Another MEP with knowledge of the matter, granted anonymity to speak about confidential proceedings, said: “There seems to be a clear understanding between the EPP, S&D and Renew when it comes to MEPs who are politically exposed across different groups. In several cases, the evidence appears rather weak, yet the same standard is not always applied. Unfortunately, we’ve seen similar situations in the past.”
“Increasingly, JURI [the legal affairs committee] risks looking more like a place where political deals are struck behind closed doors than a committee that carefully examines the merits of each dossier. Too often, decisions seem to reflect the political moment rather than a consistent assessment of the facts,” the MEP said.
Members of the legal affairs committee have accused Belgian authorities of sloppiness in handling cases involving MEPs. In mid-May, the Parliament faced criticism from some lawmakers and civil society groups for exceeding its mandate by not allowing the EU public prosecutor to look into alleged misuse of EU funds by top German lawmaker Angelika Niebler. Lawmakers argued the evidence against her was not strong enough.
MEPs cited similar concerns when the Parliament shielded an MEP linked to the Qatargate cash-for-influence scandal.
Frustration within Parliament intensified in May 2025 when Belgian prosecutors named Italian politician Giusi Princi as a suspect in the Huawei investigation and requested the lifting of her immunity, only to withdraw the request hours later after realizing she had not been an MEP at the time of the alleged offenses.
The decisions by the legal affairs committee will need to be ratified by the Parliament’s hemicycle in Strasbourg in the June plenary session.
“The EPP Group always vote on immunity cases based on the recommendation of the people who handle the case in full confidentiality in compliance with the rules and relying on their legal expertise,” said EPP spokesperson Pedro López de Pablo.
S&D and Renew did not respond to requests for comment.