—

having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois, forwarded on 25 September 2017 by the Minister of Justice of the French Republic at the request of the Prosecutor General of the Court of Appeal of Douai in relation to a complaint filed against Mr Briois by a civil party for the offence of public insult directed at an individual (‘injures publiques envers un particulier’), and announced in plenary on 2 October 2017,

—

having regard to the additional information on the case provided by the Public Prosecutor of the Douai Regional Court in a letter dated 12 December 2017,

—

having heard Steeve Briois 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 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 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic,

—

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 (A8-0011/2018),

A.

whereas the Prosecutor General of the Court of Appeal of Douai has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Steeve Briois, in connection with legal proceedings pending before the Douai Regional Court; whereas this request was forwarded to Parliament by the Minister of Justice of the French Republic;

B.

whereas the request for the waiver of Mr Briois’s immunity is related to legal proceedings instituted in relation to the offence of public insult directed at an individual (the second paragraph of Article 29, the second paragraph of Article 33 and Article 23 of the Act of 29 July 1881) in connection with allegedly defamatory comments that a number of internet users posted in response to a text that Mr Briois had published on 23 December 2015 on his Facebook page and that were not promptly removed by Mr Briois; whereas, at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Public Prosecutor of the Douai Regional Court stated that the aforementioned comments were certainly still online on 21 November 2017;

C.

whereas pursuant to Article 8 of Protocol No 7, 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;

D.

whereas pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol No 7, during the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

E.

whereas, among other things, Article 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic provides that no member of Parliament may be arrested for a crime or be the subject of any other custodial or semi-custodial measure without the authorisation of the Parliament;

F.

whereas Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 are mutually exclusive (2);

G.

whereas the allegations against Steeve Briois, and the subsequent request for waiver of his immunity, are not related to an opinion expressed or vote cast by him in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, but to the fact that he allegedly failed to remove from his official Facebook page a number of comments posted by third parties and perceived by the person targeted as insulting;

H.

whereas, as a consequence, the immunity accorded by Article 8 of Protocol No 7 is not applicable and the case in point falls entirely within Article 9 of the same Protocol;

I.

whereas there is no apparent evidence of fumus persecutionis, that is, a sufficiently serious and precise suspicion that the case has been brought with the intention of causing political damage to the Member concerned;

1.

2.