EN Official Journal of the European Union C 324/21

P8_TA(2015)0087

Request for defence of the privileges and immunities of Gabriele Albertini

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2015 on the request for defence of the privileges and immunities of Gabriele Albertini (2014/2096(IMM))

(2016/C 324/05)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the request by Gabriele Albertini of 28 July 2014, announced in plenary on 16 September 2014, for defence of his immunity in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Brescia (Italy) (ref. 7061/13 R.G.),

— having regard to the request by Gabriele Albertini of 30 July 2014, announced in plenary on 16 September 2014, for reconsideration of the request for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings pending before the Court of Brescia (Italy) (ref. 17851/12 R.G.),

— having regard to the request by Gabriele Albertini received on 17 July 2013, announced in plenary on 9 September 2013, for reconsideration of the request for defence of his immunity in connection with the abovementioned civil proceedings,

— having heard Gabriele Albertini in accordance with Rule 9(5) 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 to 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 its decision of 21 May 2013 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Gabriele Albertini (2),

— having regard to its decision of 24 February 2014 on the request for reconsideration of the request for defence of the immunity of Gabriele Albertini (3),

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

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0058/2015),

A. whereas a former Member of the European Parliament, Gabriele Albertini, has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with criminal proceedings pending before an Italian court; whereas he has also requested the reconsideration of the request for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings pending before the same court;

B. whereas the request for defence relates to the allegedly defamatory opinions expressed by Mr Albertini in a written question that he put to the Italian Minister of Justice on 22 October 2012 with a view to establishing whether the conduct of Alfredo Robledo, a prosecutor who had initiated an investigation into facts involving the municipality of Milan and relating to Mr Albertini’s functions as mayor of that city back in 2005, constituted a breach of professional ethics and was hence subject to disciplinary proceedings;

C. whereas the request for reconsideration relates to a writ of summons filed against Mr Albertini before the Court of Brescia by Mr Robledo, in connection with allegedly defamatory statements made by Mr Albertini in a first interview published by the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore on 26 October 2011 and in a second interview published by the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on 19 February 2012;

D. whereas Mr Albertini used very similar, if not altogether identical, expressions in both the written question and the interviews, and whereas the substance of the two sets of proceedings, as also confirmed by Mr Albertini in writing and at his hearing, is the same; whereas the same decision as to whether or not to defend Mr Albertini’s immunity must consequently be taken in respect of both sets of proceedings;

E. whereas both the written question and the interviews took place at a time when Mr Albertini was a Member of the European Parliament;

F. whereas, according to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties;

G. whereas, in accordance with Parliament’s established practice, the fact that legal proceedings are of a civil- or administrative-law nature, or contain certain aspects falling under civil or administrative law, does not per se prevent the immunity afforded by that article from applying;

H. whereas, in its decision of 21 May 2013, Parliament considered that the facts of the case, as manifested in the writ of summons and in Mr Albertini’s oral explanation to the Committee on Legal Affairs, indicated that the statements made did not have a direct and obvious connection with Mr Albertini’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament; whereas Parliament decided, therefore, not to defend Mr Albertini’s immunity;

I. whereas, by letter received on 17 July 2013, Mr Albertini requested reconsideration of the decision of 21 May 2013 not to defend his immunity; whereas by decision of 24 February 2014, Parliament expressed its agreement with the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs not to act on this request in the light of Parliament’s earlier decision of 21 May 2013 not to defend Mr Albertini’s immunity;

J. whereas, by letter of 30 July 2014, Mr Albertini requested reconsideration of the decision of 21 May 2013 for the second time; whereas, in accordance with Rule 9(5) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Albertini has provided supplementary documents relating to his case on several occasions between September 2014 and March 2015;

K. whereas the Court of Justice has held that a statement made by a Member beyond the precincts of the European Parliament may constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his or her duties as referred to in Article 8 of the Protocol, taking the view that it is not the place where a statement is made that matters, but the nature and content of the statement (4); whereas, however, the connection between the opinion expressed and the Member’s parliamentary duties must be direct and obvious (5);

L. whereas the new supporting documents submitted by Mr Albertini fail to shed light on the link between the statements he made and his duties as a Member of the European Parliament; whereas, rather, they provide elements which essentially relate to the most recent stages of the legal proceedings in question, to facts which occurred after the interviews and the written question and to their coverage in the press; whereas these elements are supposed to prove that the expressions used are not defamatory in nature and that both civil and criminal proceedings have been initiated out of personal and political hostility towards Mr Albertini;

M. whereas, however, pursuant to Rule 9(7) of the Rules of Procedure, decisions on immunity may not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him or her justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, the committee responsible acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case; whereas, in accordance with Parliament’s established practice, this provision also applies to civil proceedings;

N. whereas the doctrine of fumus persecutionis — that is, a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the case has been brought with the intention of causing political damage to the Member concerned — only applies to immunity cases falling within Article 9 of the Protocol, namely to legal proceedings relating to offences other than those perpetrated by means of opinions expressed or votes cast, which, in turn, are solely covered by Article 8 of the Protocol (6); whereas since Mr Albertini is a former Member of the European Parliament, Article 9 is no longer applicable to his case;

O. whereas, in any event, the present case arises from opinions expressed by a Member, and whereas, in this context, the determining criterion for the enjoyment of immunity under Article 8 of the Protocol is evidence of a direct and obvious link between the opinions in question and the performance of parliamentary duties;

P. whereas no evidence of such a link has been provided in the case in point; whereas, therefore, the earlier conclusion — endorsed twice by Parliament — that Mr Albertini, in making the statements in question, was not acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament continues to hold;

1. Upholds its decisions of 21 May 2013 and of 24 February 2014, respectively, not to defend the immunity and privileges of Gabriele Albertini and not to act on his request for reconsideration as regards the civil proceedings instituted against him;

2. Decides, on the same grounds, not to defend the immunity and privileges of Gabriele Albertini as regards the criminal proceedings instituted against him;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the Italian Republic and to Gabriele Albertini.

(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) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0195.

(3) Minutes of 24 February 2014, item 7.

(4) Judgment in Patriciello, cited above, paragraph 30.

(5) Judgment in Patriciello, cited above, paragraph 35.

(6) Judgment in Marra, cited above, paragraph 45.