EN Official Journal of the European Union C 443/86

P7_TA(2014)0348

Request for defence of the parliamentary immunity of Alexander Mirsky

European Parliament decision of 15 April 2014 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Alexander Mirsky (2014/2026(IMM))

(2017/C 443/18)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the request by Alexander Mirsky of 14 February 2014, announced in plenary on 24 February 2014, for the defence of his immunity and privileges in connection with civil proceedings pending before the Civil Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’) (ref. C17129611),

— having regard to Article 8 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 and 6 September 2011 (1),

— having regard to the verbatim report of the proceedings of the plenary sitting of 4 April 2011,

— having regard to Rule 5(2) and to Rules 6a and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0273/2014),

A. whereas a Member of the European Parliament, Alexander Mirsky, has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with civil proceedings pending before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia; whereas the proceedings in question relate to the decision of the Civil Division of the Riga District Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Riga District Court’) to require Alexander Mirsky to retract a statement made in a speech at the European Parliament on 4 April 2011 and to pay LVL 1 000 in non-material compensation to the benefit of the allegedly prejudiced applicants;

B. whereas, according to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 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;

C. whereas in the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament acts to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties;

D. whereas the Court of Justice has clarified that Article 8 of the Protocol, in the light of its objective of protecting the freedom of speech and independence of Members of the European Parliament and in the light of its wording, which expressly refers to votes cast as well as to opinions expressed by the Members, is in essence intended to apply to statements made by those Members within the very precincts of the European Parliament (2);

E. whereas immunity under Article 8 of the Protocol must, to the extent that it seeks to protect the freedom of expression and independence of Members of the European Parliament, be considered as an absolute immunity barring any judicial proceedings in respect of an opinion expressed or a vote cast in the exercise of parliamentary duties (3);

F. whereas the immunity from legal proceedings enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament includes immunity from civil proceedings;

G. whereas the request by Alexander Mirsky relates to legal proceedings instituted against him in connection with statements made during a one-minute speech at the plenary sitting of 4 April 2011; whereas it is uncontested that Alexander Mirsky was a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the statements in question;

H. whereas the Jūrmala Town Court has correctly acknowledged that Alexander Mirsky enjoyed the immunity accorded to the Members of the European Parliament by Article 8 of the Protocol and thus rejected the applicants’ claim; whereas, conversely, the Riga District Court has completely ignored the applicability of that provision; whereas a national court has a duty to apply EU primary law;

I. whereas the legal proceedings brought against Alexander Mirsky are still pending before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia and the final judgment may be in his favour; whereas, however, should the judgment of the Riga District Court be confirmed by the Supreme Court, this would amount to an infringement of EU primary law by the Latvian authorities;

J. whereas, further to the judgment of the Riga District Court, there has, in fact, been a breach of the privileges and immunities of Alexander Mirsky; whereas, in particular, the circumstances of the case in point constitute a restriction on an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties;

1. Decides to defend the immunity and privileges of Alexander Mirsky;

2. Calls on the Commission to intervene with the Latvian authorities in order to enforce EU primary law — notably, Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — and, if necessary, to initiate a Union law infringement procedure under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its competent committee immediately to the Commission, the relevant authorities of the Republic of Latvia and Alexander Mirsky.

(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.

(2) Case C-163/10 Patriciello, cited above, paragraph 29.

(3) Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, cited above, paragraph 27.