Brussels, 06/09/2011 (Agence Europe) - Through its ruling delivered in Case C-163/10 on Tuesday 6 September, the Court of Justice of the European Union has clarified the extent of the immunity afforded to MEPs for opinions expressed and votes cast in the performance of their duties.
In responding to the Tribunale di Isernia (District Court, Isernia), which asked it to state the criteria for determining whether a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament outside the precincts of the Parliament and giving rise to prosecution in his/her member state of origin for the offence of making false accusations, constitutes “an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties and may, on that ground, enjoy immunity”.
According to the Court, the extent of the immunity in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by MEPs in the performance of their parliamentary duties must be established on the basis of EU law alone. The immunity granted to MEPs is intended to protect their freedom of expression and their independence, covering not only statements made within the precincts of the European Parliament but also statements made beyond those precincts, in so far as they amount to opinions expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties.
When an MEP is prosecuted in his/her member state of origin following a statement made outside the Parliament precincts, immunity may be granted “only if the connection between the opinion expressed and parliamentary duties is direct and obvious”. It is, then, for the national court, which has sole competence, to determine whether such a link is obvious in the case of the statement made by the MEP. With regard to the decision taken at the time by the European Parliament to defend the immunity of the elected representative concerned, taking the view that he had acted “in the general interest of his constituents”, within the framework of his political activities in expressing his opinion on a matter of general public interest for his constituents, the Court notes that this was “no more than an opinion without any binding effect on national courts”. The Italian court could, therefore, disregard this opinion without any particular obligation to give the reasons for its decision. (F.G./transl.rt)