On the request for the waiver of the immunity of Harald Vilimsky

on the request for the waiver of the immunity of Harald Vilimsky

(2025/2158(IMM))

The European Parliament,

–having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Harald Vilimsky, received by letter of 1 July 2025 from the Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union, forwarding a request submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Vienna in connection with the criminal proceedings to be brought against Harald Vilimsky, and announced in plenary on 9 July 2025,

–having heard Harald Vilimsky on 15 April 2026 in accordance with 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,

–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 (A10-0125/2026),

A.whereas the Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union has forwarded a request from the Prosecutor at the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Vienna for the waiver of the immunity of Harald Vilimsky, Member of the European Parliament, for alleged acts of breach of trust and embezzlement, which constitute offences under Article 153(1) and (3) of the Austrian Criminal Code, on the basis of his alleged participation in the offence within the meaning of Article 12 of that Code;

B.whereas, in accordance with the request, following previous requests from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2021 for the immunity of Harald Vilimsky to be waived, as well as the decision of the European Parliament of 11 November 2021 waiving his immunity, in view of the emergence of new facts, it is appropriate for the waiver of the immunity of Harald Vilimsky also to be requested on the basis of this new information; whereas, according to information from the investigation, Harald Vilimsky is suspected of having abused his power by committing the use of funds from his political party FPÖ (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs – Die Freiheitlichen) for purposes unrelated to its activities, on dates in 2013 which have yet to be precisely established, in particular by authorising payments of a private nature and unrelated to the party’s activities, concerning the installation of a door and lock at Harald Vilimsky’s private address, thereby causing damage amounting to a total of EUR 9 434.00 to the FPÖ’s assets;

C.whereas Harald Vilimsky was elected to the European Parliament in the European elections of May 2019 and re-elected in June 2024, and whereas he was not a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offences;

D.whereas the alleged offence does not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of the immunity of Harald Vilimsky is not related to, an opinion expressed or a vote cast by him 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;

E.whereas Article 9, first paragraph, point (a), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that, during the sessions of the European Parliament, Members of the European Parliament are to enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

F.whereas Article 57(2) and (3) of the Austrian Constitution states:

‘2. The members of the National Council may on the ground of a criminal offense – the case of apprehension in the act of committing a crime excepted – be arrested only with the consent of the National Council. Likewise, searches of houses of members of the National Council require the consent of the National Council.

3.Otherwise members of the National Council may only be officially prosecuted on account of a punishable act, with the consent of the National Council, if it has obviously no connection with the official activity of the deputy in question. However, the authorities must seek a ruling from the National Council concerning the existence of such a connection if the deputy concerned or one third of the members of the standing committee dealing with the case demand it. In the case of such a demand, any official prosecuting action must immediately cease or be terminated.’;

G.whereas the purpose of the immunity provided for in Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities that are carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those;

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, 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 Harald Vilimsky’s political activity in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament;

J.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 Harald Vilimsky;

2.Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authorities of the Republic of Austria and to Harald Vilimsky.