On the request for the waiver of the immunity of Tomasz Buczek

(2025/2193(IMM))

The European Parliament,

–having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Tomasz Buczek submitted on 12 September 2025 by the District Court of Tarnobrzeg, Second Criminal Chamber, in the context of criminal proceedings brought against him by means of a private indictment lodged by the legal representative of the private applicant, concerning the criminal proceedings to be brought against Tomasz Buczek, and announced in plenary on 6 October 2025,

–having heard Tomasz Buczek on 23 March 2026 in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure and having regard to the documents provided by him,

–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,

–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 (A10-0116/2026),

A.whereas by letter of 12 September 2025, the District Court of Tarnobrzeg, Second Criminal Chamber, forwarded the request for the waiver of Tomasz Buczek’s immunity in connection with a private indictment filed against him for an alleged offence under Article 217(1) of the Polish Criminal Code;

B.whereas, according to the request for waiver of immunity, on 21 September 2024 an election rally was held in Tarnobrzeg and at which Tomasz Buczek was present; whereas the private applicant took part in the abovementioned rally, in particular by expressing her views on political topics, including the activities of Tomasz Buczek; whereas, according to the request for waiver of immunity, Tomasz Buczek allegedly snatched the miniature megaphone that the private applicant was holding in her hands in order to make herself heard, and the action was reportedly so violent that the megaphone is no longer in working order;

C.whereas Tomasz Buczek’s conduct is said to constitute an offence against physical integrity, as provided for in Article 217(1) of the Polish Criminal Code;

D.whereas Tomasz Buczek was elected to the European Parliament in the European elections in June 2024 and was a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offence;

E.whereas the alleged offence and the subsequent request for the waiver of his immunity are not related to opinions expressed or votes cast by Tomasz Buczek 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;

F.whereas Article 9 subparagraph 1(a) of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union states that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of that state;

G.whereas, pursuant to Article 105(2) and (5) of the Polish Constitution, from the day the election results are announced until the day their mandate expires, deputies cannot be subjected to criminal accountability without the consent of the Sejm, and can be neither detained nor arrested without the consent of the Sejm, except in cases where they have been apprehended in the commission of an offence and in which their detention is necessary to secure the proper course of proceedings;

H.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;

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 this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, that is to say factual elements indicating that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine Tomasz Buczek’s political activity as a Member of the European Parliament;

K.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 Tomasz Buczek;

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