CELEX: 52015DP0086
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-25 00:00:00
Title: European Parliament decision of 25 March 2015 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich (2014/2095(IMM))

2.9.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 324/18
            
         P8_TA(2015)0086
   Request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich
   European Parliament decision of 25 March 2015 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich (2014/2095(IMM))
   (2016/C 324/04)
   
      The European Parliament,
   
               —
            
            
               having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich, forwarded on 21 July 2014 by the Lithuanian judicial authorities in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the court of appeal of the Republic of Lithuania, and announced in plenary on 15 September 2014,
            
         
               —
            
            
               having heard Viktor Uspaskich on 24 March 2015 in accordance with Rule 9(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
            
         
               —
            
            
               having regard to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the Protocol’), 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 the Republic of Lithuania,
            
         
               —
            
            
               having regard to the European Parliament decision of 7 September 2010 (2) ,
            
         
               —
            
            
               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 (A8-0061/2015),
            
         
               A.
            
            
               whereas Vilnius Regional Court has delivered a judgment, which has not yet become final, finding Viktor Uspaskich, MEP, guilty;
            
         
               B.
            
            
               whereas proceedings in the same case are now pending before the court of appeal of the Republic of Lithuania;
            
         
               C.
            
            
               whereas the charges against Viktor Uspaskich do not relate to an opinion expressed or vote cast by him in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament and whereas Article 8 of the Protocol is therefore not applicable;
            
         
               D.
            
            
               whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol, 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, but immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and is not to prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members;
            
         
               E.
            
            
               whereas, under Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (Seimas) may not be held criminally liable, arrested, nor may his freedom be otherwise restricted without the consent of the Seimas;
            
         
               F.
            
            
               whereas criminal proceedings were brought against Viktor Uspaskich, MEP, who, in the proceedings brought before Vilnius Regional Court, was charged with having committed criminal offences pursuant to Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 222(1), Article 220(1), Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 220(1), Article 205(1) and Article 24(4) in conjunction with Article 205(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania;
            
         
               G.
            
            
               whereas on 14 July 2009 the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Lithuania requested that the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich be waived in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings;
            
         
               H.
            
            
               whereas on 27 January 2010 Viktor Uspaskich was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs for the first time pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure and, on 2 September 2010, after clarification of two legal issues by replies from the Lithuanian authorities, was again heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, so that he was afforded the right to a fair hearing at every possible level;
            
         
               I.
            
            
               whereas on 7 September 2010 (3) the European Parliament decided to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;
            
         
               J.
            
            
               whereas on 5 April 2011 Viktor Uspaskich applied for defence of his immunity, asserting, inter alia, that he had not been sufficiently heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs, and in addition claimed that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated and that he was being hampered in his attempts to perform his parliamentary duties;
            
         
               K.
            
            
               whereas in his letter of 11 April 2011 Viktor Uspaskich requested a reconsideration of Parliament’s decision of 7 September 2010 because of allegedly new facts which had been published by WikiLeaks, which, he contended, showed that he had fallen victim to fumus persecutionis;
            
         
               L.
            
            
               whereas this application was rejected because no adequate link between the allegedly new facts and the initiation of the proceedings against Viktor Uspaskich for false accounting had been established;
            
         
               M.
            
            
               whereas the European Parliament decided not to defend the immunity and privileges of Viktor Uspaskich (4);
            
         
               N.
            
            
               whereas on 12 July 2013 Vilnius Regional Court found Viktor Uspaskich guilty of infringing Article 24(4) in conjunction with Articles 182(2) and 222(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania and whereas Viktor Uspaskich was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment;
            
         
               O.
            
            
               whereas both Viktor Uspaskich and the Public Prosecutor’s Office subsequently appealed, so that the same legal proceedings on the basis of which the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich has already been waived are now pending on appeal;
            
         
               P.
            
            
               whereas at the appeal stage of the proceedings a further decision by the European Parliament is required because, pursuant to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, a Member of the national Parliament (Seimas) may not be held criminally liable without the consent of the Seimas;
            
         
               Q.
            
            
               whereas, pursuant to Article 9(a) of the Protocol, the extent and implications of the immunity which Members enjoy in the territory of their own State are determined by the respective national rules;
            
         
               R.
            
            
               whereas Viktor Uspaskich claims that the legal basis of the charges has altered, but whereas it is perfectly admissible for prosecuting and judicial authorities to undertake such redefinitions provided that the conduct giving rise to the proceedings is the same;
            
         
               S.
            
            
               whereas it is at all events clear from the documents that the definition of the offences giving rise to the charges has always remained the same;
            
         
               T.
            
            
               whereas Viktor Uspaskich claims that two cases relating to him are pending before the European Court of Human Rights, but whereas, upon examination, these two cases have been found to be unrelated to the present case;
            
         
               U.
            
            
               whereas a case may be brought before the European Court of Human Rights only after all domestic remedies have been exhausted and it is therefore impossible that proceedings which are pending before the court of appeal of the Republic of Lithuania could at the same time be the subject of proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights;
            
         
               V.
            
            
               whereas, in his letter of 24 October 2014, Viktor Uspaskich communicated fresh facts intended to demonstrate that he had fallen victim to an instance of fumus persecutionis;
            
         
               W.
            
            
               whereas in addition Viktor Uspaskich refers to WikiLeaks documents as new evidence, but these documents were already discussed as part of the defence-of-immunity procedure initiated on 5 April 2011 and they neither constitute conclusive evidence nor are relevant;
            
         
               X.
            
            
               whereas once again it has not proved possible to establish any sufficient connection between the new facts adduced and the procedure against Viktor Uspaskich for false accounting;
            
         
               Y.
            
            
               whereas therefore no convincing evidence is available to demonstrate fumus persecutionis and whereas the offences of which Viktor Uspaskich is accused have nothing to do with his work as a Member of the European Parliament;
            
         
               Z.
            
            
               whereas the decision on the waiver of immunity pursuant to Rule 9(7) of the Rules of Procedure in no way constitutes a statement of opinion regarding guilt or innocence, as this is the subject of national proceedings;
            
         
               AA.
            
            
               whereas moreover in the context of proceedings relating to immunity it is not the task of the Committee on Legal Affairs to examine the judicial systems of individual Member States;
            
         
            
               1.
            
            
               Decides to waive the immunity of Viktor Uspaskich;
            
         
            
               2.
            
            
               Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of its committee responsible, immediately to the appropriate authority of the Republic of Lithuania.
            
         
      (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)  OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 90.
   
      (3)  OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 90.
   
      (4)  OJ C 165 E, 11.6.2013, p. 80.