

  • factual elements which indicate that the intention underlying the legal proceedings may be to damage a Members political activity, and thus the European Parliament;

    1.Decides to waive the immunity of Gunnar Beck;

    2.Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the German authorities and to Gunnar Beck.