16. Draws attention to paragraph 1(xxvii) of its resolution on the proposal for a Council Regulation
establishing a Cohesion Fund (1) adopted on 6 July 2005, and calls on the Commission to make provision
for a premium system along the same lines, taking the form of a ‘Community quality and effectiveness
reserve ’specifically targeting incentives for measures having cross-border effects or potentially dovetailing
with existing infrastructure in Euroregions;
17. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.
(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2005)0278.
P6_TA(2005)0449
Immunity of Andrzej P ęczak
European Parliament decision on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Andrzej
Pęczak, former Member of the European Parliament (2005/2128(IMM))
The European Parliament ,
— having regard to the request by Andrzej P ęczak for defence of his immunity in connection with the
criminal proceedings brought against him before the District Court in Łódź, Poland, on 18 April 2005,
announced in plenary sitting on 25 May 2005,
— having regard to Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European
Communities of 8 April 1965, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the elec-
tion of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,
— having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986 (1) of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities,
— having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0330/2005),
A. whereas Andrzej P ęczak was elected to the Polish Parliament (Sejm) on 23 September 2001; whereas
after the signature of the Accession Treaty on 16 April 2003 he became an Observer; whereas he was aMember of the European Parliament from 1 May 2004 until 19 July 2004; whereas his term of officein the Polish Parliament expired on 19 October 2005,
B. whereas Andrzej P ęczak complains that the Polish Public Prosecutor's office has violated the law in its
proceedings and that the District Court's decisions on his detention and arrest as well as the subsequentextensions of the provisional arrest are politically motivated,
C. whereas Andrzej P ęczak complains that those criminal proceedings brought against him are in breach
of the presumption of innocence and that the conditions of his detention and arrest limit his ability todefend himself,
D. whereas Andrzej P ęczak complains that the procedure by which the Sejm waived his immunity was
‘legally invalid ’and based on publications in the media, and that his motions for action sent to various
persons (such as the Ombudsman) had no effect,
E. whereas, on basis of the information obtained, Andrzej P ęczak is not protected by parliamentary
immunity in respect of any of the claims which have been drawn to the attention of the President ofthe European Parliament,
1. Decides not to defend the immunity and privileges of Andrzej P ęczak.
(1) Case 101/63 Wagner v. Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v. Faure and others [1986]
ECR 2391.C 285 E/74 EN 22.11.2006 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 1 December 2005