—

having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Andris Ameriks from the Prosecutor at the Anti-Corruption Coordination Section of the Criminal Law Department of the Riga Public Prosecutor’s Office, dated 24 May 2023 and transmitted on the same date by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia, in the context of criminal proceedings to be initiated in the Republic of Latvia, and announced in plenary on 14 June 2023,

—

having heard Nils Ušakovs, on behalf of Andris Ameriks, 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 Articles 29 and 30 of the Latvian Constitution,

—

having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011, 17 January 2013 and 19 December 2019  (1),

—

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 (A9-0169/2024),

A.

whereas the Prosecutor at the Anti-Corruption Coordination Section of the Criminal Justice Department of the Riga Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested the waiver of the immunity of Andris Ameriks, Member of the European Parliament, elected in Latvia, with a view to bringing criminal proceedings against him for a criminal offence of obtaining a bribe before committing an unlawful act in the interest of a third party by using his official position, in accordance with Article 320(4) of the Latvian Criminal Code;

B.

whereas, during the period from 22 July 2017 to 17 September 2017, Andris Ameriks, in his capacity as Deputy Mayor of Riga City Council, invested therefore with public authority in a position of responsibility, among other things allegedly demanded a bribe from the indirect owner of a minibus transport company equivalent to 50 % of the amounts which that company received from Riga City Council for carrying passengers entitled to concessionary fares;

C.

whereas Andris Ameriks was elected to the European Parliament at the European elections in May 2019;

D.

whereas the alleged offence does not concern opinions expressed or votes cast by Andris Ameriks in the performance of his duties pursuant to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

E.

whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

F.

whereas Article 29 and Article 30 of the Latvian Constitution state:

G.

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 (2);

H.

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;

I.

whereas the investigation was not able to establish with certainty the precise place and time of the alleged offence;

J.

whereas the offence of which Andris Ameriks is accused was allegedly committed in 2017 and whereas the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia did not submit the request for waiver of immunity until 23 May 2023; whereas there is no convincing justification for such a delay in taking action;

K.

whereas it follows from CJEU case-law that Parliament has a ‘broad discretion when deciding whether to grant or to refuse a request for waiver of immunity (...), owing to the political nature of such a decision’ (3);

L.

whereas the concordance of this concrete evidence raises a serious doubt that the intention may have been to undermine Andris Ameriks’ political activity, and in particular his activity as a Member of the European Parliament; whereas on the basis of the information and explanations provided in the present case, including the answers given by the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Latvia during the exchange of views with him, there are uncertainties as to the evidence on which the request for waiver of immunity is based and serious doubts surrounding the procedure, including the motivation underlying the request for waiver of immunity;

M.

whereas it would therefore appear that, in this instance, fumus persecutionis can be assumed, i.e. there is ‘concrete evidence’ (4) that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine Andris Ameriks’ political activity, including his activity as a Member of the European Parliament;