Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:98
Date: 2026-02-12
Language of the case: French

Anonymised version 
Translation C-30/25 – 1 
Case C-30/25 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
13 January 2025 
Referring court: 
Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 January 2025 
Applicants: 
Auditeur du travail 
ZT 
GQ 
KH 
AN 
FU 
European Economic and Social Committee 
Defendant: 
FR 
  
Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of First 
Instance (French-speaking), Belgium) 
69th Criminal Chamber – room 0.10 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 7. 1. 2025 – CASE C-30/25 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Judgment and adjournment 
Number(s) of convicted person(s): 
[…] FR 
In the case of the Auditeur du travail (Labour Auditor) and 
1. ZT 
[…] 
civil party; […] 
2. GQ 
V […]  
civil party; […] 
3. KH 
[…] civil party; […] 
4. AN 
[…] civil party; […] 
5. FU 
[…] civil party; […] 
6. EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE (EESC), having 
its headquarters at 1000 Bruxelles, rue Belliard 99; 
civil party; […] 
v 
FR 
[…], the accused; 
Who appeared, assisted by […], of the Brussels Bar; 
In Brussels, during the period from 1 January 2011 to 17 July 2020, 
Continuously, the acts being the successive and continuous demonstration of the 
same criminal intention, 
EESC AND OTHERS 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
– For having committed the offence or cooperated directly in its commission; 
– For having, by any act whatsoever, aided its commission such that, without 
his aid, the crime or offence could not have been committed; 
– For having, through gifts, promises, threats, abuse of authority or power, 
machinations or culpable devices, directly incited another to commit the 
crime or offence; 
A. Commission of an act of violence or psychological or sexual harassment at 
work 
Having come into contact with workers in the performance of their work and 
having committed an act of violence or psychological or sexual harassment at 
work 
– Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 32a of the loi du 4 août 1996 
relative au bien-être des travailleurs lors de l’exécution de leur travail (Law 
of 4 August 1996 on the wellbeing of workers in the performance of their 
work), 
– Punishable under Article 119 of the Code pénal social (Social Criminal 
Code), introduced by Article 2 of the loi du 6 juin 2010 introduisant le Code 
pénal social (Law of 6 June 2010 introducing the Social Criminal Code), 
– Liable to a level 4 penalty. 
A.1. In respect of AN 
Period in which the offences were committed 
In Brussels, on an unspecified date during the period from 1 January 2011 to 
31 December 2013 inclusive (AN no longer being able to date the offences 
precisely, but placing them between 2011 and 2013). 
Alleged offences 
Having come into contact with AN, a member of Group 1 of the European 
Economic and Social Committee (EESC), in the performance of her work and 
having committed an act of violence at work by verbally attacking her for 3-
5 minutes, for no apparent reason, during the break in a budget meeting […]. 
A.2. In respect of FU 
Period in which the offences were committed 
In Brussels, during the period from 24 May 2017 (date of the first incident with 
FU at the EESC) to 31 July 2017 (last day of FU’s probationary period) inclusive. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 7. 1. 2025 – CASE C-30/25 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
Alleged offences 
Having come into contact with FU, his personal assistant, in the performance of 
her work and having committed several acts of violence at work and an act of 
psychological harassment at work. The violence and psychological harassment are 
evident in particular from the following: 
– On 24 May 2017, FR shouted at FU following a scheduling conflict in his 
diary […]. 
– On 7 June 2017, FR shouted at FU in the presence of XX following a diary 
problem and threatened to fire her […]. 
– On 12 June 2017, FU was informed that she would no longer be managing 
FR’s calendar, on his instructions, and she effectively lost access to the 
calendar from 15 June 2017 […]. 
- On 28 June 2017, FU was instructed to move out of her office and into a 
shared office […]. 
- After that date and until 31 July 2017, FU was able to perform only minor 
duties and her probationary report was negative […]. 
A.3. In respect of KH 
Period in which the offences were committed 
In Brussels, during the period from 1 June 2017 (KH’s first day of work at the 
EESC) to 9 October 2017 (KH’s last day of work at the EESC) inclusive. 
Alleged offences 
Having come into contact with KH, a principal policy advisor at the EESC, in the 
performance of his work and having committed several acts of violence and an act 
of psychological harassment at work. The violence and psychological harassment 
are evident in particular from the following: 
– During his job interview, KH was promised the position of deputy head of 
unit, a position he never held in practice […]. 
– KH was criticised for not working overtime […]. 
– FR became angry with KH on several occasions […]. 
EESC AND OTHERS 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
A.4. In respect of GQ 
Period in which the offences were committed 
In Brussels, during the period from 5 April 2018 (first incident with FR) to 1 April 
2019 (date of GQ’s transfer to another EESC department) inclusive. 
Alleged offences 
Having come into contact with GQ, chief secretary of Group 1 of the EESC, in the 
performance of her work and having committed several acts of violence and an act 
of psychological harassment at work. The violence and psychological harassment 
are evident in particular from the following: 
– On 5 April 2018, FR asked GQ to dismiss two staff members and to remove 
a third, finding her own reasons to do so […]. 
– At the end of May 2018, FR asked GQ to find out the real reason for the 
resignation of his personal assistant. When she gave one of the reasons to 
FR, he became angry with her in public and accused her of being a bad 
manager […]. 
– On 29 May 2018, FR announced his decision to appoint YY as deputy head 
of the secretariat. He acted aggressively towards GQ and shouted at her, 
accusing her, among other things, of destroying the team […]. 
– On 2 July 2018, FR sent an email to GQ, with a third party in copy, in which 
he questioned the usefulness of her work and criticised her for not 
performing her duties […]. 
– In emails of 2 and 23 July 2018, with a third party in copy, FR accused GQ 
of harassment towards a staff member and stated that she had significant 
shortcomings and was not a good manager […]. 
– On 11 September 2018, FR sent an email to all staff members in which he 
criticised GQ and announced the appointment of YY as deputy […]. 
– On 7 November 2018, FR wrote, inter alia, in an email: ‘I also hope that you 
will be able to improve the level and methods of coordination with YY’ 
[…]. 
– In an email of 27 January 2019 (Annex 5) FR used a condescending tone 
[…]. 
– GQ’s appraisal in March 2019 resulted in the conclusion ‘unsatisfactory’ 
[…]. 
– Several testimonies confirm that FR is aggressive towards GQ and hard on 
her […]. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 7. 1. 2025 – CASE C-30/25 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
A.5. In respect of ZT 
Period in which the offences were committed 
In Brussels, during the period from 1 September 2018 (when ZT started work 
within the EESC) to 17 July 2020 (last act of harassment committed by FR) 
inclusive. 
Alleged offences 
Having come into contact with ZT, his personal assistant, in the performance of 
her work and having committed several acts of violence and an act of 
psychological harassment at work. The violence and psychological harassment are 
evident in particular from the following […]: 
– FR put pressure on ZT to report GQ’s failings and to make a complaint 
against her […]. 
– FR regularly sent emails or SMS messages outside office hours, at weekends 
or during ZT’s holidays to request work-related information […]. 
– FR regularly sent aggressive emails following reservations expressed by ZT 
[…]. 
– On 17 July 2020, FR tried to call ZT three times when she was on sick leave 
and her lawyer had just sent an email to report the acts of harassment of 
which she was victim […]. 
Unity of intention (Article 65 of the Criminal Code) 
The five abovementioned charges constitute the successive and continuous 
demonstration of the same criminal intention. FR’s conduct is identical in all the 
charges: in the five cases, he acts aggressively and places considerable pressure on 
the victims. According to the OLAF report and numerous testimonies […], that 
conduct is habitual for FR. 
It must be found that there is unity of intention. 
Immunity 
As a member of the EESC, FR enjoyed immunity on the basis of Article 343 of 
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 10 of Protocol 
(No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. 
On 4 June 2020, following the conclusion of the investigation conducted by 
OLAF against FR, a request was made to the EESC to waive his immunity. 
By decision of 15 July 2020, the EESC plenary assembly waived the immunity of 
FR. 
EESC AND OTHERS 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
That decision to waive immunity applies to the entire procedure based on the 
OLAF investigation and the resulting legal proceedings relating to the offences 
committed in the course of the term of office during the period from October 2015 
to September 2020. 
The Court took into account in particular the summons to appear before the 
tribunal correctionnel (Criminal Court) issued by the Labour Auditor on 15 March 
2024. 
The case for the civil parties was heard. 
The Deputy Labour Auditor was heard. 
The case for the accused was heard. 
Criminal proceedings 
A. PROCEDURE 
1. Relevant facts concerning the procedure 
The accused is a […] national. 
He has been a member of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) 
since 1 May 2004. 
Between 2010 and 2013, he was […] of the EESC. 
From 2013, he was elected President of […] of the EESC on three occasions. […] 
On 6 December 2018, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) opened an 
investigation, inter alia, into the accused regarding allegations of criminal conduct 
towards a member of the EESC and staff members of the secretariat of Group I. 
On 10 January 2020, OLAF sent its report to the Belgian Public Prosecutor’s 
Office. That report relates to the conduct of the accused towards the following 
individuals: 
■ GQ, 
■ FU, 
■ KH, 
■ AN 
■ and (former and current) staff members of the secretariat of Group I. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 7. 1. 2025 – CASE C-30/25 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
On 10 June 2020, upon the conclusion of the OLAF investigation, the EESC 
relieved the accused of his duties and asked him to withdraw his candidacy for the 
position of President of the EESC, which he did. 
On 15 July 2020, the EESC waived the immunity of the accused. 
The accused was appointed as a member of the EESC for a new term of office for 
the period from 21 September 2020 to 20 September 2025. 
By summons served on the accused on 20 March 2024, Office of the Labour 
Auditor, Belgium, summoned the accused to appear before the Brussels Court of 
First Instance (French-speaking) on the ground of having committed an act of 
violence or psychological harassment at work against: 
■ AN, 
■ FU, 
■ KH, 
■ GQ 
■ and ZT. 
2. Immunity of the accused 
Under Article 343 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 on the Functioning of the 
European Union: 
‘The Union shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such 
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, 
under the conditions laid down in the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the 
privileges and immunities of the European Union. The same shall apply to 
the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank.’ 
Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Economic and Social 
Committee from January 2021 provides inter alia: 1 
‘… 3. The members of the Committee are not bound by any mandatory 
instructions. They are completely independent in the performance of their 
duties, in the Union’s general interest. 
4. In the performance of their duties and on journeys to and from the place 
of meetings, members enjoy the privileges and immunities established in the 
Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. 
 
1 Published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 10 February 2021. 
EESC AND OTHERS 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
Specifically, they enjoy freedom of movement, personal inviolability and 
immunity. […]’. 
Rule 71(2) of those Rules of Procedure stipulates that ‘the provisions of 
Article 10, Chapter IV of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the 
European Union, annexed to the Treaties, shall apply to the members of the 
European Economic and Social Committee.’ 
Article 10 of Protocol (No 7) of 13 December 2007 on the privileges and 
immunities of the European Union (which can be found in Chapter IV) provides: 
‘Representatives of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions 
of the Union, their advisers and technical experts shall, in the performance 
of their duties and during their travel to and from the place of meeting, 
enjoy the customary privileges, immunities and facilities. 
This Article shall also apply to members of the advisory bodies of the 
Union.’ 
In the light of all those provisions, the Office of the Brussels Labour Auditor 
requested the EESC to waive the immunity of the accused. 
By decision of 15 July 2020, the immunity of the accused was waived. That 
decision states inter alia: 
■ ‘WHEREAS the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concluded in its 
recommendations and in its final report, sent to the President of the 
Committee on 17 January 2020, that FR was responsible for acts of 
harassment towards two staff members, for abusive conduct (gross 
misconduct) towards a member of the EESC and a staff member and 
for abusive conduct towards other staff members of the secretariat of 
Group I, 
WHEREAS, by letter of 4 June 2020, received on 11 June 2020, the 
Brussels Labour Auditor informed the President of the Committee of 
his intention to bring proceedings against FR before the tribunal 
correctionnel de Bruxelles (Criminal Court, Brussels, Belgium) and, 
for that purpose, requested that that member’s immunity be waived’. 
■ ‘in his written submissions of 1 July 2020, FR agreed to the waiving of 
immunity’. 
■ ‘The immunity of FR is waived.’ 2 
However, a new term commenced and the accused was nominated by […] as a 
member to serve a new five-year mandate from 21 September 2020. 
 
2 [OMISSIS] [file number] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 7. 1. 2025 – CASE C-30/25 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
The accused claims that this was a new term of office which was once again 
subject to the immunity provided for in Article 10 of Protocol (No 7) of 
13 December 2007 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, with 
the result that the Office of the Labour Auditor should have requested and 
obtained the waiving of the immunity of the accused again after that new 
nomination. 
The Court considers that those arguments make sense, especially since the Court 
of Justice of the European Union ruled, on 19 December 2019, 3 that, as far as 
Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) of 13 December 2007 on the privileges and 
immunities of the European Union was concerned, it was necessary to request the 
waiving of immunity of an elected member of the European Parliament in order to 
be able to remand him in custody when the commencement of the detention and 
the acts justifying it preceded the election in question and therefore the term of 
office which granted immunity to the person concerned. This seems to indicate 
that, in order for the proceedings to be able to continue, immunity must be 
requested again where there is a new term of office. 
The situation at issue here is different from that on which the Court of Justice 
ruled in 2019 because the accused is not a Member of Parliament subject to 
Article 9 of the abovementioned Protocol, but rather a representative of a Member 
State subject to Article 10 of the Protocol. The question therefore arises whether 
or not the reasoning adopted by the Court of Justice in 2019 is applicable in the 
present case. 
Consequently, the Court considers it necessary, as suggested by the accused, to 
refer the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a 
preliminary ruling: 
‘In order to enable the European institutions and their members to be 
completely independent in the performance of their tasks and duties, without 
constraint or undue pressure, Article 10 of Protocol (No 7) of 13 December 
2007 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union requires, 
before any proceedings are brought before a criminal court against a 
representative of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of 
the Union, that his or her immunity is waived. Must a new request for the 
waiving of immunity be submitted to the European institution concerned 
when, after immunity was first waived and in the course of the investigation, 
but before the commencement of legal proceedings, the person concerned 
was appointed to serve a new mandate within the same European institution 
for a new term?’ 
[…] [procedural rule] 
 
3 CJEU, 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies, C-502/19, https://curia.europa.eu/ (visited on 6 
December 2024). 
EESC AND OTHERS 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
On those grounds, 
the Court, 
giving judgment in adversarial proceedings, 
Before ruling: 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 on the Functioning of the 
European Union, refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling: 
In order to enable the European institutions and their members to be 
completely independent in the performance of their tasks and duties, without 
constraint or undue pressure, Article 10 of Protocol (No 7) of 13 December 
2007 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union requires, 
before any proceedings are brought before a criminal court against a 
representative of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of 
the Union, that his or her immunity is waived. Must a new request for the 
waiving of immunity be submitted to the European institution concerned 
when, after immunity was first waived and in the course of the investigation, 
but before the commencement of legal proceedings, the person concerned 
was appointed to serve a new mandate within the same European institution 
for a new term? 
[…]