P8_TA(2017)0258

Request for the waiver of the immunity of Mylène Troszczynski

European Parliament decision of 14 June 2017 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Mylène Troszczynski (2017/2019(IMM))

(2018/C 331/23)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Mylène Troszczynski, forwarded on 1 December 2016 by the Minister of Justice of the French Republic in connection with a judicial investigation being conducted by the Bobigny Public Prosecutor on the grounds of public defamation and incitement to hatred or violence in respect of a person or group of persons on account of their origin or membership or non-membership of a particular ethnic group, nation, race or religion, and announced in plenary on 16 January 2017,

— having heard Mylène Troszczynski 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 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 Article 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic, as amended by Constitutional Law No 95-880 of 4 August 1995,

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

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0218/2017),

A. whereas the Bobigny Public Prosecutor has requested that the immunity of Mylène Troszczynski, Member of the European Parliament and Member of the Picardy Regional Council, should be waived in connection with proceedings relating to the posting on her Twitter account on 23 September 2015 of a picture of women wearing the full veil who seem to be queuing outside the offices of a CAF (Caisse d’allocations familiales — Family Allowances Fund), accompanied by the comment ‘Rosny-Sous-Bois CAF on 9.12.14. Wearing of the full veil is supposed to be prohibited by law…’;

B. whereas the offending image was in fact a photomontage based on a picture taken in London and already used by another Twitter account holder, and whereas the investigation revealed that it was not Ms Troszczynski who published the message online, but her assistant, who confessed to having done so;

C. whereas the Public Prosecutor pointed out that as the editor of her own Twitter account, Ms Troszczynski could be held responsible for the tweet;

D. whereas when Ms Troszczynski realised that the picture was forged, she promptly removed it from her Twitter account;

E. whereas the waiver of the immunity of Mylène Troszczynski relates to an alleged offence of public defamation in respect of a person or group of persons on account of their origin or membership or non-membership of a particular ethnic group, nation, race or religion as defined, and for which penalties are laid down by Articles 23, 29(1), 32(2) and (3), 42, 43 and 48-6 of the Law of 29 July 1881, and to the commission of the offence of incitement to discrimination, hatred or racial violence, the subjects of the investigation which is under way, as defined, and for which penalties are laid down by Articles 24(8), (10), (11) and (12), 23(1) and 42 of the Law of 29 July 1881 and by Article 131-26(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code;

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

G. whereas Article 26 of the French Constitution provides that no Member of Parliament shall be prosecuted, investigated, arrested, detained or tried in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his or her official duties and that no Member of Parliament may be arrested for a crime or be the subject of any other custodial or semi-custodial measure without the authorisation of the Parliament;

H. whereas the scope of immunity accorded to Members of the French Parliament corresponds in fact to the scope of immunity accorded to Members of the European Parliament under Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union; whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union has held that for a Member of the European Parliament to enjoy immunity an opinion must be expressed by the Member in the performance of his or her duties, thus entailing the requirement of a link between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties; whereas such link must be direct and obvious;

I. whereas the charges are unrelated to the position of Mylène Troszczynski as a Member of the European Parliament and concern instead activities of a regional nature, given that the forged picture and the comments referred to what was allegedly happening in Rosny-Sous-Bois, in violation of the French law;

J. whereas the alleged actions do not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast by Mylène Troszczynski in the performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

K. whereas there is no suspicion of fumus persecutionis, which is any evident attempt to obstruct the parliamentary work of Mylène Troszczynski, behind the judicial inquiry which was opened following a complaint alleging defamation of a public administration, lodged by the Seine-Saint-Denis Family Allowances Fund represented by its general manager;

1. Decides to waive the immunity of Mylène Troszczynski;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Minister of Justice of the French Republic and to Mylène Troszczynski.

(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.