—

having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Ana Gomes, forwarded on 30 May 2017 by the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union and signed by the Deputy Attorney General of the Portuguese Republic in connection with criminal proceedings pending before the Peso da Régua District Court Public Prosecutor’s Office — District of Vila Reale (ref. NUIPC 430/16.6T9LSBP), and announced in plenary on 12 June 2017,

—

having heard Ana Gomes in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to Article 8 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 Rule 157(2) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic and Article 11 of the Statute of Members of the Assembly of the Portuguese Republic,

—

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 (A8-0363/2017),

A.

whereas a prosecutor of the Vila Real Public Prosecution Service attached to the Peso de Régua District Court has requested waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Ms Ana Gomes in connection with statements made by her in an interview with the Diário de Noticias, published by that newspaper on the Internet on 29 April 2016; whereas the request has been made with a view to initiating criminal proceedings against Ms Gomes and so that she may be questioned in that connection;

B.

whereas the newspaper article indicated that investigations were under way in relation to the Viana shipyards and, in this connection, Ms Gomes commented that ‘something was starting to happen with regard to a case of blatant corruption’, expressing the view that the Atlántida ferry had been sold for ‘peanuts’;

C.

whereas, in principle, the acts allegedly committed by Ms Gomes constitute three offences, that is to say affront to an organisation, service or legal person, defined by, and punishable under, the terms of Article 187(1) and (2)(a) and Article 183(2) of the Penal Code, against two parties, an offence punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years, or a fine of no less than 120 daily units;

D.

whereas, according to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament may 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;

E.

whereas, pursuant to Rule 5 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, in the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament shall act to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to ensure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties;

F.

whereas the European Court of Justice has ruled that a statement made by a Member outside the European Parliament may constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7, where it contains a subjective assessment having a direct and obvious connection with the performance of that Member’s duties in the European Parliament; whether or not this is the case must therefore be determined by the character and content of the statement and not to the place where it was made;

G.

whereas today political debate takes place to an increasing extent outside Parliament’s premises through the media, in the form of press statements, interviews and blogs and on the internet;

H.

whereas statements by Ms Gomes during the interview were made in the performance of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament and within her remit as Vice-Chair of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the implementation of Union law in relation to money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion;

I.

whereas the comments made by Ms Gomes are directly related to her observations during the‘TV124-Cara a Cara’ televised debate between her and Carlos Abreu Amorim that was broadcast on 29 November 2013, concerning which the European Parliament upheld her immunity (2);

J.

whereas the observations made by Ms Gomes therefore fall within the sphere of activities of the European Parliament;

1.

2.