Source: European Parliament
PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION
on the request for waiver of the immunity of Petr Bystron
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Petr Bystron, received by letter dated 27 August 2024 from the German Federal Ministry of Justice, transmitting a request from the Munich I Chief Public Prosecutor, in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the Munich District Court, and announced in plenary on 16 September 2024,
– having heard Petr Bystron in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure on 29 January 2025 and having regard to the documents submitted by him during the hearing,
– 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 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011, 17 January 2013, 19 December 2019 and 5 July 2023[1],
– having regard to Article 46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany,
– 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 (A10-0030/2025),
A. whereas the Munich I Chief Public Prosecutor has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Petr Bystron, Member of the European Parliament, in the context of accusations brought against him under Section 86a of the German Criminal Code and in connection with Section 86 of the Code, regarding the alleged use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations;
B. whereas the request indicates that, following the dismissal from office of the Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany on 12 July 2022, Petr Bystron allegedly published a photo montage on his Twitter account, showing clippings from pictures of persons having formerly occupied high public office, with each holding up their right or left arm with the hand outstretched and fingers pointing upwards; whereas the published collage is accompanied by the caption ‘Bye, bye […]! German politicians wave goodbye!’[2]; whereas Petr Bystron was accused of at least tacit acceptance that this photo montage would leave an objective Twitter user with the impression that the arm position depicted was the ‘Hitler salute’, as this was a form of greeting used by the Nazi regime; whereas Petr Bystron was charged with having distributed or publicly used in Germany symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organisations;
C. whereas after carrying out investigations, the competent authorities submitted a request for waiver of the immunity of Petr Bystron, addressed to the German Bundestag, of which he was a member at the time; whereas the German Bundestag waived his immunity on 7 September 2023;
D. whereas Petr Bystron was elected to the European Parliament at the European elections in 2024; whereas after the announcement of the final election result, the competent authorities, by decision of 9 July 2024, provisionally suspended the criminal proceedings against him in order to proceed with the request for waiver of his immunity;
E. whereas Petr Bystron was not a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offence;
F. whereas the alleged offence and the subsequent request for waiver of his immunity are not related to an opinion expressed or a vote cast by Petr Bystron in the performance of his duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;
G. whereas Article 9, first paragraph, point (a), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
H. whereas Article 46(2), (3) and (4) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany provides that:
‘(2) A Member may not be called to account or arrested for a punishable offence without permission of the Bundestag unless he is apprehended while committing the offence or in the course of the following day.
(3) The permission of the Bundestag shall also be required for any other restriction of a Member’s freedom of the person or for the initiation of proceedings against a Member under Article 18.
(4) Any criminal proceedings or any proceedings under Article 18 against a Member and any detention or other restriction of the freedom of his person shall be suspended at the demand of the Bundestag.’;
I. whereas the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties;
J. whereas in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary immunity is not a personal privilege of the Member but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members;
K. whereas in this case, Parliament found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, which is to say factual elements indicating that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine the Member’s political activity in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament;
L. whereas Parliament cannot assume the role of a court, and whereas, in a waiver of immunity procedure, a Member cannot be regarded as a defendant[3];
1. Decides to waive the immunity of Petr Bystron;
2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the Federal Republic of Germany and to Petr Bystron.
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
The rapporteur declares under his exclusive responsibility that he did not receive input from any entity or person to be mentioned in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.