P8_TA(2017)0257

Request for waiver of the immunity of Rolandas Paksas

European Parliament decision of 14 June 2017 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Rolandas Paksas (2016/2070(IMM))

(2018/C 331/22)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Rolandas Paksas, forwarded on 31 March 2016 by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania and announced in plenary on 13 April 2016,

— having heard Rolandas Paksas in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

— having held an exchange of views with the Prosecutor General of Lithuania and the Chief Prosecutor at the Organised Crime and Corruption Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office,

— having regard to Article 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 62 of the Constitution of Lithuania,

— having regard to Article 4 of the Law on the status and working conditions of the Members of the European Parliament elected in the Republic of Lithuania,

— having regard to Article 22 of the Statute of the Seimas,

— 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 (A8-0219/2017),

A. whereas the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Rolandas Paksas, in connection with criminal investigations;

B. whereas the request by the Prosecutor General relates to suspicions against Rolandas Paksas of having agreed to accept a bribe on 31 August 2015 in exchange for influencing public authorities and state officials to exercise their powers, which would constitute an offence under the Lithuanian Criminal Code;

C. whereas pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol No 7, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

D. whereas pursuant to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the Members of the Seimas may not be held criminally liable or be detained, or have their liberty restricted otherwise, without the consent of the Seimas;

E. whereas pursuant to Article 4 of the Law on the status and working conditions of the Members of the European Parliament elected in the Republic of Lithuania, Members of the European Parliament shall enjoy the same personal immunity in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania as a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, unless otherwise provided for in the EU legislation;

F. whereas pursuant to Article 22 of the Statute of the Seimas, criminal proceedings may not be instituted against a Member of the Seimas, and that Member may not be arrested, and may not be subjected to any other restrictions of personal freedom without the consent of the Seimas, except in cases when that Member is caught in the act of committing a crime (in flagranti), in which case the Prosecutor General must immediately notify the Seimas thereof;

G. whereas in accordance with Rule 5(2), parliamentary immunity is not a Member’s personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members;

H. whereas the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties;

I. whereas where such proceedings do not concern the performance of a Member’s duties, immunity should be waived unless it appears that the intention underlying the legal proceedings may be to damage a Member’s political activity and thus Parliament’s independence (fumus persecutionis);

J. whereas based on the extensive and detailed information provided in this case there is no reason to suspect that the proceedings relating to Rolandas Paksas are motivated by an intent to damage his political activity as a Member of the European Parliament;

K. whereas it is not for the European Parliament to take a stance on the guilt or otherwise of the Member or whether the acts attributed to the Member warrant the opening of criminal proceedings, nor to pronounce itself on the relative merits of national legal and judicial systems;

1. Decides to waive the immunity of Rolandas Paksas;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the Republic of Lithuania and to Rolandas Paksas.

(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.