The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Marine Le Pen, forwarded on 9 December 2016 by Pascal Guinot, the Prosecutor-General at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, and announced in plenary on 19 January 2017,

–  having invited Ms Le Pen to be heard on 29 May and 12 June 2017, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

–  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013(1),

–  having regard to the first paragraph of Article 23, the first paragraph of Article 29, Article 30 and the first paragraph of Article 31 of the Act of 29 July 1881 and Articles 93-2 and 93-3 of the Act of 29 July 1982,

–  having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0223/2017),

A.  whereas the Prosecutor-General at the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence has requested the waiver of immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Marine Le Pen, in connection with a legal action concerning an alleged offence;

B.  whereas, pursuant to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, 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;

C.  whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol No 7, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

D.  whereas the second paragraph of Article 26 of the French Constitution provides that no Member of Parliament shall be arrested for a serious crime or other major offence, nor shall he be subjected to any other custodial or semi-custodial measure, without the authorisation of the Bureau of the House of which he is a member, and that such authorisation shall not be required in the case of a serious crime or other major offence committed flagrante delicto or when a conviction has become final;

E.  whereas Marine Le Pen is accused of public defamation of a publicly elected official, an offence provided for in French law, namely in the first paragraph of Article 23, the first paragraph of Article 29, Article 30 and the first paragraph of Article 31 of the Act of 29 July 1881 and Articles 93-2 and 93-3 of the Act of 29 July 1982;

F.  whereas on 28 July 2015 Christian Estrosi filed with the senior examining magistrate in Nice an application to join a civil action to legal proceedings against Marine Le Pen on the grounds of public defamation of a publicly elected official with a temporary mandate; whereas he asserts that on 3 May 2015, during the programme Le Grand Rendez-vous, which was broadcast simultaneously on iTÉLÉ and Europe 1, Marine Le Pen made the following remarks constituting allegations or imputations against him which were a slur on his honour or slight to his reputation: ‘Listen, what I know is this: Mr Estrosi has financed the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organisations in France); he has been found guilty by the administrative justice system of having accorded such a low rent for a UOIF mosque that even the administrative court rapped him over the knuckles, which is a reflection, in fact, of the way in which these mayors are illegally funding mosques, in violation of the 1905 law; when you are caught with your fingers in the clientelist, religious‑community honeypot, of course you have to give out and say shocking things, but I attach little importance to words and more to actions...’; in response to a question from the interviewer, ‘So, Estrosi – an accomplice of jihadis?’, Ms Le Pen allegedly stated: ‘Help, providing resources, assistance; when you help Islamic fundamentalism to establish itself, to spread, to recruit, well, somewhere in all that, morally, yes, you are a little bit complicit’;

G.  whereas Marine Le Pen has been invited twice for a hearing, in accordance with Rule 9(6) of the Rules of Procedure; whereas, however, she has not taken the opportunity to submit her observations to the committee responsible;

H.  whereas the alleged action does not have a direct or obvious connection with Marine Le Pen’s performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament, nor do the words uttered by her constitute opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament for the purposes of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

I.  whereas, having regard to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, the accusations are manifestly unrelated to the position of Marine Le Pen as a Member of the European Parliament and relate instead to activities of a solely national or regional nature, and whereas Article 8 is therefore not applicable;

J.  whereas only the immunity covered by Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union is capable of being waived;

K.  whereas, having regard to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, there is no reason to suspect that the request for waiver was made in order to attempt to obstruct the parliamentary work of Marine Le Pen or with the intention of causing her political damage (fumus persecutionis);

1.  Decides to waive the immunity of Marine Le Pen;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the French Republic and to Marine Le Pen.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C‑200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C‑163/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.