—

having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Ingeborg Gräßle forwarded on 27 July 2017 by the public prosecutor’s office in Ellwangen (Germany), in connection with criminal proceedings ref. 21 Js 11263/17, and announced in plenary on 2 October 2017,

—

having regard to the waiver by Ingeborg Gräßle of her right to be heard under Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to Article 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 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013 (1),

—

having regard to Article 46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany,

—

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 (A8-0397/2017),

A.

whereas the public prosecutor’s office in Ellwangen has forwarded a request for waiver of the immunity of Ingeborg Gräßle, Member of the European Parliament elected for the Federal Republic of Germany, in connection with an offence within the meaning of Article 229 of the German Criminal Code; whereas, in particular, the proceedings relate to allegations of causing of physical injury through negligence;

B.

whereas on 10 June 2017, at the junction of Brenzstraße and Ploucquetstraße in Heidenheim, Ms Gräßle drove through a red light and caused an accident in which a person suffered a shoulder injury; whereas a private action has been brought for damages;

C.

whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union stipulates that Members of the European Parliament ‘shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament’;

D.

whereas Article 46 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany stipulates that a Member may not be called to account or arrested for a punishable offence without permission of the Bundestag unless he or she is apprehended while committing the offence or in the course of the following day;

E.

whereas it is for Parliament alone to decide, in a given case, whether or not to waive immunity; whereas Parliament may reasonably take account of the position of the Member in order to decide whether or not to waive his or her immunity (2);

F.

whereas the alleged offence has no clear or direct bearing on the performance by Ms Gräßle of her duties as a Member of the European Parliament and does not constitute an opinion expressed or vote cast in the performance of those duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union;

G.

whereas, in this case, Parliament has found no evidence of fumus persecutionis, i.e. a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the proceedings have been brought with the intention of causing the Member political damage;

1.

2.