Mr President, the case involving Mr Sichrovsky is probably the most sensitive that we have had to deal with in the course of our mandate, both because of reasons relating to procedure but also, and more importantly, because of the background to the matter. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the principles that have guided us in writing this report and which are, as we have seen in the previous debate, fundamental to this Parliament. The first principle that must hold sway here is to disregard, as far as possible, all public opinion when we have to deal with a report on a request for the waiver of immunity, as well as to abstain, as far as possible, from judging or prejudging the Member of Parliament involved, something that is not always easy. The second principle is that we must always act in accordance with the law, with respect for both the law of the Member State and also what is becoming parliamentary law, for substantive rules and formal rules, which imposes a strict obligation upon us to be consistent with decisions we have made in the past. We must also focus solely on the charge laid against the Member, and this is a principle that cannot be violated. This is a particularly important point in the case involving Mr Sichrovsky and I shall come back to this in a moment. Finally, when there is some doubt, the doubt must always work in the favour of the accused, of the Member of Parliament whose immunity we are being asked to waive. In the case of Mr Sichrovsky, therefore, as in all cases, I believe that it is important to reiterate the principle of immunity and the reasons for its existence. Immunity is not a privilege granted to an individual Member of Parliament. Its role is to protect: not to protect an individual, but rather to protect the institution through the individual concerned. I must say that the case involving Mr Sichrovsky and those that we shall deal with in a moment have arisen in situations where information has been flowing freely, which explains why we have an increasing number of slander and libel cases. We have also entered into a democracy of opinion and a situation in which life and public life, in particular, are penalised, and I am taking this opportunity to reiterate that civil laws also exist to sue for alleged damages, particularly where the damages have been caused by a press article or by slander, and I think that we must take this opportunity to reiterate that immunity does not mean impunity, it is a suspension of the criminal law procedure, which does not, to any extent, prevent criminal proceedings being instigated during the mandate of the Member of Parliament. In the case of Mr Sichrovsky, who, I must remind you, has been accused for having described the President of the Jewish community in Vienna as an ‘idiot’, an ‘aggressive, irascible, incredibly mean’ and ‘spiteful person’, a ‘professional Jew’ who ‘would take advantage of his dead parents to appear on television’. Naturally, one would think that these words constitute an incitement to racial hatred and to anti-Semitism. I personally refuse to contemplate this theory for the simple reason that he is not being charged with this crime, and in these circumstances, I think that we must not allow ourselves to substitute the crime against him with another. We were able to carry out a detailed analysis of the case within the Committee on Legal Affairs and this was a detailed investigation of the case over the course of several meetings, since this case has been before the Committee on Legal Affairs on three or four occasions. This investigation showed that these words, even if they were pointed, however excessive or hateful they may seem, were spoken in a political context and in response to criticism of which Mr Sichrovsky himself was a target and to criticism regarding his political affiliation on the basis of his religious beliefs. His political position on the basis of his religious affiliation, in other words. That is why the Committee on Legal Affairs has taken the view, as it has in similar cases, namely those involving Portuguese Members of Parliament, that there was a link, albeit tenuous, between what he said and his political affiliation and political views. However, this link does not, of course, apply to everything that was said but I think we should accept that all of Mr Sichrovsky’s words form a whole, and that the privilege of immunity should therefore be granted to him.

Political group: PSE