# C_2018369EN.01016201.xml

| 11.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 369/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 369/162

---

P8_TA(2017)0479

Request for defence of the privileges and immunities of Eleonora Forenza

European Parliament decision of 12 December 2017 on the request for defence of the privileges and immunities of Eleonora Forenza (2017/2199(IMM))

(2018/C 369/18)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the request from Gabriele Zimmer of 20 July 2017, announced in plenary on 11 September 2017, for the defence of the privileges and immunities of Eleonora Forenza in connection with an incident the latter endured following a demonstration held in the context of the G20 summit in Hamburg on 8 July 2017, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request from Gabriele Zimmer of 20 July 2017, announced in plenary on 11 September 2017, for the defence of the privileges and immunities of Eleonora Forenza in connection with an incident the latter endured following a demonstration held in the context of the G20 summit in Hamburg on 8 July 2017,

| — | having heard Eleonora Forenza in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having heard Eleonora Forenza in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

—

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

| — | having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013 (1),

| — | having regard to Rules 5(2), 7 and 9 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 5(2), 7 and 9 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0398/2017), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0398/2017),

| A. | whereas Gabriele Zimmer, MEP, Chair of the GUE/NGL Group, has requested, under Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7, the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Eleonora Forenza, an MEP belonging to the same political group, who was searched and then detained by the German police along with a number of other activists following a demonstration held in the context of the G20 summit in Hamburg on 8 July 2017; whereas the search and detention took place after the demonstration, when Ms Forenza and her companions were on their way to have lunch together; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Gabriele Zimmer, MEP, Chair of the GUE/NGL Group, has requested, under Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7, the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Eleonora Forenza, an MEP belonging to the same political group, who was searched and then detained by the German police along with a number of other activists following a demonstration held in the context of the G20 summit in Hamburg on 8 July 2017; whereas the search and detention took place after the demonstration, when Ms Forenza and her companions were on their way to have lunch together;

| B. | whereas Parliament has broad discretion as to the direction it wishes to give to a decision following a request from an MEP for the defence of immunity (2); |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas Parliament has broad discretion as to the direction it wishes to give to a decision following a request from an MEP for the defence of immunity (2);

| C. | whereas Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union are mutually exclusive (3); whereas the case at hand does not concern any opinion expressed by an MEP, but rather conduct deemed to pose a danger to public order (alleged participation in a riot); and whereas, therefore, Article 9 of Protocol No 7 clearly applies in this case; |
| --- | --- |

C.

whereas Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union are mutually exclusive (3); whereas the case at hand does not concern any opinion expressed by an MEP, but rather conduct deemed to pose a danger to public order (alleged participation in a riot); and whereas, therefore, Article 9 of Protocol No 7 clearly applies in this case;

| D. | whereas, under Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, MEPs are to enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament, and, in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings; and whereas Ms Forenza, as an Italian MEP visiting Germany, therefore enjoyed such immunity; |
| --- | --- |

D.

whereas, under Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, MEPs are to enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament, and, in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings; and whereas Ms Forenza, as an Italian MEP visiting Germany, therefore enjoyed such immunity;

| E. | whereas, according to the request for the defence of her immunity, Ms Forenza had told the German police right from the outset that she was an MEP; whereas she had immediately presented documents attesting to her status; and whereas she had even managed to put the Italian Consul in Hamburg in contact with the police officer in charge; |
| --- | --- |

E.

whereas, according to the request for the defence of her immunity, Ms Forenza had told the German police right from the outset that she was an MEP; whereas she had immediately presented documents attesting to her status; and whereas she had even managed to put the Italian Consul in Hamburg in contact with the police officer in charge;

| F. | whereas, despite her status as an MEP, the German police nevertheless subjected Ms Forenza to a thorough body search, and then detained her for more than four hours; |
| --- | --- |

F.

whereas, despite her status as an MEP, the German police nevertheless subjected Ms Forenza to a thorough body search, and then detained her for more than four hours;

| G. | whereas, in the light of the foregoing, the German police must have known that they had detained an MEP; whereas that amounts to a breach of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and in particular Article 9, first paragraph, point (b) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

G.

whereas, in the light of the foregoing, the German police must have known that they had detained an MEP; whereas that amounts to a breach of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and in particular Article 9, first paragraph, point (b) thereof;

| H. | whereas, given the circumstances of the case, it is clear that Ms Forenza was not found in the act of committing an offence, so the exception laid down in Article 9, third paragraph, of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union does not apply, and whereas Ms Forenza is therefore fully covered by her parliamentary immunity in this case; |
| --- | --- |

H.

whereas, given the circumstances of the case, it is clear that Ms Forenza was not found in the act of committing an offence, so the exception laid down in Article 9, third paragraph, of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union does not apply, and whereas Ms Forenza is therefore fully covered by her parliamentary immunity in this case;

| 1. | Decides to defend the privileges and immunities of Eleonora Forenza; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany and to Eleonora Forenza. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---

(1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C-200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C-163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.

(2)  Case T-42/06, Gollnisch v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 101.

(3)  Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07, Marra/De Gregorio and Clemente, cited above, paragraph 45.

---