—

having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, submitted by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Poland, dated 14 July 2021, in connection with criminal proceedings which the District Prosecutor's Office in Białystok wishes to initiate against him, and communicated in plenary on 24 November 2021,

—

having regard to the waiver by Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz of his right to be heard under 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 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011, 17 January 2013 and 19 December 2019 (1),

—

having regard to Articles 105(2) and 108 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Articles 7b(1) and 7c(1) of the Polish Act of 9 May 1996 on the performance of the duties of a Member of the Polish Parliament or of the Senate,

—

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 (A9-0057/2022),

A.

whereas the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Poland has submitted a request from the District Prosecutor's Office in Białystok for the waiver of the immunity of Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz, Member of the European Parliament, with a view to obtaining consent to hold him criminally liable in relation to an offence within the meaning of Article 177(1) in conjunction with Article 178(1) of the Polish Criminal Code; whereas that request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity was communicated by the judicial authority in accordance with Rule 9(12) of its Rules of Procedure; whereas attention is nonetheless drawn to the fact that Rule 9(1) of its Rules of Procedure requires that any request for waiver of immunity be made by ‘a competent authority of a Member State’, the two concepts not being identical;

B.

whereas on 4 May 2019 at 8:50 in Hajnówka, Poland, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz is alleged to have struck with the front of his vehicle an individual who was on a pedestrian crossing; whereas after the accident, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz tried to persuade the victim to be taken to hospital, but the victim refused and asked to be brought back to home with her bicycle; whereas, in order to accompany the victim by car to her home in Hajnówka, Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz then left the place of the accident without informing the emergency services or the police of the accident, which is allegedly contrary to the legal obligation laid down in Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Law of 20 June 1997; whereas at her home at around 9:30, the victim finally agreed to be taken to Hajnówka hospital; whereas at the hospital, the victim informed staff that she had been involved in a road traffic accident, and the hospital immediately informed the law enforcement authorities of the accident by telephone, which then forwarded the information to the police station in Hajnówka district; whereas the victim, after having undergone the required medical examinations and received the necessary medical assistance, left hospital on the same day; whereas Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz had his blood alcohol level tested and the tests that were carried out did not reveal the presence of alcohol;

C.

whereas the alleged offence has no direct or obvious connection with Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, nor does it constitute an opinion or a vote expressed in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

D.

whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union stipulates that Members of the European Parliament ‘shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament’;

E.

whereas, pursuant to Article 105(2) and Article 108 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997, as well as to Article 7(1), (2) and (4), Article 7b(1) and Article 7c(1) of the Law of 9 May 1996 on the performance of the duties of a Member of the Polish Parliament or of the Senate (2), a Member of the European Parliament cannot be interviewed as a suspect or be held criminally liable without the consent of the European Parliament;

F.

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);

G.

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;

H.

whereas in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, i.e. factual elements which indicate that the intention underlying the legal proceeding may be to damage a Member’s political activity and thus the European Parliament;

1.

2.