ОКОНЧАТЕЛЕН
A6-0251/2007
27.6.2007
ДОКЛАД
по искане за консултация относно имунитета и привилегиите на Alessandra Mussolini
(2006/2301(IMM))
Комисия по правни въпроси
Докладчик:
Klaus-Heiner Lehne
PE 390.584v02-00
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЕ ЗА РЕШЕНИЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ.................................3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................4
PROCEDURE.............................................................................................................................9
ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЕ ЗА РЕШЕНИЕ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ
по искане за консултация относно имунитета и привилегиите на Alessandra Mussolini
( 2006/2301(IMM) )
Европейският парламент ,
– като взе предвид искането на Anna Maria Pagliari, съдия следовател, за решение на Европейския парламент относно това дали разпоредбите относно парламентарния имунитет са приложими към изявленията, направени от Alessandra Mussolini относно Giuseppe Pisanu, във връзка с които последният е завел гражданско дело срещу нея пред Окръжния съд в Рим с оглед на получаване на обезщетение за клевета (дело № R.G. 54191/05) от 24 юли 2006 г., както бе оповестено на пленарно заседание на 16 ноември 2006 г.,
– като изслуша Alessandra Mussolini, съгласно член 7, параграф 3 от своя правилник,
– като взе предвид членове 9 и 10 от Протокола за привилегиите и имунитетите на Европейските общности от 8 април 1965 г. и член 6, параграф 2 от Акта относно избора на членове на Европейския парламент чрез всеобщи преки избори от 20 септември 1976 г.,
– като взе предвид решенията на Съда на Европейските общности от 12 май 1964 г. и от 10 юли 1986 г.
Дело 101/63, Wagner/Fohrmann и Krier, Сборник от 1964 г., стр. 383 и дело 149/85, Wybot/Faure и други, Сборник от 1986 г., стр. 2391. ,
– като взе предвид член 68 от Конституцията на Италианската република,
– като взе предвид член 3 от италианския Закон № 140 от 20 юни 2003 г.,
– като взе предвид член 6, параграф 1 и член 7, параграф 13 от своя правилник,
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по правни въпроси ( A6‑0251/2007 ),
1. счита, че парламентарният имунитет по смисъла на членове 9 и 10 от Протокола за привилегиите и имунитетите на Европейските общности от 8 април 1965 г. и, доколкото е приложимо, по член 68 от италианската Конституция изцяло обхваща изявленията, направени от Alessandra Mussolini, и следователно реши да запази нейните имунитет и привилегии;
2. възлага на своя председател незабавно да предаде настоящото решение и доклада на водещата комисия на съответните органи на Италианската република.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
I. FACTS
At the sitting of 16 November 2006, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a request made on 24 July 2006 by Anna Maria Pagliari, examining Judge of the District Court of Rome in procedure No. R.G. 54191/05, for a decision of the European Parliament as to whether parliamentary immunity applies to the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini.
The request of the court, which was duly forwarded to the Committee on Legal Affairs, relates to the civil proceedings that Mr Giuseppe Pisanu, the then Italian Minister for the Interior, brought before the District Court of Rome in order to establish the unlawful nature of certain statements made about him by Ms Alessandra Mussolini MEP and reported or referred to in the press between 13 and 19 March 2005, and to obtain redress from Ms Mussolini in respect of those statements.
On 4 March 2005, the ' Alternativa Sociale con Alessandra Mussolini' (hereinafter ' Alternativa Sociale' ) regional list was deposited at the Central Regional Office at the Rome Court of Appeal with a view to its participation in the Lazio regional administrative elections called for 3 and 4 April 2005.
In the days following the submission of the Alternativa Sociale list, the main national information media reported that there had been serious irregularities with regard to the collection of signatures in support of the list of Alternativa Sociale candidates in the regional elections in question.
After these facts had emerged, various statements were lodged with the public prosecutors' offices in Rome, Latina and Bologna by various individuals and political parties concerning the authenticity of the signatures collected in connection with the submission of the list of Alternativa Sociale candidates.
Subsequently, by order issued on 12 March 2005, the Central Regional Office at the Rome Court of Appeal excluded the 'Alternativa Sociale' list from participating in the elections for a new President of the Lazio regional government and to the regional council.
On 13 March 2005, the national media reported statements by Alessandra Mussolini concerning an alleged, but unsubstantiated, plot against her: in her views, the then President of the Lazio Region, Mr Francesco Storace, with the help of the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Giuseppe Pisanu, had hatched a political plot to damage the 'Alternativa Sociale' list and favour Mr Storace's coalition, whose election candidates included Dr Angelo Pisanu, the claimant's son.
According to the writ of summons issued on behalf of Mr Giuseppe Pisanu by his lawyers, newspapers and press agencies reported, among others, the following statements of Ms Mussolini in connection with those events:
· '(It is) clear that Storace has engaged in IT piracy, with hackers breaking the law. And all with the complicity of Minister Pisanu' (ANSA 20.02 h, 16 March 2005);
· '(...) I have to hand the letter which Pisanu wrote to the President of the Rome Appeal Court, who had asked him how he could exclude the Alternativa Sociale list when the signatures had been authenticated by public officials (...) in effect, the minister waived the rules for the judge who had asked him how he could eliminate the Alternativa Sociale list (...) the truth is coming out, Storace hacked into this documentation, which is a criminal offence (...). By means of computer piracy, at the suggestion of Minister Pisanu (...)' (ADNKRONOS 21.21 h, 16 March 2005 );
· 'it is perfectly clear (...) the Storace list, in collaboration with Minister Pisanu, used hackers to put together the statement submitted to the public prosecutor to have me excluded from the Lazio elections (...) To avoid losing the elections, Storace organised a statement based on data stolen by hackers from which it appears that some of the signatures collected by us were invalid; to do this he enlisted the help of Pisanu, who sent a circular to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal took the Ministry for the Interior's advice and excluded us' ( 'La Repubblica' of 17 March 2005);
· '(...) Italian citizens have been swindled by a Minister who used his powers for unauthorised purposes' (ANSA 12.46 h, 17 March 2005).
II. LAW AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
A. Procedure
The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 6 and 7, in particular paragraphs 1 of Rule 6 and paragraph 13 of Rule 7:
Rule 6 :Waiver of immunity
1. In the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament shall seek primarily to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties.
(...)
Rule 7 : Procedures on immunity
(...)
13. Any inquiry as to the scope of Members' privileges or immunities made by a competent authority shall be dealt with according to the above rules.
As the President of Parliament considered that the request of the Italian court amounted to an inquiry made by a national authority within the meaning of Rule 7(13), he opened the procedure for consultation on Ms Mussolini's immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, and the request was announced in Parliament.
The formal requirements have therefore been met for the matter to be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
B. Applicable provisions
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European
Communities (PPI)
The protocols annexed to the original Treaties form part of primary Community law and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves. The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988, Commission v Belgium , Case 260/86, ECR. 966). read as follows:
Article 9
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.
Article 10
During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:
a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
b) in the territory of any other Member State , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.
Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.
Of course, these two provisions are mutually exclusive. As allegedly defamatory opinions expressed by a Member of the European Parliament are involved, the applicability of Article 9 alone of the Protocol is self-explanatory.
The Italian court decided to consult the European Parliament pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 140 of 20 June 2003. The latter basically provides that where a judge in a civil or criminal court does not decide to accept a plea made by the defence on the grounds of parliamentary immunity, he or she must obtain - or, if it does not already exist, request - the relevant Chamber's decision as to whether the remarks made by the Member, which the plaintiff or the Prosecutors' office alleges were defamatory, are covered by parliamentary immunity.
That provision literally refers to the parliamentary immunity of Members of the national Parliament within the meaning of Article 68, first subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution, which reads as follows:
Article 68, first subparagraph
Members of Parliament may not be required to give account of any opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of their functions.
The Italian Court considered Article 68 of the Italian Constitution as well as law 140/2003 because "the rules on the privileges and immunities of the European Community (Article 10 of Protocol 34 annexed to the Treaty of 8 April 1965) give Members of the European Parliament, in respect of facts and proceedings relating to the Members’ home state, the same immunity as that enjoyed by Members of the Parliament of their home country" and "the provisions in question refer back to Article 68 of the Constitution in both substantive and procedural terms" .
In this case, as Ms Mussolini is a Member of the European Parliament rather than the national parliament, the court correctly considered that the decision in question falls to the European Parliament.
III. JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED DECISION
Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that Members of the European Parliament have absolute immunity from legal proceedings "in respect of opinions expressed ... in the performance of their duties" .
As a matter of fact, in her statements as reported by the press, Ms Mussolini merely commented on facts in the public domain which had a European political dimension as they were directly linked to the voters' right to a fair electoral competition and their interest in having all candidates duly admitted to it. In spite of the merely local scope of the Italian administrative elections, the widest exercise of such a right concerned every European citizen as it was a particular expression of the general and fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by Article 6 of the TEU.
In so doing, she was carrying out her duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing her opinion on a matter of public interest to her constituents. Moreover, the fact that the subject of her statements was the behaviour of a politician and the holder of a public office brings them within the realm of legitimate political debate.
On the other hand, to seek to gag Members of Parliament from expressing their opinions on matters of legitimate public interest and concern by bringing legal proceedings is unacceptable in a democratic society and manifestly in breach of Article 9 of the Protocol, which is intended to protect Members' freedom of expression in the performance of their duties in the interests of Parliament as an Institution.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that parliamentary immunity within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and, insofar as it is applicable, of Article 68 of the Italian Constitution fully covers the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini and therefore decides to defend her immunity and privileges in civil proceedings No. R.G. 54191/05.
PROCEDURE
Title
Request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini
Procedure number
2006/2301(IMM)
Request for defence of immunity from* Date of request Date announced in plenary *In one language only
District Court of Rome 24.7.2006 16.11.2006
Committee responsible Date announced in plenary
JURI 16.11.2006
Rapporteur(s) Date appointed
Klaus-Heiner Lehne 18.12.2006
Previous rapporteur(s)
Discussed in committee
10.4.2007
11.6.2007
25.6.2007
Date adopted
25.6.2007
Result of final vote
+
-
0
10 0 0
Members present for the final vote
Carlo Casini, Cristian Dumitrescu, Giuseppe Gargani, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Manuel Medina Ortega, Francesco Enrico Speroni
Substitute(s) present for the final vote
Kurt Lechner
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Comments (available in one language only)
