Brussels 06/07/2005 (Agence Europe) - Jean-Charles Marchiani of France, who was a member of the European Parliament from 1999 to 2004 under the Union for a Europe of Nations banner, has succeeded in getting the European Parliament to defend his parliamentary immunity. A tap had been ordered on his telephone line between 14 June and 19 July 2004 without the judge in charge of the dossier having asked permission of the President of the European Parliament, believing that the European elections of 13 June put an end to Mr Marchiani's mandate as a member of the European Parliament ipso facto, whereas in fact this did not end until the next legislative period opened, at midnight on 19 July 2004. However, although article 100-7 of the French criminal penal code provides that no interception can take place on the telephone line of a member of Parliament or a senator without the president of the assembly of which he or she is a member being informed about it by the judge, and although the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 1965 states that members of the European Parliament enjoy the immunity as it is recognised for members of the Parliament of their own country, the Court of Cassation cancelled the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Paris, which declared these telephone caps null and void, stating that it did not arise from any legal text or convention, nor from any constitutional principle, that article 100-7 of the criminal penal code is applicable to representatives at the European Parliament.
In his report, Italian Lega Nord member Francesco Speroni underlined the error on the part of the Court of Cassation and stressed the broad principles which govern European parliamentary immunity. The parliamentary immunity enjoyed by Mr Marchiani prevented the legal authorities of the French Republic from putting a cap on the telephone lines of the Euro-MP, stated the report, which the parliament agreed with, "calling for the ruling of the French Court of Cassation to be repealed or rescinded and, in any case, that any effects of the aforementioned ruling, in fact or in law, be stopped".