GENERA FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICYDEPARTMENT CITIZENSx0027RIGHTSAND CONSTITUTIONALAFFAI RS LEGAL AFFAIRS IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN DEPTHANALYSIS Abstract Upo requestbythe J ID: 361055
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "DIRECTORATE" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
DIRECTORATE GENERA FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICYDEPARTMENT CITIZENS'RIGHTSAND CONSTITUTIONALAFFAI RS LEGAL AFFAIRS IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN DEPTHANALYSIS Abstract Upo requestbythe JURI Committee, th is in depthanalysisexaminesthe immunity of MembersoftheEuropeanParliament.Itdescribesthescopeof theirimmunity,asclarifiedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion, togetherwith theproceduresfollowedbyParliamentincasesofwaiver defenceof parliamentaryimmunities Lastly itlooksatthepracticeofthe competent ommitteeinorderto infer thegeneralprinciples underlying its decisions. PE509.981 EN DOCUMENTREQUESTEDBYTHECOMMITTEEON LEGAL AFFAIRS AUTHOR (S) RosaRAFFAELLI SarahSalomeSY PolicyDepartmentCitizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs EuropeanParliament 1047Brussels mail: poldep citizens@ep.europa.eu LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUTTHEEDITOR PolicyDepartmentsprovidein houseandexternalexpertisetosupportEP committeesand otherparliamentarybodiesinshapinglegislationandexercisingdemocraticscrutiny. TocontactthePolicyDepartmentortosubscribetoit monthlynewsletterpleasewriteto: poldep citizens@ep.europa.eu EuropeanParliament, anuscriptcompletedin October 20 14 © European Union Brussels, 20 14 ThisdocumentisavailableontheInterne at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER Theopinionsexpressedinthisdocumentarethesoleresponsibilityoftheauthoranddo notnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialpositionof heEuropeanParliament. Reproductionandtranslationfornon commercialpurposesareauthori ed,providedthe sourceisacknowledgedandthepublisherisgivenpriornoticeandsentcopy. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 15 20 25 TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament CONTENTS LISTOFABBREVIATIONS EXECUTIVESUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Parliamentaryimmunities anoverview 1.1.1. Absoluteimmunityforopinionsandvotes(Article8,PPI) 1.1.2. Immuni tyfromprosecution,arrestanddetention(Article9,PPI) 1.1.3. RelationshipwiththeprivilegeprovidedforbyArticle7,PPI 1.2. Immunities andfundamentalrights:findingtherightbalance 2. ABSOLUTEIMMUNITYFOR OPINIONSANDVOTES 12 2.1. Du rationofthenon liability 13 2.2. Scopeofthenon liability 13 2.2.1. spatialcriterion… 14 2.2.2. … andananalysisofthe“natureandcontents”ofthespeech 2.3. Whodecides whethertheprincipleofabsoluteimmunityapplies? 17 3. IMMUNITY 19 3.1. Durationoftheimmunity 20 3.2. Scopeoftheimmunity 4. PROCEDURESANDGENERALPRINCIPLES 22 4.1. Defenceofprivilegeandimmunities 22 4.2 Procedures andprinciples forcases onimmunities 24 4.2.1. Ordinaryprocedureforwaiverordefenceofimmunity 24 4.2.2. Urgentprocedure 4.2.3. Generalprinciples 25 REFERENCES 27 ANNEX SOURCESOFLAW 30 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs LIST OF ABBREVIATION 1976Act Actconcerningtheelectionoftherepresentatives oftheEuropean Parliamentbydirectuniversalsuffrage,doneon20September1976 CFREU Char terof undamental ights oftheEuropeanUnion CJEU CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion ECHR CouncilofEuropeConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRights and FundamentalFreedoms ECtHR EuropeanCourtofHumanRights JURI CommitteeonLegalAffai rs PPI ProtocolonthePrivileges andImmunities oftheEuropeanUnion RoP Rules ofProcedureoftheEuropeanParliament TEU TreatyonEuropeanUnion TFEU TreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Membersofthe uropeanParliamentaregranted special regimeofimmunities:they enjoy absoluteimmunity forthevotescastandopinionsexpressedintheperformanceof theirduties and protectionfromprosecutionsandrestrictionsoftheirpersonalfreedom duringthe sessionsoftheParliament While absoluteimmunity derivesexclusivelyfromEU law,andisthereforeuniformforallMembers, thescopeof personal immunity partly depends ontherulesapplicabletonationalMembersofParliament. ImmunityisnotMem ber’spersonalprivilegebutguaranteeoftheindependenceof ParliamentaswholeandofitsMembers.Sincetheapplicationofparliamentaryimmunity mayconstituteaninfringement citizens'fundamentalrights(suchasaccesstojustice andequality beforethelaw), its scopeislimitedbytheneedtostrikefairbalancewith theprotectionofsuchrights. Absoluteimmunity opinionsand votes (alsocalledparliamentaryprivilege, irresponsabilité,Verantwortungsfreiheit or Abstimmungs undRed efreiheit,insindacabilità ensuresenhancedprotection for MEPs'freedomofexpression.Itpreventsanytypeof judicialproceeding beingbroughtagainstMembersforvotesoropinionsexpressed inthe performanceoftheirduties inthecourseof themand ate.Itcontinuestoapplyevenafter theendofthemandate and maynotbewaivedorrenounced. AsclarifiedbytheCourtofJustice,ab soluteimmunity isinessenceintendedtoapplyto votesandopinionsexpressedinthepremisesoftheEuropeanParli ament.However, itis notimpossible thatanopinion expressedoutsidetheEuropeanParliament may amountto an exerciseof mber'sduties, providedthat itisanassertionamountingto subjective appraisalwhichpresentsdirectandobviouslinkwit generalinterestofconcernto citizens.Thefinaldecisionastowhether such anopinionisexpressedintheexerciseofthe Member'sdutiespertainstotheexclusivejuri sdictionofthenationalcourts Personalimmunity (alsocalled inviolabilité, Unverletzlichkeit or Unverfolgbarkeit, improcedibilità safeguardsMEPs'independence,protectingthemfrompressureintheform ofthreatsofarrestorlegalproceedings.Itsscopedependsonnationalrules,aswellas on EUlaw:inparticular,whenMemb ersare theterritoryoftheirownMemberState,they areentitledtothesameprotectionthatdomesticlaw grantstoMembersofthenational Parliament.ItisonlywhenMembersareinanotherMemberState oraretravellingtoor fromtheplaceofmeet ingoftheEuropeanParliament, thatthe arecoveredbyan immunitywhosescopeisdefined exclusively by EUlaw. Personal mmunityappliesonlyforthedurationoftheMember'smandate,butitalso coversactscommittedbeforeitscommencement.Itexte ndstoanyproceedings,ifpunitive innature,butdoesnotapplytoMemberscaught inflagrantedelicto Personal mmunity maybewaivedbytheEuropeanParliament. TheRulesofProcedureoftheEuropeanParliament,thecase law oftheCourtofJustice, andthepracticeoftheCommitteeonLegalAffairsclarifyhow casesofimmunityaredealt withandwhichgeneralprinciplesapplyinsuchcases. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 1. INTRODUCTION KEYFINDINGS MembersoftheEuropeanParliamentenjoydoublesystemofimmunity: absolute imm unity fortheopinionsexpressedandvotescastintheexerciseoftheirduties, and personal immunityfromarrestanddetentionduringthesessionsofthe EuropeanParliament. ParliamentaryimmunityisnotMember’spersonalprivilegebutguaranteeof the independenceofParliamentaswholeandofitsMembers. ThescopeofMEPs'immunitiesdependsontheneedtobalanceMember'sfreedom ofexpressionandtheprotectionoftheindependenceofParliamentwiththe fundamentalrightsofothers(inparticu lar,therighttoaccesstojustice)andthe ruleoflaw. 1.1. Parliamentary immunities anoverview heEuropeanUnionenjoysintheterritoriesoftheMemberStatessuchprivilegesand immunitiesasarenecessaryfortheperformanceofitstasks,underthe conditionslaid downintheProtocolontheprivilegesandimmuniti esoftheEuropeanUnion(Article343, TFEU) InaccordancewithArticlesandof that Protocol (hereinafterPPI) Membersof theEuropeanParliamentenjoyspecificregimeofimmuniti es,whosescopeandmannerof applicationisfurtherclarifiedbytheRulesofProcedureoftheEuropeanParliament(RoP) andthecase law oftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU). MembersoftheEuropeanParliament, incommonwith membersof nationalParliamentsin most EU MemberStates,enjo doublesystemofimmunity: absoluteimmunity forthe opinionsexpressedandvotescastinthe exerciseoftheirduties,and personal immunity fromarrestanddetention duringthesessionsoftheEurope anParliament However,while absoluteimmunity isbasedexclusivelyonEUlaw,andisthereforeuniformforallMembers, thescopeof personal immunitydepends,inmostcases,ontherulesapplicabletonational MembersofParliament. Articles and9, PI, whichhavethestatusofEUprimarylaw, provide asfollows Article MembersoftheEuropeanParliamentshallnotbesubjecttoany formofinquiry,detention orlegalproceedingsinrespectofopinionsexpressedorvotescastby theminthe pe rforma nceoftheirduties. Article DuringthesessionsoftheEuropeanParliament,itsMembersshallenjoy: (a) intheterritory oftheirownState,theimmunitiesaccordedtomembersoftheir parliament; (b) intheterritory ofany otherMemberState,immunit y fromanymeasureofdetention andfromlegalproceedings. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament Immunity shalllikewiseapply toMemberswhilethey aretravellingtoandfromtheplaceof meetingoftheEuropeanParliament. Immunity cannotbeclaimedwhenMemberisfoundintheactofcomm ittinganoffence andshallnotpreventtheEuropeanParliamentfromexercisingitsrighttowaivethe immunity ofoneofitsMembers. These provisions are further clarifiedin EUsecondarylaw,inparticular,inRulestoof theEuropeanParliament’s RulesofProcedureandinAnnexVI thereto The RoP makeitclear that arliamentaryimmunityisnotMember’spersonalprivilegebut guaranteeoftheindependenceofParliamentaswholeandofitsMembers(Rule5)and thatParliament,intheexerc iseofitspowersinrespectofprivilegesandimmunities,acts toupholditsintegrityasdemocraticlegislativeassemblyandtosecuretheindependence ofitsMembersintheperformanceoftheirduties(Rule6).Inaddition,Rulesto describethe roceduresthatParliamentfollowswhendealingwithrequeststodefendorto waiveMember’simmunity,aswellasthespecialprocedureapplicableincaseswhere urgentactionisnecessary. Inaddition,AnnexVI totheRoP specifies thatthe committee responsibleforprivilegesand immunities,aswellas for verificationofMembers'credentials,istheCommitteeonLegal Affairs. heCourt JusticeoftheEuropeanUnion hasconfirmedtheneedtodistinguish between theimmunitybasedon Article oftheProtocol,whichestablishesabsoluteimmunity,the contentofwhichisdeterminedsolelybyEuropeanlaw andwhichcannotbewaivedbythe Parliament, andtheonebased onArticle oftheProtocol,which referstothenational rulesoftheMembe StateoforiginoftheMemberoftheParliamentasregardstheterms andscopeoftheimmunityestablishedinfavourofthatMember andwhich can,if necessary,bewaivedbytheParliament. Thus,inthisanalysisthetwotypesofimmunity willbeexam inedseparately. 1.1.1. Absoluteimmunity foropinionsandvotes (Article8,PPI) Theimmunity providedforin Article servestoprotectthefreedomofexpressionand independenceofMembersoftheEuropeanParliament as hasbeen expresslyrecogni edby the CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion his ruleprovidesfor anabsoluteimmunity barringanyjudicialproceedingsinrespectofanopinionexpressedorvotecastinthe exerciseofparliamentaryduties. Thus thisformofimmunity clearly fallsunde the categoryof substantive or functional immunity alsoknownas non liability or parliamentary privilege irresponsabilité inFrench Verantwortungsfreiheit or Abstimmungs undRedefreiheit inGerman insindacabilità inItalian) Inpractice, Member oftheEuropeanParliamentenjoyanenhancedprotectionoftheir freedomofexpression withregardtoopinionsexpressedintheexerciseoftheirfunctions ThetextoftherelevantrulesofprocedureisexaminedinChapterandincludedinAnnextothepresent analysis. SeeRulesofProce dureoftheEuropeanParliament, th parliamentaryterm,AnnexVI,SectionXVI,point10. SeeCJEU, BrunoGollnischEuropeanParliament, 346/11and 347/11,EU:T:2013:23,atpara.51. CJEU,AlfonsoLuigiMarraEduardoDeGregorioandAntonio Clemente, 200/07and 201/07, EU:C:2007:356 [hereinafter Marra case”],para.27. Ibid. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs thisimmunitythereforeaimsat protect ing theintegrityofpoliticaldiscourse and,thus,isof paramountimportancefortheproperfunctioningofrepresentativedemocracy Indeed,as underlinedbyAdvocateGeneral PoiaresMaduro “takingmeasuresagainstMemberin respectofanopinionhehasexpressedorvotehehascastinhiscapacityasan MEP wouldoffendagainsttheinstitutionofParliamentitself,sinceitwouldundermineitsplace astheforum parexcellence ofopendebateanddemocraticdeliberation Thisformof immunity,whilelimitedinscope(itcovers only votesandopinionsexp ressedinthe exerciseoftheMember’sfunctions) isunlimitedintime aslongasthevoteoropinionis connectedtotheMember’smandate,itmaynot bethesubjectofanylegalproceedings evenoncethepersonstepsdownfromthemandate. Moreover, th isimmunitydepends exclusivelyonEUlaw,anditscontentsandscopeofapplicationmustbeestablishedonthe basisofEUlaw alone. Absoluteimmunity ofMembersoftheEuropeanParliamentcannotbe waived norcanitbe renouncedbytheMemberconcern ed.Thus,itisnotsubjecttotheprocedureforwaiverof immunitylaidoutintheRoP. Absoluteimmunityis,inessence,intendedtoapplyto statementsmadebyMemberswithintheprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliament;however,it isnotimpossiblethat statementsexpressedoutsidetheParliamentmayalsoamountto an exerciseofMember's duties 10 Inthelattercase doubtsmay sometimes ariseasto whether the opinion wasexpressed “intheperformanceoftheirduties;” thecase law of theCourtofJust ice andthepracticeoftheLegalAffairsCommitteehave thereforeclarified how thissentenceistobeinterpreted andwhoseisthepowertomakefinal determinationonthismatter 1.1.2. Immunityfromprosecution,arrestanddetention(Article9,PPI) Ac cordingtotheCourtofJustice, 11 heobjectiveofArticle oftheProtocolistosafeguard theindependenceofMembersbyensuringthatpressure,intheformofthreatsofarrestor legalproceedings,isnotbroughttobearonthemduringthesessionsof theParliament It isthereforeclearthatthisimmunityfallsunderthecategoryof personalimmunity also referredtoas immunity rationepersonae or inviolability inviolabilité inFrench, Unverletzlichkeit or Unverfolgbarkeit inGerman improcedibil ità or inviolabilità inItalian) ThescopeofMEPs' ersonalimmunit variesdependingonwhethertheyareinthe terr itoryoftheirownMemberState orintheterritoryofanyotherMemberState. MemberswhoareintheterritoryofanotherMemberState oraretravellingtoorfromthe placeofmeetingoftheEuropeanParliament,enjoyan immunity whichisregulateddirectly byEUlaw: theyarethereforeprotected fromanymeasureofdetentionandfromlegal proceedings inaccordancewithArticle9(1)( b)and(2)PPI Incontradistinction when MemberisintheterritoryofhisownMemberState, thescopeof his immunitydependson nationallaw 12 MEPsfromdifferentMemberStatesenjoyve rydifferentregimesofpersonal SeeLenaerts,K.,"TheprincipleofdemocracyinthecaselawoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice",in International andComparativeLawQuarterly 2013,62(2), 71 315,at291. OpinionofAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMadurointhe Marra case,26June2008,para.12. CJEU Patriciello, 163/10, EU:C:2011:543 [hereinafter Patriciello case”],para.25. CJEU, Marra case,para.44. 10 CJEU, Patriciello case,cited bove,atparas29 30. 11 CJEU,AshleyNeilMoteEuropeanParliament, 345/05, EU:T:2008:440 para. 50. 12 Forananalysisofthescopeofsuchimmunity,throughreviewoftherelevantnationalprovisionsinall MemberStates,seeEuropeanParliament,Po licyDepartmentC, Handbookontheincompatibilitiesandimmunity oftheMembersoftheEuropeanParliament 2014,PE493.029availableat www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/493029/IPOL JURIET%282014%29493029EN.pdf AlsoseeHardt,S., Parliamentaryimmunity Intersentia,Cambridge,2013. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament immunity(fromfullprotection romarrest,detentionandprosecution tonoprotectionat all) Asgeneralrule, ersonalimmunity,whenapplicable,only protect Member aslongas theyare inoffice itsaimis toensurethattheexerciseofthe ir mandateisnothinderedby politi callymotivatedaccusationsorconvictions. Personal immunityisnotlimitedtoacts ommittedintheexerciseofthe functions,butextendstoanyactcommittedbythe Member However,suchimmunityis temporary oncethe Member nolongerperformsthe fun ction,he/shemaybesubjectedtoprosecutionanddetentionevenforactscommitted whileinoffice sincethistypeofimmunityismeanttoprotecttheperson notthefunction, frompol iticallymotivatedprosecutions Moreover, as is explicitlystatedin Article9(3)PPI, andregardlessof nationallaws, personal immunity never extend tocovercasesinwhich Member iscaughtintheactofcommittingthecrime inflagrantedelicto ),sinceinsuch cases theriskofpoliticallymotivatedprosecutionis verylimitedifnotabsent. Additionally,the EuropeanParliament hasthe right towaivetheimmunity andit generally does so save if,afterexaminingthecircumstancesofthecase,itfindsthatthereare reasonstobelievethattheprosecutionispolit icallymotivated (socalled fumus persecutionis seebelow,at4.2.3) 13 1.1.3. RelationshipwiththeprivilegeprovidedforbyArticle7,PPI finalclarificationisnecessarybeforeweproceedtoexamine,indetail,thescopeof parliamentaryimmunity.Inad ditiontotheimmunityprovidedforinArticlesand9,PPI, MEPsarealsoentitledtospecialprotectionoftheirfreedomofmovementunderArticle oftheProtocol.Inparticular,Article7(1)providesthat: Noadministrativeorother restrictionsha llbeimposedonthefreemovementofMembersoftheEuropeanParliament travellingtoorfromtheplaceofmeetingoftheEuropeanParliament Inthepast,thequestionhasarisenastotherelationshipbetweenthisprivilegeandthe immunitiesgranted Arti clesandPPI,inparticular sincethelatteralsoprovidesfor specialregimeofprotectionofMemberswhoaretravellingtoandfromtheplaceof meetingoftheEuropeanParliament.TheCourtofJustice finallyresolvedthisissue,finding tha thescopeofapplicationofArticlesandPPIisnotthesame. 14 Indeed,Article referstoadministrativeorotherrestrictionstothefreedomofmovementofMEPs;those restrictionsdonotincluderestrictionsarisingoutoflegalproceedings,since thelatterfall withinthescopeofArticle9, orofArticleinthespecificareaofopinionsexpressedand votescast. 15 Thus, the privilege providedforbyArticlePPI doesnot applyto restrictions tothe freedomofmovementofMEPsimposedby ourt inthecourseoflegalproceedings (suchasbailordetention) 16 andMemberswhodonotenjoypersonalimmunityunder Article(forinstance,becauseithasbeenwaived,becausethecircumstancesofthecase aresuchthatitdoesnotapply,orbecause heirnationallaw doesnotprovideforit)may notinvoketheprivilegeunderArticle 13 Forstatisticalanalysisofdecisionstakenduringthevariouslegislature (upuntilthe6th),seeEuropean Parliament,OPPD, Non liable?Inviolable?Untouchable? Thechallengeofparliamentaryimmunities 2012,p.33. 14 CJEU,JudgmentintheMotecase,citedabove,para.47. 15 Ibid.,atpara.49. 16 AlsoseeCJEU,Rt.Hon.Lo rdBruceofDoningtonEricGordonAspden,case208/80,EU:C:1981:194,atpara. 14,arguingthattheeffectofArticle7(1)PPI"istoprohibitMemberStatesfromimposing interalia bytheir practicesinmattersoftaxationadministrativerestrictionson thefreemovementofMembersoftheParliament." ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 1.2. Immunitiesand fundamentalrights:finding therightbalance Theexerciseofparliamentaryimmunitymayinsomespecificcasesconflictwithrights protectedby heCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEUandtheEuropeanConventionon HumanRights(ECHR),inparticularthe rightof accessto acourt andtherightof freedomof expression InCastellsvs.Spain 17 andJerusalemvs.Austria 18 twocasesconcerning fre edomof expression underArticle10oftheECHR,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECtHR) recalledthatwhilefreedomofexpressionisimportantforeverybody,itisespeciallysofor anelectedrepresentativeofthepeople.Heorsherepresentstheelec torate,draws attentiontotheirpreoccupationsanddefendstheirinterests.Accordingly,interferences withthefreedomofexpressionofanoppositionmemberofparliamentcallfortheclosest scrutinyonthepartoftheCourt(Castellsv.Spain, para. 42 ). A. v.UnitedKingdom 19 thefirstcasebroughtbeforetheECtHRontheconflictbetween Article (rightto afairtrial) oftheECHR andparliamentaryimmunity,canalsobe regardedasanimportantconfirmationoftheprincipleoffreedomofspeechand political debate.TheCourtconcludedthattheparliamentaryimmunityenjoyedbytheMP inthis casepursuedthelegitimateaimsofprotectingfreespeechinParliamentandmaintaining theseparationofpowersbetweenthelegislatureandthejudiciary.Th ECtHRstatedthat, “inallthecircumstancesofthiscase,theapplicationofruleofabsoluteParliamentary immunitycannotbesaidtoexceedthemarginofappreciationallowedtoStatesinlimiting anindividual'srightofaccesstocourt(par 87 ).”TheCourtemphasised,however,that intheUK noimmunityattachestostatementsmadeoutsideofParliament 20 ortoanMP's pressstatements,eveniftheircontentsarerepeatedsubsequentlyintheparliamentary debateitself TheCourtalsostressedth at intheUK, victimsofdefamationdonotremain completelywithoutredress,sincedeliberatelymisleadingstatementsmay punishableby Parliamentas contempt Insubsequentcase,theCourtunderlinedtheneedtoassesstheexistenceof clear con nection betweentheMember's opinions andparliamentaryactivity:thus,for instance,ironicorderisivelettersaccompaniedbytoyspersonallyaddressedto prosecutorcannotbeconstruedasfallingwithinthescopeofparliamentaryfunctions,but are moreconsistentwithpersonalquarreland,thus,shouldnotbecoveredby absolute immunity 21 Thequestionwhetherparliamentaryprivilegeextendsto thepress wasfurtherexamined bytheStrasbourgCourtinBelpietrov. Italy 22 Thecase concerned the obligationofan editorofnewspapertocontrolwhatispublished,inordertopreventthepublicationof defamatoryarticlesinparticular.Thisdutydoesnotdisappearwhenitconcernsanarticle writtenbymemberofparliament,asotherwise,accordi ngtotheCourt,thiswould amounttoanabsolutefreedomofthepresstopublishanystatementofmembersof parliamentintheexerciseoftheirparliamentarymandate,regardlessofitsdefamatoryor insultingcharacter. 17 ECtHRCastellsvs.Spain(no.11798/85),23April1992. 18 ECtHRJerusalemvs.Austria(no.26958/95),27February2001. 19 ECtHRA.v.UnitedKingdom(no.35373/97),17December2002. 20 SeealsoKartv.Tu rkey,(no.8917/05),December2009. 21 ECtHRCordovav.Italy(no.40877/98)and(no45649/99),30January2003.Forcommentary,seeKloth,M, ImmunitiesandtherightofaccesstocourtunderArticleoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights Martin us NijhoffPublisher,Leiden,2010,p.186ff. 22 ECtHRBelpietrov.Italy(no.43612/10),judgementof24September2013. 10 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament Moreover, heEuropeanCommissio fordemocracythroughlaw ( the so calledVenice Commission) anadvisorybodytotheCouncilofEurope, recentlyadoptedreportonthe scopeandliftingofparliamentary immunity. 23 TheVeniceCommission reviewed the existingnationalruleson absolute andpersonal immunity ofMembersofParliaments, assessingtheminthelightoftheneedtoprotecttheruleoflaw,andproposedseveral guidelinesandcriteriaforregulatingandliftingparliamentaryimmunity. Accordingly,it arguedthat,while national ruleson absoluteimmunity are,asgeneralrule,well justified, atleastas longastheydonot extendtoprivatestatementsofMembersof arliament, existingdomesticrulesonpersonalimmunitymightneedtobereformedsoastolimit chancesofmisu sewhichmightinfringetheruleoflaw,obstructthecourseofjusticeand underminedemocracy.Interestingly,theVeniceCommissionsuggestedthattheruleson immunityapplicableintheEuropeanParliament,aswellasintheParliamentaryAssembly ofth CouncilofEurope,couldbesourceofinspirationfornationalreforms,sincethey reflectcommonEuropeanconsensusontheissue. 24 23 VeniceCommission,Reportonthescopeandliftingofparliamentaryimmunities,Strasbourg14May2014,CDL AD(2014)011 e,available onlineat http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL AD%282014%29011 24 Ibid.,para.201. 11 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 2. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR OPINIONS AND VOT KEYFINDINGS Absoluteimmunity foropinionsandvotesensuresenhancedpro tectionto MEPs' freedomof expression Absoluteimmunity prevents anytypeof judicialproceeding beingbrought againstMembersforvotesoropinionsexpressed intheperformanceoftheirduties duringthemandate.Itcontinuestoapply evenaftertheen d of themandate It may notwaived orrenounced. Absoluteimmunity islimitedtoopinionsexpressedintheexerciseofMember's duties Thus,it isinessenceintendedtoapply to statementsmade withinthe precinctsof theEuropeanParliament Inad dition,itmaycover statements madeoutsidethepremisesoftheParliament,butonlyinsofarastheyare assertionsamounting to subjectiveappraisal whichpresent directand obviouslinkwithgeneralinterestconcernto citizens Accordingto Art icle8,PPI: MembersoftheEuropeanParliamentshallnotbesubjecttoany formofinquiry,detentionorlegalproceedingsinrespectofopinionsexpressedorvotes castby themin heperformanceoftheirduties. Thisimmunityforvotesandopinionsens uresthatMembersoftheEuropeanParliament enjoyanenhanced protectionoftheir freedomofexpression Itprotects MEPs intheir capacity asdemocraticallyelectedrepresentativesofthepeople aswellas Parliamentas theplaceofpoliticaldiscussion AsclarifiedbytheCourtofJustice,thescopeofthis immunitymustbeestablishedonthebasisof EU law alone: 25 nationallawsprotectingthe immunityofnationalparliamentariansareirrelevant forthispurpose Absoluteimmunity protectsMembersof theEuropeanParliamentfromanytypeof proceedings(civil,criminaloradministrative)forvotesoropinionsexpress edinthe exerciseoftheirduties moreover,incontrasttotheconstitutionaltraditionsofsome MemberStates, 26 italsoappliesinthe caseofopinionsexpressedwithdefamatoryintent. Thus,votesandopinionsexpressedbyMEPsintheperformanceoftheirdutiesaresubject onlytotheconventionsofparliamentaryetiquette,whoseapplicationistheresponsibilityof Parliamentalone. 27 However, clarifiedbyAdvocateGeneralJääskinen,thisparliamentary immunityincludes“notonlyrightsbutalsoresponsibilities:” although MEPs benefit,inthe exerciseoftheirfunctions,fromsubstantiveimmunity,theyarestillsubjecttotherules of conductlaiddownbytheinstitution,andthus,maybesubjectedtodisciplinarymeasures, insofarastheseare providedforin theRoP. 28 25 SeeCJEU,Judgment, Marra case,para.26. 26 Seeinparticular Article46(1)oftheGermanBasicLaw,whichexcludesdefamatorystatementsfromthe absoluteimmunityitgrantstomembersoftheBundestag,andArticle61(2)oftheGreekConstitution,which allowsprosecutionofmembersofParliamentforlibel. 27 Also see ECtHR,A.v.UK,citedabove,atpara.86:theStrasbourgCourttookintoaccounttheruleson parliamentarydisciplinetoassessthecompatibilityofabsoluteimmunitywiththeECHR(andinparticular,with therighttofairtrial),consideringthem aswayofprovidingsomeformofredresstovictimsofdefamation. 28 OpinionofAdvocateGeneralJääskineninthe Patriciello case,June2011,para.57 59. 12 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament 2.1. Durationofthenon liability AccordingtoEuropeanParliament’sreports, absoluteimmunity begins fromtheti meof publicationoftheresultsoftheelectionstotheEuropeanParliament thus,MEPsare grantedthisformofprotectionregardlessofwhethertheircredentialshave(yet)been verified 29 However,thisinterpretationisnotunanimouslysharedbyschola rs assome arguethat absoluteimmunity beginsaftertheopeningofthefirstsessionfollowingthe election 30 MEPsenjoy absoluteimmunity forvotesandopinions expressedintheperformanceoftheir duties evenaftertheendoftheirmandate:opinions expressedduringthemandate,and constitutinganexerciseofthefunctionsrelatedtoit,cannot bethesubjectoflegal proceedings evenoncetheMEP hasst eppeddownfromhisfunctions. 2.2. Scopeofthenon liability Oneofthemostcomplexissuesrelat ingtothe applicationof absoluteimmunity isdefining itsscopeofapplication.Indeed,MEPsareexemptedfromliabilityforthevotestheycast andtheopinionstheyexpress“in theperformanceoftheirduties; whilevotescanalways beconsideredas actrelatedtotheMember’smandate, thequestionarisesastowhen anopinionmustbedeemedtohavebeenexpressed intheperformanceofduties. AsAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMadurohasclarified,thechoicetolimit absoluteimmunity to opinionsexpr essedintheexerciseofthefunctions,whichiscommontovirtuallyalllegal orders,isduetotheneedtopreventthecreationoftwoclassesofcitizens Membersof Parliament,ontheonehand,whoarenotamenabletothecourtsforthestatementsthe make,andordinarycitizens,ontheother,whomaybesubjecttothelimitationsimposed onfreespeechbycivilandcriminallaw.Indeed,thischoiceservestoensurebalance betweenthe freedomof expression ofMembersofParliament,whichisessenti alfortheir abilitytoperformtheirduties,andtherightofcitizensto accessto justice whichis compromisedwhenevertheyfeelaggrievedbystatementmadebyMemberof Parliament 31 narrow interpretationofparliamentaryimmunityistherefore ecessaryto protecttheveryfoundationsof theruleof law 32 Thus,thequestionofwhichopinionsare coveredbyparliamentaryprivilegeisonewhichisessentialforthecorrectfunctioningof democracyandtheruleoflaw. 29 SeeReportontherequestforupholdingoftheimmunityandprivilegesofMrFrancescoMusot to,20June2003, A5 0248/2003.MrMusottohadbeenelectedasanMEPintheelectionsof10to13June1999,andchargeshad beenbroughtagainsthimwithreferencetoanopinionexpressedon16June1999. AlsoseeBruno,A.,diGesú,J., “Lostatusdel arlamentareeuropeo,”inCaretti,P.,Morisi,M.andTarliBarbieri,(ed.), Lostatusdimembro delParlamentoinprospettivacomparata 2012,atpage4,availableonlineat http://www.consiglio.regione.campania.it/cms/CMPORTALECRC/servlet/Docs?dir=docsbiblio&file=BiblioConten uto2745.pdf 30 Articleofthe1976Actstatesthatthetermofofficeofeachrepresentati vebeginsandendsatthesametime asthefive yearperiodforwhichheiselected(paragraph3)andthatthatperiodbegins'attheopeningofthefirst sessionfollowingeachelection' (paragraph2).Itcouldthusbeconcludedthat,withrespecttoelec ted representativeswhowerenotMembersofthepreviousParliament,parliamentaryimmunityiseffectivefromthe dateofopeningofthefirstsessionfollowingtheirelection. SeeCaveroGómez,M.,“Lainmunidaddelosdiputados enelParlamentoEuropeo,” RevistadelasCortesGenerales SeparataNo20,1990,pp.16and17. 31 SeeOpinionofAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMadurointhe Marra case,para.31. 32 SeeLenaerts,K.,citedabove,atp.291;ECtHR, CordovaItaly citedabove,para.59. 13 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 2.2.1. spatialcriterion… Initi ally,scholars tendedtoagree that,while MEPs’ absoluteimmunity coveredopinions expressed intheprecinctsoftheParliament, beit duringplenaries or inmeetingsof parliamentarybodies(suchascommitteesorpoliticalgroups), itdidnotextendto pinions expressedoutsidethecontextofParliamentanditsbodies.Thus,forinstance,itwas usuallyarguedthatspeechesatpartycongressesorinelectioncampaignswouldnotbe coveredbyanyimmunity. 33 Inpractice,thisresultedintheimmunitybeing limitedtothe opinionsexpressedwithintheprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliament,inaccordancewiththe constitutionaltraditionsofseveralMemberStates. 34 Thisrestrictiveinterpretation however,hasbeengraduallyexpanded,soastocover even opi nionsexpressedoutsidetheprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliament. Indeed,asclarifiedby AdvocateGeneralPoiaresMaduro,historicallyparliamentarypriv ilegewaslimitedtospeech inParliamentbecause,atthetime,politicaldiscoursewasconcentrated ithinParliament. Inmoderndemocracies,politicaldiscourseanddebateonmattersofpublicrelevancetakes placeinmuchbroaderforum,whichincludesprintedandelectronicmediaandthe internet.MembersofParliamentsarenow expectedtoengagein ialoguewiththecivil societyandpresenttheirideasnotonlyonthefloorofParliament,butalsointhe fora that civilsocietyprovides;consequently,thecriteriondeterminingwhichstatementsweremade intheexerciseofMember’sdutiescannotbe spatial sincethespatialcriterionwouldbe toonarrow 35 Subsequently,AdvocateGeneralJääskinenelaboratedfurtheronthispoint: whileagreeingthat"thelimitationofthescopeofabsoluteimmunityonlytotheplaceor seatoftheParliamentnolonge correspondstothecontemporaryrealityofpoliticaldebate andcannotthereforesucceedasanexclusivecriterion,"healsostressed"theimportance ofparliamentarypremisesasprivilegedplaceofpoliticaldebate." 36 Thisinterpretationhasbeensu bsequentlyendorsedbytheCourtofJusticeitself:inits decision thecaseconcern ingPatriciello,theCourtruled that statementsmadeby MemberoftheEuropeanParliamentarenottolosethisimmunitymerelybecausethey weremadeoutsidethe precinctsoftheEuropeanParliament. Thus,theCourt found that, while absoluteimmunity isinessenceintendedtoapplytostatementsmadebythose memberswithintheveryprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliament ,” itisnotimpossiblethat statementmad beyondthoseprecinctsmayamounttoanopinionexpressedinthe performanceoftheirduties,because whetherornotitissuchanopiniondepends,noton theplacewherethestatementwasmade,butratheronitscharacterandcontent. 37 The Courtthen movedtoidentifythecriteriontobeusedtoascertainwhetherstatement madebyanMEP outside theEuropeanParliamentiscoveredbyabsoluteimmunity. 33 SeeEuropea Parliament,PolicyDepartmentC, ParliamentaryimmunityintheEuropeanParliament 2007,PE 360.487/REV2,at8;alsoseeSenénHernández,M.,"InviolabilidadinmunidadenelParlamentoEuropeo",in RevistadelasCortesGenerales 1986,vol.9,319 33 3,at322. 34 Passaglia,P.,“Introduzione,”inPassaglia,P.(ed.), L’insindacabilitàdelleopinioniespressedaiparlamentari availableat http: //www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegniseminari/CCSSInsindacabilita032014.pdf Alsosee,forcomparisonoftheconstitutionaltraditionsoftheMemberStates,PolicyDepartmentC, Handbook ontheincompatibilitiesandimmunityoftheMEPs itedabove. 35 SeeOpinionofAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMadurointhe Marra case,paras33to35. 36 InhisOpinion,hethereforearguedthatopinionsexpressedbyMEPsinthepremisesoftheParliamentshould notbetreatedinthesamewayastheirspeeches inother fora ofpoliticaldebate.SeeOpinionofAdvocate GeneralJääskineninthe Patriciello case,para.68 70. 37 CJEU,Judgmentinthe Patriciello case,citedabove,atparas28to30. 14 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament 2.2.2. and an analysisofthe“natureandcontents”ofthespeech Itshouldnow beclearthat opinion expressed byMEPsbeyondtheprecinctsofthe EuropeanParliament may,insomecases,beconsideredasanexerciseofparliamentary duties,andthereforebecoveredbyabsoluteimmunity hecriteriontobeusedto determinewhether such opinion are cov eredby absoluteimmunity isonebasedonthe ir characterandcontent 38 itisthereforeessentialtoexaminethecontentoftheopinionin ordertoevaluatewhetherit was expressed intheperformanceofduties. AccordingtotheopinionofAdvocateGen eralPoiaresMaduro, absoluteimmunity istobe interpretedbroadlyandofferwideprotection,soastosecuresafespaceforpublic discoursetotakeplace. 39 However,this rule issubjecttotwoqualifications whichlimitthe applicationofthe absolut immunity principleensuringfairbalancebetweenthe privilegesofMEPs,aselectedrepresentativesofthepeople,andtherightsofordinary citizens,andinparticulartheirrighttoaccesstojustice First,theopinionatissuemustbeaboutge nuinematterofpublicinterest. Only statementonanissueofgeneralconcernwillbecoveredby absoluteimmunity opinions expressed inthecontextofcasesordisputeswithotherindividualsthatconcern MEP personallybuthavenowidersignificanc forthegeneralpublic arenotprotected Indeed, ifparliamentaryimmunityisnotMember’spersonalprivilegebutguaranteeofthe independenceofParliamentaswholeandofitsMembers,asclarifiedbyRule5(2)RoP, it canonlycoveropinionsth atarerelevantforsuchindependence Thisinterpretationfollows thecase law oftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,andrequiresclearfocusonthe natureofthesubject matter oftheopinion Evenpossiblyoffensiveorinaccurate statementmaybe rotected butonly ifitislinkedtotheexpressionofparticularpointof view indiscussingmatterofpublicinterest. Secondly,distinctionmustbedrawnbetweenfactualallegationsagainstparticular individualsandopinions.Articleofthe Protocolexpresslyrefersto“opinions”,i.e.,value judgments whichcannotbeprovenrightorwrong:thus,whenanMEP makesvalue judgmentaboutanissueofgeneralimportance,nomatterhow upsettingoroffensivesome peoplemayfindit,thisshould fallwithinthescopeofapplicationofthe absoluteimmunity principle.Onthecontrary,Articlecannotcoverfactualallegationsagainstother individuals: thepersonaboutwhomthestatementwasmademustbeabletotakerecourse tocourtstoclearhi nameandthespeakershouldbecalledupontoprovethetruthofhis allegations,irrespectiveofwhetherheisMemberofParliament. 40 SincetheCourtofJusticedidnot address thispointinitsdecisioninthe Marra case,the issuearoseagaininth Patriciello case. AdvocateGeneral Jää skinen,inhisOpinion,while movingfromananalysisofthetwocriteriaidentifiedabove(thedistinctionbetweenfactual allegationsandvaluejudgments,andthenotionofgenuinepublicinterest),proposed slig htlydifferentapproach,suggestingtheneedtousean"organic"ratherthan"functional" link. 41 Indeed,aftercritici ingthe"functional"linkandarguingthattheconceptof"opinion" shouldalsoinclude statementsoffacts,theAdvocateGeneralpropose thattheCourt 38 CJEU,Judgmentinthe Patriciello case,citedabove,para.30. 39 SeeOpinionofAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMaduro,citedabove,para.37. 40 SeeOpinionofAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMaduro,citedabove,paras35to40.TheAdvocateGeneralalsocites thecase lawoftheECtHR,inparticular,itsjudgmentinthecasePatrono CasciniandStefanelliItaly,inwhich theCourtemphasisedthatthedefendanthadnotexpressedgeneralpoliticalopinionsontherelationshipbetween thejudiciaryandtheexecutive,buthadattributedtotheclaimantspecificactsofwrongfulconduc andhad suggestedthattheywerecriminallyliable. 41 SeeOpinionofAdvocateGeneralJääskinen,citedabove,atpara.74. 15 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs shouldintroducecriterionspecifictothenatureofthedutiesof MEP,onthebasisof thecase law oftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights andofthenatureoftheimmunity, whichisgrantedtoallow theperformanceofthetasksofth Union(Article343TFEU) This criterionwouldlinksubstantiveimmunitynottothecontentofMember’scomments,but rathertotherelationshipbetweenthecontextinwhichthosecommentsweremadeand theparliamentaryworkoftheParliament thus, mmunity would covertheactivitiesof MEP,notwhenhedealswithmatterswhichareofconcernonlytonationalpoliticianbut whenhecarriesoutactivitiesasEuropeanparliamentarian. 42 heCourtofJustice finallyaddressedthequestionofthe copeof absoluteimmunity inits judgmentinthe Patriciello case There,theCourtruledthatstatementmadebyanMEP beyondtheprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliamentandgivingrisetoprosecutiondoesnot constituteanopinionexpressedintheperform anceofhisparliamentarydutiesunlessthat statementamountstosubjectiveappraisalhavingdirect,obviousconnectionwiththe performanceofthose duties. 43 Morespecifically, heCourtheldthat“opinion”,forthe purposeofArticlePPI,mustbe understood“inwidesensetoincluderemarksand statementsthat,bytheircontent,correspondto assertionsamounting to subjective appraisal .” 44 Moreover,inordertoenjoyimmunity,anopinionmust havebeenexpressed byanMEP " in theperformanceof his]duties thus thereneedstobe linkbetweenthe opinionexpressedandtheparliamentaryduties. heCourtdrawsanimportantconclusion fromthescopeofthe absoluteimmunity which is capableof preventingprosecutionand trialoftheoffending MEP,andthusofdenyingtheperson damagedby hisstatementany judicialremedywhatsoever. Forthisreason theconnectionbetweentheopinionexpressed andparliamentarydutiesmustbedirectandobvious:thestatementmustpresent direct andobvious linkwithgeneralinterestconcerntocitizens 45 Finally,itmustbestressedthat,evenwhenanopinionisnotconsideredtohavebeen expressedintheexerciseofthefunctionsofanMEP,itmightstillbecoveredbythe immunityforeseenbyArtic le9,PPI,ifthe personal immunitygrantedbynationallaw ofthe MemberStateconcernedsoprovides.Thus,onceitisestablishedthatanopinion expressed beyondtheprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliament doesnothaveanobviousanddirectlink withthe functionsofanMEP,itremainstobeseenwhetheritiscove re bytheimmunity providedforinArticle9,PPI,basedontheimmunitygrantedtonationalparliamentarians undernationallaw (forfurtherdetails,seebelow,at3.2) 46 42 SeeOpinionofAdvocateGeneralJääskinen,citedabove,atpara.96 107. 43 CJEU,Judgment, Patriciello case,conclusions. 44 CJEU Judgment, Patriciello case,atpara.32. 45 CJEU,Judgment, Patriciello case,paras33to36.AccordingtoHardt,theCJEU thusendorsedthe"organic" criterionproposedbyAdvocateGeneralJääskinen,thusensuringfullcompatibilityofitsinterpretation ofabsolute immunitywiththecase lawoftheECtHR:seeHardt,S.,citedabove,at53.However,othershaveheldthatthe CourtactuallyfollowedtheOpinionofAdvocateGeneralPoiaresMaduro(seee.g.Passaglia,P.,citedabove,at 106)and,indeed,th criteriaidentifiedbytheCourtseemtohavemuchmoreincommonwithhisinterpretation. ThejudgmentoftheCourthasbeencriticisedascreating"arealdangerthattheEuropean“publicspace”should becomeonenotofvibrantdiscussionandcompeting narratives,butoneinwhichexpressionischilledforfearsof civilorcriminalprosecutionjustasanyotherindividualwouldbe:"seeMehta,R.S., Sir Thomas blushes protectingparliamentaryimmunityinmodernparliamentarydemocracies,"in Europe anHumanRightsLaw Review 2012,3,309 318,at318. 46 SeeP.Passaglia,citedabove,p.109,forlistofrecentdecisioninwhichtheEuropeanParliamentfirst excludedtheapplicationofArticle8,PPI,andthenexaminedrequesttowaivetheimmunit oftheMEP concernedunderArticle9. 16 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament 2.3. Whodecideswhether heprincipleof absoluteimmunity applies? Oneoftheissuesthathavearisen,overtime, concerning theapplicationoftheprincipleof absoluteimmunity isthatofthecompetencetotakefinal,bindingdecisiononwhether statementmadeby an MEP be yondtheprecinctsoftheEuropeanParliament hasbeen expressedintheexerciseofhis functions (andisthereforecoveredby absoluteimmunity ornot. TheissuehasbeenresolvedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion,in itsjudgment inthe rra case.Inthatcase,whichconcernedanallegedepisodeofdistributionof insultingleaflets,thereferringcourthadaskedtheCJEUtoclarifywhohasthefinal competencetodeterminewhetheranopinioniscoveredbytheMEPs’immunity,andmore spec ificallywhethernationalcourtsarerequiredtorequesttheEuropeanParliamentto waiveMember’simmunity,andtoawaittheParliament’sdecisionbeforerulingonthe existenceofsuchimmunity. TheCourtofJusticeruledthat,inordertoestablish “whethertheconditionsforthe absoluteimmunityprovidedforinArticle[now,Article8]oftheProtocolaremet,the nationalcourtisnotobligedtoreferthatquestiontotheParliament.TheProtocoldoesnot conferontheParliamentthepowerto etermine,incasesoflegalproceedingsagainstone ofitsMembersinrespectofopinionsexpressedorvotescastbyhim,whetherthe conditionsforapplyingthatimmunityaremet.”Consequently,theCJEUstatedthat“such anassessmentiswithintheexclu sivejurisdictionofthenationalcourtswhicharecalledon toapplysuchprovision,andwhichhavenochoicebuttogivedueeffecttothatimmunity iftheyfindthattheopinionsorvotesatissuewereexpressedorcastintheexerciseof parliamentar duties.”caseofdoubtsastotheinterpretationandapplicationofArticle PPI,thenationalcourtsmayreferquestiontotheCourtundertheprocedurefor referencesforpreliminaryrulings butinnocasearetheyobligedtoreferthedecision to theEuropeanParliament 47 In thesamecase,theCourtalsoclarifiedtheinterpretation andmodesofapplication ofthe RulesofProcedureoftheEuropeanParliament,andinparticular, therelevanceofthe procedure laiddown forthedefenceofprivil egesandimmunityofMEPs(now Rule7).As recogni edbytheCourt,“theRulesofProcedurearerulesofinternalorganisationand cannotgrantpowerstotheParliamentwhicharenotexpresslyacknowledgedby legislativemeasure,inthiscasebytheProt ocol.”Thus,“eveniftheParliament,pursuant torequestfromtheMemberconcerned,adopts,onthebasisofthoserules,decisionto defendimmunity,thatconstitutesanopinionwhichdoesnothavebindingeffectwith regardtonationaljudicialauth orities.” decision oftheEuropeanParliamenttodefendthe immunityofMEP foranopinionheexpr essed,adoptedinaccordancewithRuleofthe RoP,isinnowaybindingonthenationaljudge. 48 However,astheCourtalsoclarified,the principleof incerecooperation betweentheEuropeaninstitutionsandthenational authorities (explicitlyrecalledinArticle18PPI)alsoappliesinthecontextoftheimmunities ofMEPs.Thus,when thecompetent nationalcourtisinformedthatprocedurefordefenc oftheprivilegesandimmunitiesof theMEP concerned hasbeeninitiated, it muststaythe judicialproceedingsandrequesttheParliamenttoissueitsopinionassoonaspossible. 49 47 CJEU,judgment, Marra case,citedabove,paras32 35. 48 Ibid.,paras38 39.TheCourtfurtherstressedthat,oncethenationalcourthasestablishedthatabsolute immunityappliesinspecificcase,itisbound respectthatimmunity,asistheParliament:thistypeof immunitycannotbewaivedbytheParliament(para.44). 49 Ibid.,paras41 43. 17 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs Yet,thefinaldecisionastotheapplicationofthe absoluteimmunity rinciplerests exclusively with thenationalcourt;ifitfindsthat absoluteimmunity applies, it must dismisstheactionbroughtagainsttheMember,andtheEuropeanParliamentmaynot waive his immunity 18 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament 3. MMUNITY MEPs'personalimmunity afeguardstheir independence protectingthemfrom pressureintheformofthreatsofarrestorlegalproceedings. Thescopeof personal immunitydependson nationalrules aswellas EUlaw Personal mmunityappliesonly during themandate butextends toacts committedbeforeitscommencement.Itextendstoanyproceedings,ifpunitivein nature,butdoesnotcoverMemberscaught inflagrantedelicto Personal mmunitymaybe waived bytheEuropeanParliament KEYFINDINGS ThetextofArticle9,PPI,drawsclear distinctionbetweenthe personal immunitythat MEPsenjoywhileintheterritoryoftheirownMemberState,whichdependsonthe immunitygrantedtonationalMembersofParliament,andtheoneaccordedtothemwhile intheterritoryofanyotherMemberSta te, orwhiletravellingtoandfromtheplaceof meetingoftheEuropeanParliament, whichis regulateddirectlybyEUlaw. Thisdisparityoftreatmenthashistoricalreason:whenthePPIwasfirstadoptedasan additionalProtocoltothefoundingtrea tiesofthethree European Communities,the Assemblystillconsistedofdelegatesappointedbynationalparliaments from amongst their members Consequently theyall actuallyalreadyenjoyed,ontheterritoryof their own MemberState,theimmunitygrante to them in their capacityasnational parliamentarian.However,this regimeremainedunchangedevenafterParliamentbecame directlyelectedinstitution. Parliamenthasbeencallingforanamendmentoftheregime ofimmun itiesofMEPs throughthead optionofcommonStatuteforMEPs, alreadysince 1983 50 SubsequentcallsforreformofthePPI,whilenumerous,havenotledtoany changes 51 notwithstandingdecisiontakenbyCouncilin2005tolookintothisissue. 52 he currentregimeofimmunities till reliesonnationallaws, thus leading tosignificant disparitiesbetweenMembersoftheEuropeanParliame nt 53 and toproceduraldifficulties for theEuropeanParliament itself,wheneveritneedsto adoptdecisiononthewaiverof parliamentaryimmuni ty 50 SeeResolutionontheStatuteofMembersoftheEuropeanParliament,15September1983,inOJ277, 17.10.1983,p. 135. 51 SeeforinstanceEuropeanParliamentresolutionof24April2009onparliamentaryimmunityinPoland 2008/2232(INI),para.7.Forsomehistoricalremarks,andsummaryofactionsundertakenbytheEuropean Parliamentinordertoreformthecurrent regimeandensureuniformity,seePolicyDepartmentC, Parliamentary immunityintheEuropeanParliament citedabove,pp. 5. 52 SeeDeclarationoftheRepresentativesoftheMemberStates,meetingwithinCouncil,ofJune2005(doc. Council9737/05). 53 Indeed,someEU MemberStatesdonotgrantnationalparliamentariansanyformofpersonalimmunity(e.g. theNetherlands,UnitedKingdom),whereasothersattributethemprotectionfromarrestordetention(e.g.Italy, France)orevenfromcriminalprosecu tion(e.g.Spain).Formoreinformationofthedifferentnationalregimes,see PolicyDepartmentC, Handbook citedaboveThesystemhasevenbeencalled"discriminatory":seeHardt,S., citedabove,at44. 19 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 3.1. Durationoftheimmunity ArticleprovidesthatMembersenjoytheimmunitygrantedbythisrule“duringthe sessionsoftheEuropeanParliament.” Inpractice,immunityiseffectivethroughoutthe Member’sfive yearstermofoffice,saveincase ofresignation,incompatibilityordeath. 54 SincetheimmunityforeseenbyArticleis“personal”immunity,i.e.formof inviolabilityofthepersonofMembersoftheEuropeanParliamenttoensurethenormal functioningoftheinstitution,Parl iamenthasinterpreteditasalsocoveringactions committedbytheMemberbeforehis/herelection. 55 Thus,thisimmunityshieldsMEPsfrom beingtried,duringtheirmandate,evenforfactscommittedbeforeitsbeginning butonly untiltheyareMEPs.Once personceasestobeMemberoftheEuropeanParliament,this typeofimmunityceasestoapplyand hemaybetriedforanyaction committedbeforeor duringthemandate,saveofcourseforvotescastandopinions expressedintheexerciseof hisfunctio ns(towhichArticlePPI continuestoapply). 3.2. Scopeoftheimmunity Article9,PPI,providesforanimmunitycoveringanyactionnotfallingunderthescopeof Article8,thatis:votescastandopinionsexpressednotintheexerciseoftheMEP’s func tions;andanyactionwhichcannotbeconsideredasanopinionorvote. Asclarified bytheCourtofJustice,Articleconcernsimmunityinlegalproceedingsrelatingtoacts otherthanthosereferredtoinArticle8. 56 Consequently,Membercannot claimtobenefit, underArticle9,ofnationalprovisionson absoluteimmunity asthistypeof immunity is alreadyexclusivelycoveredbyArticle 57 Asalreadymentioned,thescopeoftheimmunityunderArticlevariesdependingon whethertheMEP concernedfindshimselfintheterritoryofhisownMemberState,orin thatofanotherMemberState.Inthefirstcase,thescopeofthe personal immunity dependsentirelyonthatoftheimmunitygra tedbynationallawtonational parliamentarians: 58 thus someMEPsenjoynoimmunityatall,whereasothersaregranted verybroadprotectionfromprosecution,arre standdetention. 59 Inthesecond case,onthe contrary,thescopeoftheimmunityisspecifiedbyEUlaw itself:article (1)(b) makesit clear tha MEPsareprotectedfromanymeasureofdetentionandfromlegalproceedings. WhenevertheapplicableimmunityisthatderivingfromArticle9(1)(a),theEuropean Parliamentis conferredpowersinaccordancewithnationallaw.Thus,inrecentjudgment theCourtofJusticeseemedtoacceptthat,ifnationallaw confersonthenational 54 SeeOPPD, Non liable?Inviolable?Untouchable? citedabove,p.23.Thisinterpretationofthewords“duringthe sessions”wasconfirmedinCJEU,RogerWybotEdgarFaureandothers,149/85, EU:C:1986:310 inwhichthe Courtheldthat“theEuropeanParliamentmustbeconsideredtobeinsession,even itisnotactuallysitting, untilthedecisionistakenclosingitsannualorextraordinarysessions.” 55 SeePolicyDepartmentC, Parliamentaryimmunity citedabove,p.6.Alsosee,intheAnnextothesame publication,theTablesummarisingtherequest forwaiverofparliamentaryimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliamentdecidedonsincethefirstparliamentaryterm. 56 SeeCJEU,Judgmentinthe Marra case,citedabove,para.45. 57 AlsoseeCommitteeonLegalAffairs, Stocktakingofparliamentary ommitteeactivitiesduringthe7th legislature atp.97. 58 InthewordsoftheCJEU:“theextentandscopeoftheimmunityenjoyedbyMembersoftheParliamentinthe territoryoftheirownStatearetobedeterminedbythevariousnationallawstowhich thatprovisionrefers.”See CJEU, BrunoGollnischEuropeanParliament, 42/06, EU:T:2010:102 59 Forananalysisoftheregimesofparliamentaryimmunitysetoutinthenationallawsofthe28EU Member States,seePolicyDepartmentC, Handbook cited bove 20 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament ParliamentthepowertorequestsuspensionofprosecutionagainstoneofitsMembers, thesamepowerisalsograntedtotheEuropeanParliamentwithregardtoMEPs. 60 ne question thathasariseninthepastiswhethertheimmunityprovidedforinArticle (1)(a) nlycoverscriminalproceedings oralsoextendstocivilproceedings.Initially,it wasarguedthat,sincenoneofthesixfoundingMemberStatesofthe uropean Communitiesgrantedtheirnationalparliamentariansimmunityfromcivilproceedings,it couldbeinferredthattheydidnotintendtograntbroader personal immunitytoMembers oftheEuropeanParliament.Thisinterpretationwasalsosupportedby thepracticeofthe EuropeanParliamentitself. 61 However,inSeptember2003Parliamentadopteddecision defendingoneofitsMembersfromcivilproceedings;intheExplanatoryStatementtothe ReportadoptedbytheCommitteeonLegalAffairsandtheInt ernalMarket,itwasclarified that,inthecaseathand,thelevelofdamagesclaimed(roughlyEUR150000)wasclearly intendedtobepunitive,andthereforetohavedeterrenteffectsimilartocriminal charge. 62 Consequently,itmustbeheldthat per sonal immunitymayalsoextendtocivil proceedings Anotherproblematicissuehasbeenwhetherthe personal immunityofMEPsalsoapplies whentheyarecalledtotestifyinCourt.Inthepast,theEuropeanParliamenthasreceived severalrequeststoauth oriseitsMemberstotestifyinCourt,ortowaivetheirimmunityin ordertoallow themtodoso.However,asrecogni edbytheCommitteeontheRulesof Procedure,theVerificationofCredentialsandImmunitiesin1996, 63 MEPsdonotrequire, andshould otrequire,Parliament'sauthorisationtoappearaswitnessesorexperts. Indeed,thisisfurtherclarifiedbyRule RoP whichstatesthat,whereMembersare requiredtoappearaswitnessesorexpertwitnesses,thereisnoneedtorequestwaiver ofim munity,providedthatthedateandtimeofthehearingdoesnotmakeitdifficultfor themtoperformtheirparliamentaryduties,andthattheyarenotobligedtotestify concerninginformationobtainedconfidentiallyintheexerciseoftheirmandate. As clarifiedinArticle9(3)PPI,personal immunity never appl ies whenMemberisfoundin theactofcommittinganoffence inflagrantedelicto ),anditcanalwaysbewaivedbythe EuropeanParliament. Theprocedureforwaiveroftheimmunityisfurtherde tailedinthe RulesofProcedureandwillbeexaminedbelow 60 Ibid.,para.115. 61 SeePolicyDepartmentC, ParliamentaryimmunityintheEuropeanParliament citedabove,p.12. 62 SeeReportontherequestfordefenceofparliamentaryimmunityandprivilegessubmittedbyJannis Sakellariou,12September2003 A5 0309/2003,ExplanatoryStatement:"Damageswhoseprimarypurposeis punitivearegenerallyawardedtothevictimofwrongfulact.InUSlaw,thefocusisonthedeterrentnatureof punitivedamages:theaimistodiscouragetheperpetratorfromrepe atingtheactwhichpromptedthedamages awardandpotentialimitatorsfromperpetratingsuchanactforthefirsttime.Giventhat,inrecentyears,this legalinstrumenthasincreasinglybecomeanestablishedpartofthelegalsystemsoftheEU MemberSt ates, throughtherecognitionandenforcementofforeigncourtjudgments,suchasthosehandeddownintheUSA, thereiseverypossibilitythatitwillbeusedasroundaboutmeansoftakinglegalactionagainstMembersin mannersimilartocriminalpro ceedings.Thereferenceto‘legalproceedings’ inthe1965textofthePPImustthus todaybeinterpretedascoveringanattempttosecurepunitivedamagesbymeansofcivilproceedings." 63 SeetheMinutesofProceedingsofthesittingofWednesday,27Mar ch1996,inOJ117,22.4.1996,p.5. 21 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 4. PROCEDUR ES AND GENERAL PRINC IPLES TheRulesofProceduresetoutthemannerinwhichdecisionstodefendortowaive Member'simmunityaretaken. The practiceoftheCommitt eeofLegalAffairsclarifieshow decisionsonimmunity aretaken.Asgeneralrule,immunityis defendedonly ifthereis clear fumus persecutionis KEYFINDINGS Th RulesofProcedureoftheEuropeanParliamentinclude detailed descriptionof the proceduresto befollowedincasesconcerningprivilegesandimmunitiesofMEPs. These include:the proceduretorequestdefenceofparliamentaryimmunity,whichcanapplyto casesof absoluteimmunity andof personal immu nityalike;theproceduretodecideon requests forwaiverofthe personal immunityofMEP;andtheproceduretobefollowedin caseurgentactionisneeded.Moreover,theRulesofProcedurerecallseveralgeneral principles forinstance, thatparliamentaryimmunityisnotMember’spersonalprivil ege butguaranteeoftheindependenceofParliamentaswholeandofitsMembers(Rule5) andthatintheexerciseofitspowersinrespectofprivilegesandimmunities,Parliament actstoupholditsintegrityasdemocraticlegislativeassemblyandto securethe independenceofitsMembersintheperformanceoftheirduties(Rule6). Inaddition,the CommitteeonLegalAffairshas,overtheyear developedpracticeofitsown,fromwhich severalgeneralprinciplescanbe inferred 4.1. Defenceofprivil egeand immunities Rule7,RoP provides forthepossibilitytorequestParliament todecide whetherthe authoritiesofMemberStatehavebreachedtheimmunityofMemberorformer Member.SuchrequesttodefendMember'simmunitymaybemadein nycase affectingtheprivilegesandimmunityofMembers:i.e., it mayarisefrombreachesofthe Members'freedomofmovement,oftheir absoluteimmunity oroftheir personal immunity. InaccordancewiththeRulesofProcedure,therequesttodefend ember'simmunityis onlyadmissibleifnorequestfordefenceorwaiveroftheimmunity hasalreadybeen receivedinrespectofthesamelegalproceedings;moreover,therequestisnottobe consideredifrequestforwaiveroftheimmunityinrespectof thesamelegalproceedings issubsequentlyreceived.Thisclarifiestherationalebehindtheprocedure its aimisto ensurethatParliamentisinformedofanycaseofallegedbreach oftheimmunityofits Members Inpractice,Membersmaysubmitrequests todefendthe ir immunitywhenthey claimthatcertainproceedingsviolate absoluteimmunity foropinionsandvotes(for instance,becausethenationalcourtconsiderscertainopinionsnottohavebeenexpressed intheexerciseofparliamentaryfunctions), orwhentheyclaimthat court isproceeding againsttheminviolationofArticle withouthavingobtainedwaiveroftheir personal immunity. hisprocedurehasbeenintroducedfollowingconcernsvoicedbyItalianMEPsafterthe reformofnational rulesconcerningparliamentaryimmunity;indeed,sincein1993the 22 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament relevantconstitutionalruleswereamended 64 and no longerrequiredwaiverofthe immunitytoinitiatecriminalproceedings,MEPswereconcernedthat theycouldbecharged andtriedwithout theParliamentevenbeingawareofthetrial,inparticularincases regarding their absoluteimmunity foropinionsandvotes.Theprocedure isdrawnfromthe practicecreatedbytheItalianConstitutionalCourtinitsjudgment1150/88, andallows Members torequestParliamenttodecideontheapplicabilityoftheimmunityinanygiven 65 case. Thecase law oftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnionhasfurtherclarifiedtwo importantpoints:firstly,thattheprocedurefordefenceoftheimmunitymaybe applied bothincasesconcerningthepersonalimmunityofMEPsand incaseswhere their absolute immunity foropinionsandvotesisatstake;andsecondly,that Parliament'sdecisionto defendtheimmunityof MEPincasesconcerningtheapplicationof rticle isonly indicative,andnotbindingforthecompetentnationalCourt. Asregardstheapplicationoftheprocedurefordefenceoftheimmunityincasesof personalimmunityunderArticlePPI,theCJEUclarifiedinthe Gollnisch case 66 that, ince MEP canbedeprivedofhisimmunityonlyiftheParliamenthaswai vedit,defenceof immunity isconceivablewhere,intheabsenceofrequestforwaiverofMember’s immunity,immunityisendangeredbytheactionofthepoliceorjudicialauthori ties. Consequently,decisionoftheParliamentinresponsetorequesttodefendtheimmunity of MEP isconceivableonlywherenorequestforwaiverofthatimmunityhasbeen submittedtotheParliamentbythecompetentnationalauthorities. 67 Onth otherhand,theCourt'sdecisioninthe Marra casemadeitclearthattheprocedure fordefenceoftheimmunityalso appliesto absoluteimmunity foropinionsexpressedand votescastintheexerciseofparliamentaryduties. 68 Asmentionedabove(seeChap ter2), theCourtruledthat hedecisionoftheEuropeanParliamenttodefendMember's absolute immunity,adoptedinaccordancewithRuleoftheRoP,isinnowaybindingonthe nationaljudge. 69 Thus,thefinaldecisionastowhetheranopinionis, isnot,coveredby the absoluteimmunity is the exclusivecompetence oftheproceeding nationaljudge,who may,ifindoubtastotheinterpretationoftherelevantEUrules,referthecasetotheCJEU forpreliminaryrulingonthematter. Moreover,gi venthatthedecisionoftheEuropean Parliamenttodefend,ornottodefend,theMember'simmunityproducesnobindinglegal effects,itmaynotbethesubjectofanactionforannulmentinfrontoftheCourtofJustice, asforeseenbyArticle263TFEU. 70 However, inaccordancewiththeprincipleofsincere cooperation,ifParliamentinitiatesprocedurefordefenceoftheimmunityandthe competentnationalcourtisinformedofthefact,itmuststaythejudicialproceedingsuntil Parliamenthasissuedit opinion. 71 64 Constitutionallaw29October1993,n.3, Modificadell’articolo68dellaCostituzione 65 SeeEuropeanParliamentresolutionontheimmunityofItalianMembersandtheItalianauthorities' practiceson thesubject (2001/2099(REG)),11June2002.AlsoseeP.Caretti,M.MorisiandTarliBarbieri,citedabove,at 6. 66 SeeCJEU, BrunoGollnisch EU:T:2013:23,citedabove,paras51ff. 67 TheCourtthencontinuestostatethatconversely,whererequestforwaiver ofimmunityismadebythe nationalauthorities,theParliamentmusttakedecisiontowaiveornottowaiveimmunity.Insuchcase, defenceofimmunitynolongerhasany raisond’être sinceeithertheParliamentwaivesimmunityandthedefence ofimmu nityisnolongerconceivable,oritrefusestowaiveimmunityanddefenceofimmunityisunnecessary, sincethenationalauthoritiesareadvisedthattheirrequestforwaiverofimmunityhasbeenrejectedbythe Parliamentandsinceimmunitythereforepre cludesthemeasureswhichthoseauthoritiescouldorwouldtake. Ibid.,atpara.56. 68 Seejudgmentinthe Marra case,citedabove,at37. 69 Ibid.,paras38 39. 70 CJEU,NigelPaulFaragev.EuropeanParliament, 564/11,EU:T:2012:403,atpara.27. 71 Ibi d.,paras41 43. 23 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs Finally,RuleRoP also makesitclearthat that,incasesofrequestsfordefenceof parliamentaryimmunity,ifParliamenttookthedecisionnot todefend it theMember concerned maymakerequestforreconsiderationofthedecision,subm ittingnew evidence. Howeve r,suchrequestisinadmissible ifthePresidentconsidersthatthenew evidencesubmittedisnotsufficientlysubstantiatedtowarrantreconsideration orif proceedingshavebeeninstitutedagainstthedecisionunderArticle26 oftheTreatyon theFunct ioningoftheEuropeanUnion (whichprovidesfortheCJEU'spowertoreview the legalityofactsadoptedbyinstitutionsandbodiesoftheUnion) 4.2. Proceduresand principlesforcasesonimmunities Theprocedurefo waiverof immunityof MEPisdescribedindetailintheEuropean Parliament'sRulesofProcedure,andisfurtherspecifiedthroughthepracticeofthe competentcommittee. 4.2.1. Ordinaryprocedureforwaiverordefenceofimmunity Rule9,RoP clarifiesindet ailtheproceduretobefollowedinimmunit cases. equestsforthewaiverorthedefenceofMember'sorformerMember'simmunityare announcedinplenaryanddealtwith incamera bytheCommitteeonLegalAffairs. 72 RequeststowaiveMember’simm unitymustemanatefromthe‘competentauthority’of theMemberStateconcerned,andbeaddressedtothePresidentoftheEuropean Parliament:thus,evenifthedoesnotexplicitlyruleoutthepossibilitythatParliament mightwaivetheimmunityofan MEP on itsowninitiative,theRulesofProceduredonot provideforsuchanoption. 73 InaccordancewithRule9(11),inordertosimplifythetaskof verifyingwhetherrequestforwaiverofMEP’simmunity hasbeenpresentedby the competentauthority, thecommitteemayconsulttheMemberStatesanddraw upan indicativelistofthecompetentnational authorities. 74 Ontheotherhand,requeststo defendMember’simmunitymayemanatefromanyMember formerMember,butthey maynotbemadebyanother MemberwithouttheagreementoftheMemberconcerned. ThepracticeoftheCommitteeonLegalAffairsistohavenumberofstandingrapporteurs forcasesofimmunities,therulebeingthattherapporteurineachspecificcasemustnot beofthesamenati onalityorfromthesamepoliticalgroupastheMemberconcerned. 75 TheMemberhastherighttobeheardandpresentdocumentsorotherrelevantwritten evidence,andmayberepresentedbyanotherMember,ifhesowishes.Moreover,the Committeeisgranted thepowertorequestinformationfromthenationalcompetent authority. Asregardstherighttobeheard,the RoP setouttheproceduretobefollowedtoensure that this rightisrespected,alsograntingtheMemberthepowertorenouncesuchrightand berepresentedbyanotherMember.Thus,theChairoftheCommitteeonLegalAffairsis 72 AsclarifiedbyRule9(10),whichprovidesthat“thecommitteeshalltreatthesemattersandhandleany documentsreceivedwiththeutmostconfidentiality.” 73 CommitteeonLegalAffairs, Stocktaking citedabove,atp.97. 74 Thelistis availableasanAnnextothe HandbookontheincompatibilitiesandimmunityoftheMembersofthe EuropeanParliament citedabove 75 CommitteeonLegalAffairs, Stocktaking citedabove,atp.97. 24 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament toinvitetheMembertobeheard,indicatingdateandtime.IftheMemberfailstoattend thehearing,heisdeemedtohaverenouncedtherighttobeheard,unless hasaskedto beexcused,givingreasons.Thedecisionastowhethertoaccepttherequesttobeexcused pertainsexclusivelytotheChair,andisnotsubjecttoanyappeals.Ifthechairgrantsthe request,hesetsnewdateandtimeforthehearing.If theMemberfailstocomplywith thesecondinvitation,theprocedurecontinuesandnofurtherrequeststobeexcused,orto beheard,maybeaccepted.OncetheMemberconcernedhasbeengrantedanopportunity tobeheard,hemaynotbepresentatanyfurt herdebateconcerninghisimmunity. Afterthehearingandthedebate,theCommitteeonLegalAffairsadoptsitsReport,making proposalforreasoneddecisiontowaiveornottowaive,ortodefendornottodefend, theimmunity.TheCommitteemayals offerreasonedopinionastothecompetenceof therequestingauthorityandtheadmissibilityoftherequest,butitmaynot,underany circumstances,pronounceontheguiltorotherwiseoftheMembernoronwhetherornot theopinionsoractsattribut edtohimorherjustifyprosecution.Iftherequestseeksthe waiverofimmunityonseveralcounts,eachofthesemaybethesubjectofseparate decision. OncetheCommitteeonLegalAffairshasadopteditsreport,thisisexaminedbythe plenary,and separatevoteistakenoneachoftheproposalscontainedin it Parliament’s decisionisimmediatelycommunicatedbythePresidenttotheMemberconcernedandto therequestingnationalauthority,togetherwithrequesttobeinformedofany developme ntsintherelevantproceedingsandofsubsequentjudicialrulings. 4.2.2. Urgentprocedure Rule8,RoP,setsoutspecificproceduretobefollowedinurgentcases. ThisRuleallowsthePresidentoftheEuropeanParliamentto takeaninitiativeto ssertthe privilegesandimmunitiesofMember,asmatterofurgency,whentheMemberhasbeen arrestedorhadhisfreedomofmovementcurtailedinapparentbreachofhisprivilegesand immunities.Beforetakingsuchdecision,thePresidentmustconsu ltthechairand rapporteuroftheCommitteeonLegalAffairs;moreover,afterwards,hemustnotifythe committeeofthatinitiativeandinformParliament.Atitsnextmeeting,theCommitteeon LegalAffairstakescognisanceofthePresident'sinitiative nd,ifitdeemsitnecessary,it maypreparereportforsubmissiontoParliament. 4.2.3. Generalprinciples Ashasbeenclarifiedabove,theroleoftheCommitteeonLegalAffairsinmattersof immunityisoftheutmostimportance;thishasbeenexplic itlyrecogni edbytheRulesof Procedure,asamendedin2014,whichempowertheCommitteetolaydownprinciplesfor theapplicationofRule9. 76 Indeed,overtheyears,theCommitteehasdevelopedpractice ofitsownindealingwithimmunitycases,and itconsistentlyappliesthesameprinciples. 76 SeeRule9(12).TheRulesofProcedurehavebeenamended in2014: seeEuropeanParliamentdecisionof16 January2014onamendmentofParliament'sRulesofProcedureonthewaiverandthedefenceofparliamentary immunity(P7_TA PROV(2014)0035).ItisworthnotingthatthereportoftheCommitteeonConstitutio nalAffairs, whichwasendorsedbyParliamentbysinglevoteandnoamendments,includedalltheamendmentssuggested bytheCommitteeonLegalAffairsinitsopinionofJuly2013. 25 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs Inparticular,theCommittee'spracticehasbeen toproposetowaiveimmunity unless there is fumuspersecutionis thatistosay,well foundedsuspicionthatthelegalproceedings havebeeninstitutedwit theintentionofcausingpoliticaldamagetotheMember. 77 Indi cia oftheexistenceofsuch umuspersecutionis are,forinstance,thefactthatMember standsaccusedofcriminalchargesforfactsthat,inthecaseofanordinarycitizen,would only eadtoadministrativeproceedings,whiletheprosecutingauthorityhasattemptedto withholdinformationonthenatureofthechargesfromtheMemberconcerned; 78 the uncertaintyastothestatusandsourcesoftheevidenceadducedasbasisforthe charge s; 79 thetimingoftheprosecution(duringanelectoralcampaign,yearsafterthe allegedoffenceswerecommitted)andtheovertlypoliticalaimsoftheprivateindividual bringingtheprosecution(whoclaimedtobeactingonbehalfofcitizenswhoobjected in generaltermstotheMembercarryingoutpublicactivity). 80 Moreover,inthepastParliamenthasclarifiedtheconceptof fumuspersecutionis ingeneral terms:thus,whenprosecutionisinitiatedbypoliticaladversary,withoutprooftothe con trary,immunityisnottobewaivediftherearereasonstobelievethatitaimsto damagetheMember(nottoobtainreparation); 81 proceedingsbasedonanonymous accusationsandrequestsmadelongtimeaftertheallegedfacts retobetreatedas indicia of fumuspersecutionis 82 andthefailuretoprosecuteotherparticipantsinthe allegedoffence,sothattheMEP alonehasbeencriminallychargedforfactinvolving pluralityofsuspects,hasalsobeentreatedassuspicious. 83 Othergeneralcriteri towhichtheCommitteeonLegalAffairshasfrequentlymade referenceinitsreportsoncasesofimmunity,asguidanceinordertotakeitsdecisions, aretheparticularlyseriousnatureofthechargesandwhetherthelawsofMemberStates otherthan heStateoforiginoftheMEPconcernedlaydownlessseverepenaltiesforthe actinquestion,ordonotevenregarditascriminal offence. 84 ecisionstowaivethe immunityofanMEP havebeentakenfollowingtoallegationsofcorruptionorotherserio us criminalactivities(suchasfraudormembershipoftheCamorra),butalsoincases concerningminorandclearlynon politicalcrimes(suchasroadtraffic offences). 85 Moreover,incaseconcerningopinionsexpressedbyanMEP,theCommitteeheldthat immunityshouldnotbedefendedwhenthestatementsconcernedarecontrarytoArticle21 ofthe EU CharterofFundamentalRightsandcouldhaveattractedpenaltiesunder (then) Rule153RoP.Inthatcase,theCommitteeclarifiedthatArticlePPI serves ensurethat MEPsenjoyfreedomofspeech,butthatthisfreedom oesnotauthoriseslander,libel incitementtohatred,questioningthehonourofothers,oranyutt erancecontrarytoArticle 21, CFR EU 86 77 SeeCommitteeonLegalAffairs, Stocktaking citedabove,at98. 78 Se CommitteereportA7 0047/2011; EuropeanParliamentdecisionofMarch2011ontherequestforwaiver oftheimmunityandprivilegesofElmarBrok. 79 See CommitteereportA7 0195/2013; EuropeanParliamentdecisionof11June2013ontherequestfordefen ce oftheimmunityandprivilegesofMałgorzataHandzlik. 80 SeeCommitteereport A7 0030/2009;EuropeanParliamentdecisionof20October2009ontherequestfor waiveroftheimmunityofMarekSiwiec. 81 SeeCommitteeReport A6 0140/2007of13April2007 therequestforwaiveroftheimmunityofVuralÖger, ExplanatoryStatement. 82 SeeCommittee ReportA4 0155/98,bythe(then)CommitteeontheRulesofProcedure,theVerificationof CredentialsandImmunities,of27April1998ontherequestforwaiver oftheimmunityofMrAntónioCarlos RibeiroCampos,ExplanatoryStatement.AlsoseePolicyDepartmentC, ParliamentaryimmunityintheEuropean Parliament citedabove,p.25,andthesourcescitedthere. 83 SeeCommitteeReportA5 0246/03of19June2003ontherequestforwaiveroftheimmunityofMrDaniel MarcCohn Bendit. 84 Seeforinstanceibid.;alsoseePolicyDepartmentC,op.ult.citedabove,p.23. 85 SeeCorbett,R.,Jacobs,F.,Shackleton,M., Th EuropeanParliament JonHarperPublishing,London2011,at 72. 86 SeeCommitteeReportA7 0245/2014;EuropeanParliamentdecisionofApril2014ontherequestfordefence 26 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament REFERENCES BOOKS, ARTICLESANDREPORTS Caretti, .,Morisi,andTarliBarbieri,G.(ed.), LostatusdimembrodelParlamentoin prospettivacomparata 2012,availableat http://www.consiglio.regione.campania.it/cms/CM_PORTALE_CRC/servlet/Docs?dir=doc biblio&file=BiblioContenuto2745.pdf CaveroGómez,M.,“LainmunidaddelosdiputadosenelParlamentoEuropeo,” Revista delasCortesGenerales SeparataNo20,1990. rbett,R.,Jacobs,F.,Shackleton,M., TheEuropeanParliament JonHarper Publishing,London2011. CouncilofEurope,EuropeanCommissionforDemocracythroughLaw (Venice Commission), Reportonthescopeandliftingofparliamentary immunities Strasbour 14May2014, AD(2014)011 e,availableonlineat http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL AD%282014%29011 EuropeanParliament,CommitteeonLegal Affairs, Stocktakingofparliamentary committeeactivitiesduringthe7thlegislature EuropeanParliament,PolicyDepartment Handbookontheincompatibilitiesand immunity oftheMembersoftheEuropeanParliament 2014,PE493.029,availableat http://www.ipolnet.ep.parl.union.eu/ipolnet/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/poldepc/le gal/pe493029en.pdf EuropeanParliament,PolicyDepart ment Parliamentary immunityintheEuropean Parliament 200 360.487 /REV2 availableat http://www.eprs.sso.ep.parl.union.eu/lis/lisearc/Polic DeptPubs/LEGA/JURI/pe36048 7_en.pdf EuropeanParliament,OPPD, Non liable?Inviolable?Untouchable? 2012,availableat http://www.europarl.europa.e u/pdf/oppd/Page1/Parliamentaryimmunitiesfinalweb _EN.pdf Hardt,S., Parliamentaryimmunity Intersentia,Cambridge,2013. Kloth, ImmunitiesandtherightofaccesstocourtunderArticleoftheEuropean ConventiononHumanRights MartinusNijho ffPublisher,Leiden,2010 Lenaerts,K.,"Theprincipleofdemocracyinthecaselaw oftheEuropeanCourtof Justice",in InternationalandComparativeLaw Quarterly 2013,62(2),271 315. Mehta,R.S., Sir Thomas blushes protectingparliamentaryimmu nityinmodern parliamentarydemocracies,"in EuropeanHumanRightsLaw Review 2012,3,309 318. Passaglia,(ed.), L’insindacabilitàdelleopinioniespressedaiparlamentari availableat http://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/convegniseminari/CCSSInsindacabilita 032014.pdf SenénHernández,M.,"InviolabilidadinmunidadenelParlamentoEuropeo",in Revista delasCortesGenerales 1986,vol.9,319 333. oftheimmunityandprivilegesofMarioBorghezio.AlsoseeCommitteeonLegalAf fairs, Stocktacking citedabove, at104. 27 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs CASE LAW CJEU,NigelPaulFaragev.EuropeanParliament, 564/11,EU:T:2012:403. CJEU, BrunoGollnischEuropeanParliament, 346/11and 347/11,EU:T:2013:23. CJEU, BrunoGollnischEuropeanParliament, 42/06,EU:T:2010: 102. CJEU,AlfonsoLuigiMarraEduardoDeGregorioandAntonioClemente, 200/07 and 201/07,EU:C:2007:356. CJEU,AshleyNeilMoteEuropeanParliament, 345/05,EU:T:2008:440. CJEU,Patriciello, 163/10,EU:C:2011:543. CJEU,RogerWybotEdg arFaureandothers,149/85,EU:C:1986:310. CJEU,Rt.Hon.LordBruceofDoningtonEricGordonAspden,case208/80, EU:C:1981:194. ECtHRA.v.UnitedKingdom(no.35373/97),17December2002. ECtHRBelpietrov.Italy(no.43612/10),judgementof24Septe mber2013. ECtHRCastellsvs.Spain(no.11798/85),23April1992. ECtHRCordovav.Italy(no.40877/98)and(no45649/99),30January2003. ECtHRJerusalemvs.Austria(no.26958/95),27February2001. ECtHR,Kartv.Turkey,(no.8917/05),December2009 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTIONS CommitteereportA7 0047/2011;EuropeanParliamentdecisionofMarch2011onthe requestforwaiveroftheimmunityandprivilegesofElmarBrok. CommitteereportA7 0195/2013;EuropeanParliamentdecisionof11June 013onthe requestfordefenceoftheimmuni tyandprivilegesofMałgorzataHandzlik. CommitteeReportA7 0030/2009;EuropeanParliamentdecisionof20October2009on therequestforwaiveroftheimmunityofMarekSiwiec. CommitteeReportA6 0140/2007of13April2007ontherequestforwaiverof the immunityofVuralÖger,ExplanatoryStatement. CommitteeReportA4 0155/98of27April1998ontherequestforwaiverofthe immunityofMrAntónioCarlosRibeiroCampos,ExplanatoryStatement. CommitteeReportA5 0246/03of19June2003ontherequest forwaiverofthe immunityofMrDanielMarcCohn Bendit. 28 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament EuropeanParliament,Resolutionof15September1983ontheStatuteofMembersof theEuropeanParliament,inOJC 277,17.10.1983,p.135. EuropeanParliament,resolutionof24April2009onparli amentaryimmunityinPoland 2008/2232(INI). EuropeanParliament,resolutionof11June2002ontheimmunityofItalianMembers andtheItalianauthorities'practicesonthesubject(2001/2099(REG)). CommitteeReportA5 0248/2003of20June2003onthere questforupholdingofthe immunityandprivilegesofFrancescoMusotto. CommitteeReportA5 0309/2003of12September2003ontherequestfordefenceof parliamentaryimmunityandprivilegessubmittedbyJannisSakellariou,Explanatory Statement. 29 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs ANN EX 1 SOURCES OF LAW REATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ARTICLE343 TheUnionshallenjoyintheterritoriesoftheMemberStatessuchprivilegesand immunitiesasarenecessaryfortheperformanceofitstasks,undertheconditionslaid do intheProtocolofApril1965ontheprivilegesandimmunitiesoftheEuropean Union.ThesameshallapplytotheEuropeanCentralBankandtheEuropeanInvestment Bank. PROTOCOL(NO7)ON THE PRIVILEGESANDIMMUNITIES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CHAPTER III MEMBERS OF THEEUROPEANPARLIAMENT Article(exArticle8) NoadministrativeorotherrestrictionshallbeimposedonthefreemovementofMembers oftheEuropeanParliamenttravellingtoorfromtheplaceofmeetingoftheEuropean Parliament. Mem bersoftheEuropeanParliamentshall,inrespectofcustomsandexchangecontrol,be accorded: (a) bytheirowngovernment,thesamefacilitiesasthoseaccordedtoseniorofficials travellingabroadontemporaryofficialmissions; (b) bythegovernment otherMemberStates,thesamefacilitiesasthoseaccordedto representativesofforeigngovernmentsontemporaryofficialmissions. Article(exArticle9) MembersoftheEuropeanParliamentshallnotbesubjecttoanyformofinquiry,detention orle galproceedingsinrespectofopinionsexpressedorvotescastbytheminthe performanceoftheirduties. Article(exArticle10) DuringthesessionsoftheEuropeanParliament,itsMembersshallenjoy: (a) intheterritoryoftheirownState,theimmu nitiesaccordedtomembersoftheir parliament; (b) intheterritoryofanyotherMemberState,immunityfromanymeasureofdetention andfromlegalproceedings. ImmunityshalllikewiseapplytoMemberswhiletheyaretravellingtoandfromtheplaceof eetingoftheEuropeanParliament. ImmunitycannotbeclaimedwhenMemberisfoundintheactofcommittinganoffence andshallnotpreventtheEuropeanParliamentfromexercisingitsrighttowaivethe immunityofoneofitsMembers. 30 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RulePrivilegesand immunities 1. MembersshallenjoyprivilegesandimmunitiesinaccordancewiththeProtocolonthe PrivilegesandImmunitiesoftheEuropeanUnion. 2. ParliamentaryimmunityisnotMember’sperso nalprivilegebutguaranteeofthe independenceofParliamentaswholeandofitsMembers. 3. PassesallowingMemberstocirculatefreelyintheMemberStatesshallbeissuedto thembythePresidentofParliamentassoonashehasbeennotifiedof theirelection. 4. MembersshallbeentitledtoinspectanyfilesheldbyParliamentorcommittee,other thanpersonalfilesandaccountswhichonlytheMembersconcernedshallbeallowedto inspect.Exceptionstothisruleforthehandlingofdocum entstowhichpublicaccessmay berefusedpursuanttoRegulation(EC)No1049/2001oftheEuropeanParliamentandof theCouncilregardingpublicaccesstoEuropeanParliament,CouncilandCommission documentsarelaiddowninAnnexVIItotheseRulesof Procedure. Rule Waiverimmunity 1. Intheexerciseofitspowersinrespectofprivilegesandimmunities,Parliamentactsto upholditsintegrityasdemocraticlegislativeassemblyandtosecuretheindependenceof itsMembersintheperform anceoftheirduties.Anyrequestforwaiverofimmunityshallbe evaluatedinaccordancewithArticles7,andoftheProtocolonthePrivilegesand ImmunitiesoftheEuropeanUnionandwiththeprinciplesreferredtointhisRule. 2. WhereMembers arerequiredtoappearaswitnessesorexpertwitnesses,thereisno needtorequestwaiverofimmunity,provided: thattheywillnotbeobligedtoappearondateorattimewhichpreventsthemfrom performingtheirparliamentaryduties,orma kesitdifficultforthemtoperformthose duties,orthattheywillbeabletoprovidestatementinwritingorinanyotherformwhich doesnotmakeitdifficultforthemtoperformtheirparliamentaryduties;and thattheyarenotobligedtotest ifyconcerninginformationobtainedconfidentiallyinthe exerciseoftheirmandatewhichtheydonotseefittodisclose. Rule Defenceof privilegesandimmunity 1. IncaseswheretheprivilegesandimmunitiesofMemberorformerMemberare all egedtohavebeenbreachedbytheauthoritiesofMemberState,requestfor Parliamentdecisionastowhethertherehas,infact,beenbreachofthoseprivilegesand immunitiesmaybemadeinaccordancewithRule 9(1). 2. Inparticular,such equestforthedefenceofprivilegesandimmunitiesmaybemade ifitisconsideredthatthecircumstancesconstituteanadministrativeorotherrestrictionon thefreemovementofMemberstravellingtoorfromtheplaceofmeetingofParliamentor onan pinionexpressedorvotecastintheperformanceoftheirduties,orthattheyfall withinthescopeofArticleoftheProtocolonthePrivilegesandImmunitiesofthe EuropeanUnion. 31 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 3. requestforthedefenceoftheprivilegesandimmunitiesof Membershallnotbe admissibleifrequestforthewaiverordefenceofthatMember’simmunityhasalready beenreceivedinrespectofthesamelegalproceedings,whetherornotdecisionwas takenatthattime. 4. Nofurtherconsiderationshall giventorequestforthedefenceoftheprivileges andimmunitiesofMemberifrequestforthewaiverofthatMember’simmunityis receivedinrespectofthesamelegalproceedings. 5. Incaseswheredecisionhasbeentakennottodefendthe privilegesandimmunities ofMember,theMembermaymakerequestforreconsiderationofthedecision, submittingnew evidence.Therequestforreconsiderationshallbeinadmissibleif proceedingshavebeeninstitutedagainstthedecisionunderArticle 263oftheTreatyon theFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion,orifthePresidentconsidersthatthenew evidence submittedisnotsufficientlysubstantiatedtowarrantreconsideration. Rule Urgentactionby thePresidentto assertimmunity 1. As atterofurgency,incircumstanceswhereMemberisarrestedorhashisorher freedomofmovementcurtailedinapparentbreachofhisorherprivilegesandimmunities, thePresident,afterconsultingthechairandrapporteurofthecommitteeresponsible, may takeaninitiativetoasserttheprivilegesandimmunitiesoftheMemberconcerned.The PresidentshallnotifythecommitteeofthatinitiativeandinformParliament. 2. WhenthePresidentmakesuseofthepowersconferredonhimbyparagraph1, he committeeshalltakecognisanceofthePresident'sinitiativeatitsnextmeeting.Wherethe committeedeemsitnecessary,itmaypreparereportforsubmissiontoParliament. Rule Proceduresonimmunity 1. AnyrequestaddressedtothePresiden bycompetentauthorityofMemberState thattheimmunityofMemberbewaived,orbyMemberorformerMemberthat privilegesandimmunitiesbedefended,shallbeannouncedinParliamentandreferredto thecommitteeresponsible. TheMemberor ormerMembermay berepresentedbyanotherMember.Therequestmay notbemadeby anotherMemberwithouttheagreementoftheMemberconcerned. 2. Thecommitteeshallconsiderwithoutdelay,buthavingregardtotheirrelative complexity,requestsfor hewaiverofimmunityorrequestsforthedefenceofprivileges andimmunities. 3. Thecommitteeshallmakeproposalforreasoneddecisionwhichrecommendsthe adoptionorrejectionoftherequestforthewaiverofimmunityorforthedefenceof pr ivilegesandimmunities. 4. Thecommitteemayasktheauthorityconcernedtoprovideanyinformationor explanationwhichthecommitteedeemsnecessaryinorderforittoformanopinionon whetherimmunityshouldbewaivedordefended. 5. TheMemb erconcernedshallbegivenanopportunitytobeheard,maypresentany documentsorotherwrittenevidencedeemedbythatMembertoberelevantandmaybe representedbyanotherMember. 32 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ TheimmunityofMembersoftheEuropean Parliament TheMembershallnotbepresentduringdebatesontherequestfor iverordefenceofhis orherimmunity,exceptforthehearingitself. ThechairofthecommitteeshallinvitetheMembertobeheard,indicatingdateandtime. TheMembermayrenouncetherighttobeheard. IftheMemberfailstoattendthehearingpurs uanttothatinvitation,heorsheshallbe deemedtohaverenouncedtherighttobeheard,unlessheorshehasaskedtobeexcused frombeingheardonthedateandatthetimeproposed,givingreasons.Thechairofthe committeeshallruleonwhethersuc requesttobeexcusedistobeacceptedinview of thereasonsgiven,andnoappealsshallbepermittedonthispoint. Ifthechairofthecommitteegrantstherequesttobeexcused,heorsheshallinvitethe Membertobeheardatnew dateandtime. IftheMemberfailstocomplywiththesecond invitationtobeheard,theprocedureshallcontinuewithouttheMemberhavingbeenheard. Nofurtherrequeststobeexcused,ortobeheard,maythenbeaccepted. 6. Wheretherequestseeksthewaiverof mmunityonseveralcounts,eachofthesemay bethesubjectofseparatedecision.Thecommittee'sreportmay,exceptionally,propose thatthewaiverofimmunityshouldapplysolelytoprosecutionproceedingsandthat,until finalsentenceispassed,th Membershouldbeimmunefromanyformofdetentionor remandoranyothermeasurewhichpreventsthatMemberfromperformingtheduties propertothemandate. 7. Thecommitteemayofferreasonedopinionastothecompetenceoftheauthorityin ques tionandtheadmissibilityoftherequest,butshallnot,underanycircumstances, pronounceontheguiltorotherwiseoftheMembernoronwhetherornottheopinionsor actsattributedtohimorherjustifyprosecution,evenif,inconsideringthereques t,it acquiresdetailedknowledgeofthefactsofthecase. 8. Thecommittee'sreportshallbeplacedattheheadoftheagendaofthefirstsitting followingthedayonwhichitwastabled.Noamendmentsmaybetabledtotheproposal(s) fordecision Discussionshallbeconfinedtothereasonsforandagainsteachproposaltowaiveor upholdimmunity,ortodefendprivilegeorimmunity. WithoutprejudicetoRule164,theMemberwhoseprivilegesorimmunitiesareunder considerationshallnotspeak inthedebate. Theproposal(s)fordecisioncontainedinthereportshallbeputtothevoteatthefirst votingtimefollowingthedebate. AfterParliamenthasconsideredthematter,separatevoteshallbetakenoneachofthe proposalscontainedin thereport.proposalisrejected,thecontrarydecisionshallbe deemedadopted. 9. ThePresidentshallimmediatelycommunicateParliament'sdecisiontotheMember concernedandtothecompetentauthorityoftheMemberStateconcerned,withreque st thatthePresidentbeinformedofanydevelopmentsintherelevantproceedingsandofany judicialrulingsmadeasconsequence.WhenthePresidentreceivesthisinformation,he shalltransmitittoParliamentinthewayheconsidersmostappropriate, ifnecessaryafter consultingthecommitteeresponsible. 10. Thecommitteeshalltreatthesemattersandhandleanydocumentsreceivedwiththe utmostconfidentiality. 33 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ PolicyDepartmentC:Citizens'RightsandConstitutionalAffairs 11. Thecommittee,afterconsultingtheMemberStates,maydrawupanindicative listof theauthoritiesoftheMemberStateswhicharecompetenttopresentrequestforthe waiverofMember'simmunity. 12. ThecommitteeshalllaydownprinciplesfortheapplicationofthisRule. 13. AnyinquiryastothescopeofMembers' privilegesorimmunitiesmadeby competentauthorityshallbedealtwithinaccordancewiththeaboverules. 34