A5-0123/2001
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ««« « « « « 1999 « « 2004 ««« Session document FINAL 17 April 2001 A5-0123/2001 REPORT on the request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Peter Sichrovsky (2000/2237(IMM)) Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market Rapporteur: François Zimeray RR\437472EN.doc PE 298.384 EN EN PE 298.384 2/2 RR\437472EN.doc EN CONTENTS Page PROCEDURAL PAGE ...................................................................................................................4 PROPOSAL FOR A DECISION ....................................................................................................5 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT...................................................................................................6 ANNEX……… .............................................................................................................................14 RR\437472EN.doc 3/3 PE 298.384 EN PROCEDURAL PAGE At the sitting of 5 October 2000, the President of Parliament announced that she had received, by letter of 12 September 2000, a request by Mr Bruno Weis, Judge at the Vienna Criminal Court, for waiver of the immunity of Mr Peter Sichrovsky, and that she had referred it to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of Procedure (2000/2237(IMM)). The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market appointed François Zimeray rapporteur at its meeting of 22 November 2000. At its meeting of 30 January 2001 it heard Mr Sichrovsky, pursuant to Rule 6(3) and held an exchange of views on the reasons for and against the waiver of immunity. It considered the draft report at its meetings of 6 March and 20 March 2001. It considered the draft report at its meeting of 11 April 2001 and adopted the proposal for a decision unanimously. The following were present for the vote: Willi Rothley, acting chairman; François Zimeray, rapporteur; Luis Berenguer Fuster, Evelyne Gebhardt, Malcolm Harbour, Gerhard Hager, The Lord Inglewood, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Neil MacCormick, Feleknas Uca, Diana Wallis and Stefano Zappalà. The report was tabled on 17 April 2001. PE 298.384 4/4 RR\437472EN.doc EN PROPOSAL FOR A DECISION Decision on the request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Peter Sichrovsky (2000/2237(IMM)) The European Parliament, - having received a request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Peter Sichrovsky, forwarded by Mr Weis, Judge at the Vienna Criminal Court, on 12 September 2000 and announced in plenary sitting on 5 October 2000, - having heard Mr Sichrovsky, in accordance with Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, - having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, and to Article 4(2) of the Act concerning the Election of Representatives to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976, - having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 19861, - having regard to Article 57 of the Austrian Constitution (Bundesverfassuugsgesetz), - having regard to Rule 6 of its Rules of Procedure, - having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0123/2001), 1. Decides not to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr Sichrovsky; 2. Instructs its President immediately to forward this decision and the report of its committee to the appropriate authority of the Republic of Austria. 1 See Case 101/63: Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 399 and Case 149/85: Wybot v Faure [1986] ECR 2403. RR\437472EN.doc 5/5 PE 298.384 EN EXPLANATORY STATEMENT I. THE FACTS 1. At the sitting of 5 October 2000, the President of the European Parliament announced in plenary sitting that she had received a request from the Austrian authorities to waive the parliamentary immunity of Mr Peter Sichrovsky. This request seeks authorisation to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr Peter Sichrovsky. He is accused of slander and using abusive and insulting language under Articles 111 and 115 of the Austrian Penal Code. This charge is based on an interview given by Mr Sichrovsky to the Slovenian newspaper 'DELO' which appeared on 14 March 2000 under the title 'The Jew at Haider's Court'. In this interview Mr Sichrovsky is alleged to have made disparaging and insulting remarks about Mr Ariel Muzicant, President of the Jewish community in Vienna. According to the complaint initiating criminal proceedings, Mr Sichrovsky allegedly described Mr Ariel Muzicant as an ‘idiot’, ‘an aggressive, irascible, incredibly mean' and 'spiteful person’, a ‘professional Jew’ who ‘would take advantage of his dead parents to appear on television’. For more information concerning the accusations made against Mr Sichrovsky, we refer you to the detailed circumstances set out in document PE 298.367. PE 298.384 6/6 RR\437472EN.doc EN II. TEXTS AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2. Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 19651 states that: '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 measures 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.' As far as the expression of opinion as an offence is concerned, we should note that Article 9 of the Protocol provides that: 'Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of enquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.' 3. The offence of which Mr Sichrovsky, a Member of the European Parliament of Austrian nationality, is accused was undoubtedly committed abroad, since the interview appeared in a Slovenian newspaper. However, it was committed by an Austrian against another Austrian. Both are resident on Austrian territory, so that the act in question falls under Austrian jurisdiction. As a result, Mr Sichrovsky enjoys the immunity granted to members of the Austrian Parliament under Article 57 of the Austrian Constitution2. 1 See Article 4(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 on the election of the representatives of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage. 2 The text of Article 57 of the Austrian Constitution is attached. RR\437472EN.doc 7/7 PE 298.384 EN 4. In the European Parliament, the procedure in question is governed by the provisions of Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure1. 1 Article 6 - Waiver of Immunity 1. Any request addressed to the President by the appropriate authority of a Member State that the immunity of a Member be waived shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible. 2. The committee shall consider such requests without delay and in the order in which they have been submitted. 3. The committee may ask the authority which has submitted the request to provide any information or explanation which the committee deems necessary for it to form an opinion on whether immunity should be waived. The Member concerned shall be heard at his request; he may bring any documents or other written evidence he deems relevant. He may be represented by another Member. 4. The committee's report shall contain a proposal for a decision which simply recommends the adoption or rejection of the request for the waiver of immunity. However, where the request seeks the waiver of immunity on several counts, each of these may be the subject of a separate proposal for a decision. The committee's report may, exceptionally, propose that the waiver of immunity shall apply solely to prosecution proceedings and that, until a final sentence is passed, the Member should be immune from any form of detention or remand or any other measure which prevents him from performing the duties proper to his mandate. Where the request for the waiver of immunity entails the possibility of obliging the Member to appear as a witness or expert witness thereby depriving him of his freedom, the committee shall: - ascertain, before proposing that immunity be waived, that the Member will not be obliged to appear on a date or at a time which prevents him from performing, or makes it difficult for him to perform, his parliamentary duties, or that he will be able to provide a statement in writing or in any other form which does not make it difficult for him to fulfil his parliamentary obligations; - seek clarification regarding the subject of the statement, in order to ensure that the Member is not obliged to testify concerning information obtained confidentially in the exercise of his mandate which he does not see fit to disclose. 5. The committee shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, it acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case. 6. The report of the committee shall be placed at the head of the agenda of the first sitting following the day on which it was tabled. No amendment may be tabled to the proposal(s) for a decision. Discussion shall be confined to the reasons for or against each proposal to waive or uphold immunity. Without prejudice to Rule 122, the Member whose immunity is subject to the request for a waiver shall not speak in the debate. The proposal(s) for a decision contained in the report shall be put to the vote at the first voting time following the debate.