The debate over Niebler’s immunity reveals the tensions between the Parliament and prosecutors, including EPPO, over who gets to decide whether lawmakers should be investigated.
If the full Parliament backs the JURI decision — which seems likely given Niebler is a member of the EPP, the Parliament’s largest political group — it would prevent the prosecutors from pursuing certain investigative steps, including questioning her, searching her home or bringing her before a court. Parliamentary immunity is a legal safeguard that protects MEPs from political persecution.
According to the Parliament’s rulebook, reviewed by POLITICO, the JURI committee must lift the immunity of an MEP when requested to do so unless the case concerns tasks considered part of a parliamentarian’s daily work — such as statements and votes — or appears politically motivated.
But in two recent cases, transparency campaigners and some MEPs alleged the committee has been going further — scrutinizing the strength of prosecutors’ evidence to determine whether lifting an MEP’s immunity is justified while also weighing the potential reputational damage to the lawmaker involved.
“EPPO should have the chance to look into the allegations and carry out a proper investigation,” said The Left co-chair Martin Schirdewan. “This is just basic democratic scrutiny and transparency.”
Nick Aïossa, director at Transparency International EU, said: “MEPs are rapidly delegitimizing a crucial democratic safeguard by blatantly politicizing it.”
