Postupak : 2015/2102(IMM)
Faze dokumenta na plenarnoj sjednici
Odabrani dokument : A8-0229/2015

Podneseni tekstovi :

A8-0229/2015

Rasprave :

Glasovanja :

PV 08/09/2015 - 5.2
Objašnjenja glasovanja

Doneseni tekstovi :

P8_TA(2015)0282

IZVJEŠĆE     
PDF 691kWORD 88k
16.7.2015
PE 560.886v02-00 A8-0229/2015

o zahtjevu za ukidanje imuniteta Januszu Korwinu-Mikkeu

(2015/2102(IMM))

Odbor za pravna pitanja

Izvjestiteljica: Evelyn Regner

PRIJEDLOG ODLUKE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA

PRIJEDLOG ODLUKE EUROPSKOG PARLAMENTA

o zahtjevu za ukidanje imuniteta Januszu Korwinu-Mikkeu

(2015/2102(IMM))

Europski parlament,

–       uzimajući u obzir zahtjev za ukidanje imuniteta Januszu Korwinu-Mikkeu, koji je glavni državni odvjetnik Republike Poljske uputio 13. ožujka 2015. u vezi sa sudskim postupcima koje je 9. ožujka 2015. pokrenuo načelnik općinske policije grada Piotrkówa Trybunalskog (predmet br. SM.O.4151-F.2454/16769/2014) i koji je najavljen na sjednici od 15. travnja 2015.;

–       nakon saslušanja Janusza Korwina-Mikkea u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Poslovnika,

–       uzimajući u obzir članke 8. i 9. Protokola br. 7 o povlasticama i imunitetima Europske unije te članak 6. stavak 2. Akta od 20. rujna 1976. o izboru zastupnika u Europski parlament neposrednim općim izborima,

–       uzimajući u obzir presude Suda Europske unije od 12. svibnja 1964., 10. srpnja 1986., 15. i 21. listopada 2008., 19. ožujka 2010., 6. rujna 2011. i 17. siječnja 2013.(1),

–       uzimajući u obzir članak 105. stavak 2. Ustava Republike Poljske te članak 7.b stavak 1. i članak 7.c stavak 1. u vezi s člankom 10.b poljskog Zakona od 9. svibnja 1996. o obavljanju dužnosti zastupnika ili senatora;

–       uzimajući u obzir članak 5. stavak 2., članak 6. stavak 1. i članak 9. Poslovnika,

–       uzimajući u obzir izvješće Odbora za pravna pitanja (A8-0229/2015),

A.     budući da je glavni državni odvjetnik Republike Poljske proslijedio zahtjev načelnika općinske policije grada Piotrkówa Trybunalskog za odobrenje pokretanja postupka protiv zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu Janusza Korwina-Mikkea u vezi s kaznenim djelom u smislu članka 92.a Akta od 20. svibnja 1971. kojim se uspostavlja Zakon o kaznenim djelima u vezi s člankom 20. stavkom 1. Zakona o cestovnom prometu od 20. lipnja 1997.; budući da je navodno kazneno djelo naročito povezano s prekoračenjem dopuštene brzine u naseljenom području;

B.     budući da u skladu s člankom 8. Protokola o povlasticama i imunitetima Europske unije zastupnici u Europskom parlamentu ne mogu biti podvrgnuti nikakvom obliku ispitivanja, zadržavanja ili sudskog postupka zbog izraženih mišljenja ili glasanja pri obnašanju svojih dužnosti;

C.     budući da u skladu s člankom 9. Protokola o povlasticama i imunitetima Europske unije zastupnici u Europskom parlamentu na području svoje države moraju uživati imunitet priznat zastupnicima parlamenta te države;

D.     budući da u skladu s člankom 105. stavkom 2. Ustava Republike Poljske zastupnik ne može biti pozvan na kaznenu odgovornost bez odobrenja Sejma;

E.     budući da jedino Parlament može odlučiti hoće li se u navedenom slučaju imunitet ukinuti ili ne; budući da pri donošenju odluke o tome hoće li ukinuti imunitet zastupniku ili ne, Parlament može objektivno uzeti u obzir položaj u kojem se zastupnik nalazi(2);

F.     budući da navodno kazneno djelo nije izravno ili očigledno povezano s obnašanjem dužnosti gospodina Korwina-Mikkea u svojstvu zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu niti je u vezi s izraženim mišljenjem ili glasanjem pri obnašanju njegovih dužnosti zastupnika u Europskom parlamentu u smislu članka 8. Protokola br. 7 o povlasticama i imunitetima Europske unije;

G.     budući da ne postoji razlog za pretpostavku, odnosno dovoljno ozbiljna i osnovana sumnja, da je postupak pokrenut s namjerom nanošenja političke štete dotičnom zastupniku (fumus persecutionis);

1.      odlučuje ukinuti imunitet Januszu Korwinu-Mikkeu;

2.      nalaže svojem predsjedniku da odmah proslijedi ovu Odluku i izvješće nadležnog odbora nadležnom tijelu Republike Poljske i Januszu Korwinu-Mikkeu.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

1. Background

On 13 March 2015, the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Poland forwarded to the President of Parliament a request made by the Municipal Police Chief in Piotrków Trybunalski on 9 March 2015 that authorisation be granted to take action against a Member of the European Parliament, Mr Janusz Korwin-Mikke, in connection with the offence described hereinafter.

The Municipal Police claim that on 6 September 2014, when driving his car in a built-up area in Piotrków Trybunalski, Mr Korwin-Mikke exceeded the permitted speed limit of 50 km/h by 32 km/h according to a speed camera located in that area. This conduct constitutes an offence under Article 92a of the Polish Act of 20 May 1971 establishing a Code of Offences in connection with Article 20(1) of the Polish Road Traffic Act of 20 June 1997.

After identifying the owner of the car as Mr Korwin-Mikke on basis of the Polish Central Register of Vehicles and Drivers, the Police also claim that the facial image of the driver visible in the picture taken by the speed camera matches the facial image of Mr Korwin-Mikke as provided by the competent municipal authorities.

At the plenary sitting on 15 April 2015, the President announced, under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that he had received a letter from the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Poland requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Janusz Korwin-Mikke.

The President referred this request to the Committee on Legal Affairs under Rule 9(1). Mr Korwin-Mikke was heard by the Committee on 14 July 2015 in accordance with Rule 9(5).

2. Law and procedure on the immunity of Members of the European Parliament

Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union read as follows:

Article 8

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

Article 9

During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:

a. in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

b. in the territory of other Member States, immunity from any measures or detention and from legal proceedings.

Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.

Rules 6(1) and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament read as follows:

Rule 6

Waiver of immunity

1. In the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament acts to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties. Any request for waiver of immunity shall be evaluated in accordance with Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union and with the principles referred to in this Rule.

(...)

Rule 9

Procedures on immunity

1. Any request addressed to the President by a competent authority of a Member State that the immunity of a Member be waived, or by a Member or a former Member that privileges and immunities be defended, shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible.

The Member or former Member may be represented by another Member. The request may not be made by another Member without the agreement of the Member concerned.

2. The committee shall consider without delay, but having regard to their relative complexity, requests for the waiver of immunity or requests for the defence of privileges and immunities.

3. The committee shall make a proposal for a reasoned decision which recommends the adoption or rejection of the request for the waiver of immunity or for the defence of privileges and immunities.

4. The committee may ask the authority concerned to provide any information or explanation which the committee deems necessary in order for it to form an opinion on whether immunity should be waived or defended.

5. The Member concerned shall be given an opportunity to be heard, may present any

documents or other written evidence deemed by that Member to be relevant and may be represented by another Member.

The Member shall not be present during debates on the request for waiver or defence of his or her immunity, except for the hearing itself.

The chair of the committee shall invite the Member to be heard, indicating a date and time. The Member may renounce the right to be heard.

If the Member fails to attend the hearing pursuant to that invitation, he or she shall be deemed to have renounced the right to be heard, unless he or she has asked to be excused from being heard on the date and at the time proposed, giving reasons. The chair of the committee shall rule on whether such a request to be excused is to be accepted in view of the reasons given, and no appeals shall be permitted on this point.

If the chair of the committee grants the request to be excused, he or she shall invite the Member to be heard at a new date and time. If the Member fails to comply with the second invitation to be heard, the procedure shall continue without the Member having been heard. No further requests to be excused, or to be heard, may then be accepted.

(...)

7. The committee may offer a reasoned opinion as to the competence of the authority in question and the admissibility of the request, but shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him or her justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, it acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case.

(...)

Article 105(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland reads as follows:

From the day of announcement of the results of the elections until the day of the expiry of his mandate, a Deputy shall not be subjected to criminal accountability without the consent of the Sejm.

Articles 7b(1), 7c(1) and 10b of the Act of 9 May 1996 on the exercise of the mandate of Deputy and Senator read as follows:

Article 7b

1. A motion for expression of consent for bringing a deputy or senator to penal accountability in a case concerning a crime prosecuted by public accusation shall be submitted through the Minister of Justice – Public Prosecutor General.

Article 7c

1. A motion for expression of consent for bringing a deputy or senator to penal accountability shall be submitted to the Speaker of the Sejm or Speaker of the Senate, who shall forward this motion to the body competent for examining the motion pursuant to the rules of procedure of the Sejm or Senate, at the same time notifying the deputy or senator that the motion concerns, of the contents of this motion.

Art. 10b.

Regulations concerning expression of consent for bringing a deputy or senator to penal accountability shall apply as appropriate to accountability for petty offenses.

3. Justification for the proposed decision

On the basis of the aforementioned facts, the present case qualifies for the application of Article 9 of the Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

Pursuant to that provision, Members enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of the Parliament of that State. In turn, Article 105(2) of the Polish Constitution stipulates that criminal prosecution of members of the Sejm are subject to prior authorisation from the latter. A decision of the European Parliament is, therefore, required, whether the action against Mr Korwin-Mikke is to go ahead(3).

In order to decide whether or not to waive a Member’s parliamentary immunity, the European Parliament applies its own consistent principles. One of these principles is that immunity is usually waived when the offence falls within Article 9 of the Protocol No 7, provided that there is no fumus persecutionis, i.e. a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the matter is being brought before a court with the intention of causing political damage to the Member concerned.

First and foremost, the request for waiver of Mr Korwin-Mikke’s immunity has been submitted as a result of an alleged offence consisting of exceeding the maximum permitted speed limit in a built-up area. Second, the present case is in connection with a road offence which, according to the request, is subject to the payment of a relatively low fine of PLN 300 to 400. Finally, the facial match operated by the police seems to amount to an objective investigative technique which would, by nature, rule out any intention to cause political damage to Mr Korwin-Mikke. It, therefore, appears from the circumstances of the case that, although the above-mentioned facts occurred when Mr Korwin-Mikke was already a Member of the European Parliament, the alleged offence and the ensuing prosecution clearly have nothing to do with the position of Mr Korwin-Mikke as a Member of the European Parliament nor is there evidence of fumus persecutionis.

4. Conclusion

On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr Janusz Korwin-Mikke.

REZULTAT KONAČNOG GLASOVANJA U ODBORU

Datum usvajanja

14.7.2015

 

 

 

Rezultat konačnog glasovanja

+:

–:

0:

11

0

1

Zastupnici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju

Joëlle Bergeron, Marie-Christine Boutonnet, Jean-Marie Cavada, Kostas Chrysogonos, Mady Delvaux, Dietmar Köster, Gilles Lebreton, António Marinho e Pinto, József Szájer, Tadeusz Zwiefka

Zamjenici nazočni na konačnom glasovanju

Daniel Buda, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann

(1)

Presuda Suda od 12. svibnja 1964., Wagner protiv Fohrmanna i Kriera, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; presuda Suda od 10. srpnja 1986., Wybot protiv Faurea i ostalih, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; presuda Općeg suda od 15. listopada 2008., Mote protiv Parlamenta, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; presuda Suda od 21. listopada 2008., Marra protiv De Gregorija i Clementea, C-200/07 i C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; presuda Općeg suda od 19. ožujka 2010., Gollnisch protiv Parlamenta, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; presuda Suda od 6. rujna 2011., Patriciello, C-163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; presuda Općeg suda od 17. siječnja 2013., Gollnisch protiv Parlamenta, T-346/11 i T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.

(2)

Predmet T-345/05, Mote protiv Parlamenta (naveden gore), stavak 28.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 10b of the Polish Act of 9 May 1996 on the exercise of the mandate of Deputy and Senator the waiver of the immunity is required also in relation to minor offences, such as road offences.

Pravna napomena