[autom.vertaling] Parlementaire immuniteit: een Europese benadering (en)

The Legal Affairs Committee held a public hearing on Tuesday with academic experts and former MEPs to discuss the Europan Parliament's practice regarding parliamentary immunity. A consensus emerged on the need for an autonomous and uniform legal framework for the EP immunity system to make the interpretation and implementation of parliamentary privileges simpler.

Committee chairman Giuseppe GARGANI (EPP-ED, IT) opened the debate by saying " immunity should be seen not as impunity but as an opportunity to exercise one's mandate. " Immunity is often regarded by general public as a disproportionate privilege conceived by Members of Parliament to defend their own interests. In fact, according to most speakers, it guarantees the independence of the parliamentarian and his or her freedom to vote and express opinions. It concerns the protection of the whole parliament as institution and not of individual members, stressed Mr Gargani. Neil MacCORMICK, a former member of the Legal Affairs Committee, said: " immunity should not be a shield that protects any MEP from exposure to the general criminal law in its bearing on his or her private or business activities." He added that MEPs' exceptional freedom of speech is justified by the need to represent the public's concerns effectively.

Currently, MEPs' immunity provisions can cause difficulties to the EP when deciding whether to waive or defend a Member's privileges. On the one side, Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities (PPI) guarantees absolute immunity for words spoken or votes cast for Members who act " in the performance of their duties ". On the other hand, Article 10 provides, for MEPs in the territory of their own country, the same immunities accorded to national parliamentarians. Since the requests for waivers of immunity put forward by judicial authorities normally concern national circumstances, EP Members are obliged to deal with 25 different regimes to evaluate the extent of a Member's immunity when taking decisions on these matters.

According to Beniamino CARAVITA, a professor from Rome, a single immunity regime, covering both MEPs' activities in Brussels and in the Member States, would help avoid confusion. Professor Franc GRAD, from Ljubljana, agreed and said "Immunity should be uniformly interpreted since the EP is turning into a full legislative assembly." At present, explained Helmut WINKELMANN of the secretariat of the Bundestag committee on immunities, a restrictive interpretation of European immunity prevails in Germany, while other countries adopt a more extensive one.

To avoid confusion of interpretation and guarantee uniformity of application, current rules would have to be changed. Willi ROTHLEY, former MEP and sometime rapporteur for immunities, argued that Article 10 of the PPI is now obsolete, since it was conceived when the EP was not directly elected. Klaus-Heiner LEHNE (EPP-ED, DE), who is currently one of the rapporteurs for immunity cases, said Article 9 should be reformed to avoid misinterpretation. Lastly, Mr Gargani emphasised that the adoption of the Statute for MEPs was a step forward towards an autonomous European parliamentary immunity.

Since the first European elections in 1979, more than 100 requests for waiving or defending immunities have come before the EP. Until July 2005, an average of 75% of cases concluded with the defence or refusal to waive immunity. As Professor Eileen DENZA, from London, explained, the EP has generally decided to waive immunities when proceedings arose from MEPs' conduct not applicable to the performance of their duties.

29/11/2005

Public Hearing

Committee on Legal Affairs

Chair: Giuseppe GARGANI (EPP-ED, IT)