Brussels, 22/02/2002 (Agence Europe) - As we pointed out earlier, the legal committee recommended in plenary that the European Parliament should reject requests to lift the parliamentary immunity of Charles Pasqua and Jean-Charles Marchiani, members of "Rassemblement pour la France" and former French Interior Minister and former "Préfet" respectively. The unanimity which prevailed within the legal committee during the adoption of the report by the member of the Scottish Nationalist Party, Neil MacCormick (Greens/EFA) - unanimity which may come as a surprise given the gravity of the accusations and the thickness of the dossier forwarded by the Parisian judges - can be explained by the blunders committed by the French authorities which could give rise to action against a decision to lift immunity before the Court of Justice of the European Communities. If, after the Berlusconi and Dell'Utri affairs, the decision led some to criticise the excessive legal formalism of the parliamentary committee, experts recall that respect of procedure is indispensable not only to guarantee legal security but also to carry out prosecution successfully. In his report, Mr MacCormick notes that, in its current form, the request for lifting immunity presents unacceptable imprecision and it appears from the dossier that, apparently, account was not taken of a recommendation by the general prosecutor stating that the request for lifting immunity should only follow its course on the basis of a more precise indication of the places and people concerned.
Mr Pasqua and Mr Marchiani are charged with an aggravated receiving offence and influence peddling in a matter concerning the illegal trade or arms to three African countries (Angola, Cameroon and Congo). This also leads to the indictment of other well-known personalities like Jean-Christophe Mitterrand and the writer, Paul-Loup Sulitzer. Mr Pasqua is also indicted for the illegal financing of the European election campaign. Out of 15 others indicted, only Mr Pasqua and Mr Marchiani have not yet been placed under judicial control. The initial request from the investigating magistrate aimed at lifting immunity with a view to taking control measures (mainly a ban on going to certain countries or having contacts with other persons concerned by this affair). The request does not, however, specify which countries are concerned, or the names of persons involved. The request, which dates back to 13 June 2001, was not forwarded to the European Parliament until 9 October by the Minister of Justice, Marylise Lebranch. In a forwarding letter, the Prosecutor stresses the gravity of the facts with which the persons involved are reproached, but recognises that the investigating judges did not precisely identify the persons that should not be contacted by those indicted, or the list of countries to which they should not go. He went on to say that these circumstances do not seem to him to be an obstacle to the request made that the pronouncing of judicial control measures, which are necessary in principle, should be adjusted to information needs, whose evolution cannot to date be anticipated with certainty. This view is not shared by the chief public prosecutor of the "Cour d'Appel" in Paris who, in a letter addressed to the Justice Minister during transmission of the dossier, writes: "It would seem to me (…) difficult to request that the European Parliament lift the immunity of Mr Marchiani and Mr Pasqua in order to place them under judicial control without this parliament having all the elements required to assess the precise content and the exact extent of the judicial control envisaged". It should be noted that, in a letter dated 22 October, the investigating magistrate expresses surprise at the amount of time it took for the request to be transferred to the European Parliament and at the lack of "annexed elements necessary for examining the demand by the European Assembly". Furthermore, the request for lifting immunity also aimed at imposing on the two MEPs the obligation of responding to all summons made by the investigating magistrates. This request was made due to the successive refusals by Mr Marchiani and Mr Pasqua to refer to the meetings summoned under the pretext that they had to be elsewhere in the exercise of their parliamentary duties. According to the EP's timetable for 2001, out of the four dates mentioned in the dossier, one comes within a week reserved for the activities of political groups and another in a so-called circumscription week, when there is no parliamentary activity. The two other dates correspond to a Monday and a Thursday of plenary session in Strasbourg.