On the request for waiver of the immunity of Adam Bielan

(2024/2045(IMM))

The European Parliament,

–having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Adam Bielan, dated 5 July 2024 and submitted by the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście, Criminal Division V, in connection with criminal proceedings brought against him by way of a private indictment filed by the legal representative of the private accusers, and announced in plenary on 16 September 2024,

–having heard Adam Bielan on 23 January 2025 in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure and having regard to the document 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 of 5 July 2023,

–having regard to Article 105(2) and (5) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland,

–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 (A10-0015/2025),

A.whereas on 5 July 2024, Criminal Division V of the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście in Poland transmitted a request for the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Adam Bielan, Member of the European Parliament elected in Poland, submitted to it by a private party on the grounds of certain statements made by Adam Bielan during a radio interview broadcast on 10 March 2023; whereas in accordance with Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure, any request for a waiver of immunity must be submitted by ‘a competent authority of a Member State’ and in accordance with Rule 9(12) it should be transmitted by the judicial authorities, the two concepts not being identical; whereas in cases where under Polish law a private indictment is brought in which a public prosecutor is not participating, the authority competent to transmit a request from a private party for the waiver of immunity is the court;

B.whereas the request for a waiver of immunity was made in connection with criminal proceedings brought against Adam Bielan concerning defamation, an offence under Article 212(1) and (2) of the Polish Criminal Code;

C.whereas the alleged defamatory statements were made by Adam Bielan during an interview for a programme by the radio station RMF FM, which was broadcast in Poland on 10 March 2023, in connection with the operation and management of the Polish National Centre for Research and Development, which is an executive agency of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education; whereas the agency is overseen by the Minister of Development Funds and Regional Policy and one of its main tasks is to allocate public funding to projects;

D.whereas according to the private bill of indictment, Adam Bielan allegedly made the defamatory statements with the intention of damaging the public reputation of two individuals and a company, headquartered in Warsaw, and rendering likely a loss of the necessary trust placed in them to perform their respective roles and carry out their respective activities, slandering them via a means of mass communication, an offence which may be privately prosecuted under Article 212(4) of the Polish Criminal Code;

E.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;

F.whereas Adam Bielan was elected to the European Parliament in the European elections in 2019 and was a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offence;

G.whereas Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union stipulates that 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;

H.whereas a statement made by a Member outside the precincts of Parliament may constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his or her duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, where it contains a subjective assessment having a direct and obvious connection with the performance of that Member’s parliamentary duties; whereas whether or not this is the case must therefore be determined by the character and content of the statement;

I.whereas against this background, having regard to the circumstances described in the request for the waiver of immunity, the context and the content of the alleged defamatory statements made by Adam Bielan, a direct and obvious connection between those statements and his mandate as a Member of the European Parliament does not appear to exist;

J.whereas the alleged actions therefore do not constitute an opinion expressed or a vote cast by Adam Bielan 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;

K.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;

L.whereas according to Article 105(2) and (5) of the Polish Constitution, from the day of the announcement of the results of the elections until the day of the expiry of his or her mandate, a Deputy shall not be subjected to criminal accountability without the consent of the Sejm (lower house of parliament) and he or she shall be neither detained nor arrested without the consent of the Sejm, except for cases when he or she has been apprehended in the commission of an offence and in which his or her detention is necessary for securing the proper course of proceedings;

M.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;

N.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;

1.Decides to waive the immunity of Adam Bielan;

2.Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of Poland and to Adam Bielan.