DOCSLIB.ORG

Immunity Or Impunity? the Effects of Immunity Provisions on National Levels of Control of Corruption Jon Vrushi ERCAS WORKING PAPERS COLLECTION ERCAS WORKING PAPERS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Immunity Or Impunity? the Effects of Immunity Provisions on National Levels of Control of Corruption Jon Vrushi ERCAS WORKING PAPERS COLLECTION ERCAS WORKING PAPERS Working PaperEuropean No. 53 Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building Hertie School of Governance Working Paper No. 53 Immunity or Impunity? The effects of immunity provisions on national levels of control of corruption Jon Vrushi ERCAS WORKING PAPERS COLLECTION ERCAS WORKING PAPERS Berlin, December 2018 www.againstcorruption.eu 1 Working Paper No. 53 Working Paper No. 53 Abstract1 Immunities or jurisdictional privileges provide persons or groups of persons some degree of protection against civil or criminal rules that do not apply to all citizens. However, immunities can also be used by public officials as a shield from liability for criminal offences, including corruption. For this reason, interna- tional bodies have been pushing, over the past two decades, for a set of legal standards to ensure that im- munity does not translate into impunity. The international standards and best practice can be summarised in the following four recommendations promoted globally: 1) Reducing the range of officials provided immunity; 2) Reducing the scope of criminal offences for which immunity can be invoked; 3) Introducing clear guidelines and procedures for lifting immunities; 4) The specification of a time limit for the duration of legal protection. This study tests empirically whether these legal standards are associated with better control of corrup- tion in practice. The results show weak to no evidence that the set of international standards recommen- ded to countries around the world are associated with better control of corruption. The only evidence of this association, albeit only significant at the 90% level of confidence, is that immunity provisions for MPs which are aligned with international standards are associated with lower levels of bribery. Furthermore, case studies from Greece and Belgium have shown that impunity can be countered without legal changes and that a practice of impunity can be observed even in countries that have robust legal frameworks. 1 A shorter version of this working paper, mostly contained in the literature review section, was first published by Transparency International’s Anti-Corruption Helpdesk. 2 3 Working Paper No. 53 Working Paper No. 53 Table of Contents Abstract. 2 Introduction . 5 Immunity for public officials . 6 Types of immunity provisions 6 Control of corruption. 7 Corruption risks associated with immunity for public officials 8 International standards and recommendations on immunity provisions . 9 Council of Europe 9 United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) 10 Combating corruption through legal interventions . 11 Constructing an index to measure the quality of immunity provisions . 11 Index of Immunity Provisions – Descriptive Statistics 12 Immunity Provisions for MPs – descriptive statistics 15 Testing the relationship between the quality of immunity provisions and control of corruption . 16 Quantitative analysis 16 Case Studies: Greece and Belgium 21 Limitations . 23 Conclusion . 24 Bibliography 25 Appendix 1: Immunity Protections for MPs and Ministers 29 Apendix 2: Group of States against Corruption Recommendations on immunity provisions 30 3 Working Paper No. 53 Working Paper No. 53 4 5 Working Paper No. 53 Working Paper No. 53 Introduction In 1982, Pablo Escobar, one of the most murderous criminals and narcoterrorists in recent his- tory was elected to Colombia’s House of Representatives. Election to the highest chamber of his nation represented both a political aspiration for Escobar and an insurance policy to shield him from prosecution or extradition to the United States; a high profile case of parliamentary immu- nity being used to evade criminal liability. However, one need not look back as far as 1982 to find such an example on the international stage. In 2006, an Egyptian MP used his immunity to protect himself from legal sanctions after the customs service found 1700 kilograms of Viagra imported illegally under the name of his company (The Economist, 2016). In Mexico in 2010, a newly elect- ed member of the Chamber of Deputies with an outstanding warrant for his arrest, managed to evade police checkpoints and secretly enter Parliament to take the oath, thus ensuring immunity from prosecution or arrest (CNN, 2010). Such examples are countless, and given the secretive na- ture of crime, most of them are not even known or documented yet. When confronted with instances like those described above one wonders whether immunity as a legal concept makes sense at all, particularly since it has been used to engender impunity for serious crimes and it jeopardises a basic human right such as the right of access to justice for victims. The answer lies in one of the cornerstones of modern democracies – the separation of powers. Politicians require a degree of independence to ensure the unimpeded performance of public functions and to be protected from targeted prosecutions or political persecution. Immu- nity therefore enables a better diversity of opinions and approaches in public policy and at times could be instrumental in matters as important as keeping democracy alive in the face of govern- ments with authoritarian tendencies. By juxtaposing the sins and virtues of immunity provisions, a clear tension emerges: on the one hand politicians need independence to fulfil their public functions and on the other hand they ought to be held accountable for wrongdoing. The incredibly diverse provisions one can find at the national level illustrate the result of this tension perfectly. Some countries provide immunity only for votes and opinions cast in parliament, others for any crimes committed during the term of the official function, others provide no immunity at all and others provide absolute immunity for life for any crimes. Some countries make exceptions to the immunity provisions when the subject is caught in the act of committing the crime, or for serious crimes such as murder, treason or in many cases also corruption. The possibility, authority and procedures to lift a politician’s immunity are also regulated very differently in different contexts. For those interested in the causes of corruption, the natural question that follows is wheth- er this degree of legal protection enjoyed, and at times abused by politicians, is associated with higher levels of corruption due to the culture and practice of impunity that it engenders. This is an important question, because as this study will show, most countries in the world provide some degree of immunity protection for politicians. International and inter-governmental organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE) have promoted standards and best practices for immunity provi- sions to ensure those provisions do not create corruption risks through a culture and practice of impunity. Therefore, the question whether immunity provisions are associated with national levels of corruption is also an important question to test empirically, given the time and resources that go into amending immunity legislation for the purposes of controlling corruption. 5 Working Paper No. 53 Working Paper No. 53 Immunity for public officials Immunities or jurisdictional privileges provide persons or groups of persons some degree of protection against civil or criminal rules that do not apply to all citizens (UNODC, 2009; Venice Commission, 2014). In criminal law, immunities are considered exceptions to the compulsoriness of criminal law, whose final effect is to exclude the coercive State power (Iovene, 2017). Immunity provisions help ensure a better separation of judiciary, executive and legislative powers. They are in place to ensure the unimpeded performance of public functions and to avoid targeted judicial proceedings or political persecution. The first registered cases of legal protection for public functions date as far back as theRoman Republic where it was punishable by death to attack citizens participating in tribunes of the peo- ple or to hinder their functions (Venice Commission, 2014). The real codification of immunities for politicians started in the late 17th century, when the Bill of Rights passed by the British House of Commons proclaimed that “the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament” (Joint Com- mittee on Parliamentary Privilege, 2013, p.7). Exactly 100 years later, the duly ratified American constitution extended an exemption from arrest to Senators and Representatives “during their At- tendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place” (Congressional Research Service, 2017, p.138). Two years later, the French Constitution, mandated “The representatives of the nation are inviolable; they cannot be enquired of, accused, or judged, at any time, with respect to what they may have said, written, or performed, in the exercise of their functions of representatives” (National Assembly of France, 1791). Today, most countries around the world provide some degree of legal protection for public officials. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), in its recent Handbook on Fighting Corruption, lists the following legitimate purposes for immunity provisions (OSCE, 2016, p.194): – to ensure that the elected representatives of the people can speak in the legislature without
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Democracy and the Politics of Parliamentary Immunity in Turkey
    121 Democracy and the politics NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY of parliamentary immunity in Turkey Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Gürcan Koçan ‹stanbul Technical University Department of Philosophy, Simon Wigley Bilkent University In Turkey there is currently a widespread public desire to narrow the extent to which parliamentarians are immune from the law. That desire is largely motivated by the perception that political corruption is widespread and that parliamentary immunity only serves to obstruct the fight against it.1 As a result, a number of political parties have based their electoral platforms on the promise to limit the scope of parliamentary immunity once in office. As of yet, none have carried through their promise and this has only served to reinforce the public view that parliamentarians see their immunity as a personal privilege. Irrespective of the merits of that charge, there is a genuine concern that confronts Turkish deputies, which means that they will be less likely to limit the immunity once elected. Their concern is that current law does not adequately protect civil and political liberties and that the judiciary is not yet sufficiently evenhanded in its treatment of political cases. In effect, the fight against political corruption has been frustrated in part because of the risk to free speech that exposure to the law might entail. The almost contradictory position of the European Union well illustrates the problem. On the one hand, it is exerting pressure on the Turkish government to narrow parliamentary immunity so as to combat political corruption,2 while on the other hand it continues to raise concerns about the prosecution of non-violent expression and the partiality of the judiciary in Turkey.3 1 Ercis Kurtulufl, Country Reports on Political Corruption and Party Financing – Turkey (Transparency International, 2004); available from www.transparency.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Immunity
    Parliamentary Immunity A Comprehensive Study of the Systems of Parliamentary Immunity of the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands in a European Context Parliamentary Immunity A Comprehensive Study of the Systems of Parliamentary Immunity of the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands in a European Context DISSERTATION to obtain the degree of Doctor at the Maastricht University, on the authority of the Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. L.L.G. Soete in accordance with the decision of the Board of Deans, to be defended in public on Thursday 26 September 2013, at 16.00 hours by Sascha Hardt Supervisor: Prof. mr. L.F.M. Verhey (Leiden University, formerly Maastricht University) Co-Supervisor: Dr. Ph. Kiiver Assessment Committee: Prof. dr. J.Th.J. van den Berg Prof. dr. M. Claes (Chair) Prof. dr. C. Guérin-Bargues (Université d’Orléans) Prof. mr. A.W. Heringa Prof. D. Oliver, MA, PhD, LLD Barrister, FBA (Univeristy College London) Cover photograph © Andreas Altenburger - Dreamstime.com Layout by Marina Jodogne. A commercial edition of this PhD-thesis will be published by Intersentia in the Ius Commune Europaeum Series, No. 119 under ISBN 978-1-78068-191-7. Für Danielle ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As I have been told, the idea that I could write a doctoral dissertation first occurred to Philipp Kiiver when he was supervising my bachelor thesis in 2007. At that time, I may well have dreamed of a PhD position, but I was far from having any actual plans, let alone actively pursuing them. Yet, not a year later, Luc Verhey and Philipp Kiiver asked me whether I was interested to join the newly founded Montesquieu Institute Maastricht as a PhD researcher.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Turkey
    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15272 21 April 2021 The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey Report1 Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Co-rapporteurs: Mr Thomas HAMMARBERG, Sweden, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, and Mr John HOWELL, United Kingdom, European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance Summary The Monitoring Committee is deeply concerned about recent developments in Turkey which have further undermined democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Procedures seeking to lift the parliamentary immunity of a third of the parliamentarians (overwhelmingly from opposition parties), the attempt to close the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and the continued crackdown on its members put political pluralism and the functioning of democratic institutions at risk. The presidential decision of 20 March 2021 to withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No.210, the Istanbul Convention) to combat violence against women and domestic violence is a regrettable step backwards, made without any parliamentary debate, which raises the question of the modalities of denunciation of conventions in democratic societies. The committee also urges the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş and Osman Kavala following the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In order to reverse these worrying trends, the Turkish authorities should seize the opportunity of implementing the Human Rights Action Plan and revising the legislation on elections and political parties to take meaningful steps, put an end to the judicial harassment of opposition and dissenting voices, improve freedom of expression and media and restore the independence of the judiciary, in co-operation with the Council of Europe 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifesto 52 Former MEP Immunity of Carles
    March 5, 2021 On February 23, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament voted in favour (15 votes in favour including the votes of the Spanish parties PP, PSOE, Ciudadanos and the far- right VOX; 8 against and 2 abstentions), of a report that recommends to the Plenary to lift the immunity of our colleagues MEPs Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí. The vote on this report will take place in the next plenary session, taking place next week.. The undersigned, former Members of the European Parliament, call on the Members of the European Parliament who are to take part in this vote, to vote against this proposal and therefore in favour of protecting the immunity of their colleagues Mr. Puigdemont, Mr. Comín and Ms. Ponsatí. First, because the court that requests the waiver of their immunity, the Spanish Supreme Court, is not the competent authority to make the request, as it was argued before the JURI Committee, and neither is it an impartial court, as recently established by the Belgian justice, since the Brussels Court of Appeals found that Lluís Puig, former Minister of the Catalan Government in exile, could not be impartially judged by this Spanish Court. Second, there is evidence that these three Members of the European Parliament are suffering political persecution. This political persecution is based on evidence, such as the judicial obstacles to prevent them from running in the European elections, the presence of up to five Spanish MEPs on the JURI Committee and their public statements on the report before, during, and after the vote; the inclusion of wrong charges in the report of Clara Ponsatí; or the leaking of the report before the vote to a far-right newspaper in Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Immunity
    Parliamentary Immunity Background Paper prepared by the Inter-Parliamentary Union UNDP Initiative on Parliaments, Crisis Prevention and Recovery In association with the Inter-Parliamentary Union September 2006 The views expressed in this public ation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or their Member States Table of contents Page Introduction.................................................................................. 1 1. The purpose of immunity for members of parliament .. 2 2. What kind of parliamentary immunity? 2.1. Two major systems of immunity ............................... 2 2.2 Historical background............................................... 3 3. Legal basis for parliamentary immunity .......................... 4 4. The scope of freedom of speech (parliamentary non- accountability) .............................................................................................. 4 4.1. Who is protected? .............................................................. 5 4.2 When does the protection begin and end?.................. 5 4.3 Does the protection apply everywhere? ....................... 5 4.4. "Exercise of the parliamentary mandate": What does it mean? (a) Activities undertaken in the context of parliamentary proceedings 6 (b) Repeating outside parliament words spoken in parliament 6 (c) Activities and statements made as part of constituency and general political work ............................................... 6 (d) Reproduction of parliamentary
    [Show full text]
  • Should Politicians Be Prosecuted for Statements Made in the Exercise of Their Mandate?
    Provisional version Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Should politicians be prosecuted for statements made in the exercise of their mandate? Report Rapporteur: Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Latvia, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group A. Draft resolution 1. The Assembly stresses the crucial importance, in a living democracy, of politicians being able to freely exercise their mandates. This requires a particularly high level of protection of politicians’ freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, both in parliament and when speaking to their constituents in public meetings or through the media. 2. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention) protects everyone’s freedom of speech, including the right to make statements that “shock or disturb” those who do not share the same opinions, as established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court). 3. The Assembly also notes that freedom of speech is not unlimited. Hate speech condoning violence against certain persons or groups of persons on the grounds of race, origin, religion or political opinions, as well as calls for the violent overthrow of democratic institutions are not protected. Politicians even have a special responsibility, due to their high visibility, to refrain from such abuses. 4. Everyone, and in particular politicians, has the right to make proposals whose implementation would require changes of the constitution, provided the means advocated are peaceful and legal and the objectives do not run contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. 5. This includes calls to change a centralist constitution into a federal or confederal one, or vice versa, or to change the legal status and powers of territorial (local and regional) entities, including to grant them a high degree of autonomy or even independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: the Case of Turkey
    Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: The Case of Turkey Simon Wigley Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 3, August 2009, pp. 567-591 (Article) Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.0.0087 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/271215 Access provided by Bilkent Universitesi (3 Oct 2017 07:29 GMT) HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: The Case of Turkey Simon Wigley* ABstract This article examines the effect that shielding elected representatives from criminal law might have in those countries that are undergoing democra- tization. Parliamentary immunity helps to compensate for any shortfall in the human rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens and provides elected repre- sentatives with the protection necessary to rectify that shortfall. However, the immunity may also protect subversive advocacy, rights violations and political corruption. Turkey provides an illuminating case study of those challenges to parliamentary immunity. Drawing on the Turkish experience, it is argued that methods other than exposing parliamentarians to criminal prosecution should be used to counter those problems. I. INTRODUCTION Historically, parliamentary immunity has been seen as an important demo- cratic right because it protects the ability of elected assemblies to debate and vote without interference by nonelected authorities. However, it is not a right that is intended to protect parliamentarians themselves, but to * Simon Wigley received his Ph.D. in politics from the London School of Economics and Po- litical Science. Since 1998 he has taught in the philosophy department at Bilkent University (Turkey). His research interests include democratic theory, distributive justice and Turkish studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 with Amendments Through 2014
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:52 constituteproject.org Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2014 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:52 Table of contents Preamble . 3 Chapter I: General Principles . 3 Chapter II: Human and Citizens' Rights, Freedoms and Duties . 7 Chapter III: Elections; Referendum . 17 Chapter IV: Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine . 18 Chapter V: President of Ukraine . 30 Chapter VI: Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; Other Bodies of Executive Power . 36 Chapter VII: Procuracy . 40 Chapter VIII: Justice . 40 Chapter IX: Territorial Structure of Ukraine . 44 Chapter X: Autonomous Republic of Crimea . 44 Chapter XI: Local Self-Government . 47 Chapter XII: Constitutional Court of Ukraine . 49 Chapter XIII: Introducing Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine . 51 Chapter XIV: Final Provisions . 52 Chapter XV: Transitional Provisions . 52 Ukraine 1996 (rev. 2014) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:52 • Source of constitutional authority • God or other deities Preamble • Motives for writing constitution • Preamble • Right to self determination The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, on behalf of the Ukrainian people - citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities, expressing the sovereign will of the people, based on the centuries-old history of Ukrainian state-building and on the right to self-determination realised
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Orders of the Congress of Deputies
    CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES STANDING ORDERS OF THE CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES MADRID 2004 STANDING ORDERS OF THE CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Page PRELIMINARY PART. Constituent meeting of Congress........................... 145 PART I. Status of Members................................................................ 146 Chapter I. Rights of Members.................................................................. 146 Chapter II. Parliamentary Privileges ........................................................ 148 Chapter Ill. Duties of Members ................................................................ 150 Chapter IV. Acquisition, suspension and loss of Member Status............ 151 PART II. Parliamentary Groups........................................................... 152 PART III. Organization of Congress..................................................... 155 Chapter I. The Bureau ............................................................................. 155 Division I. Functions of the Bureau and its members.......................... 155 Division 2. Election of members of the Bureau ................................... 158 Chapter II. The Board of Spokesmen...................................................... 159 Chapter Ill. Committees ........................................................................... 160 Division 1. Committees. General rules ................................................ 160 Division 2. Standing Committees......................................................... 163 Division 3. Ad hoc Committees...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY BRIEF: a Summary of Case Studies of Armenia, Ukraine and Guatemala
    PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY BRIEF: A Summary of Case Studies of Armenia, Ukraine and Guatemala August 2006 This document is a summary of a publication that was produced for review and funded by the United States Agency for International Development in February 2006. It was prepared by Development Alternatives, Inc., and reflects the views of the authors. Parliamentary Immunity and Democracy Development 1 Practically all established and emerging democracies provide for some sort of immunity from prosecution for members of the legislature or parliament; often these rights are addressed in a country’s constitution. The legitimate purpose of immunity is to allow legislators to freely express themselves and adopt policy positions without fear of politically motivated retribution. However, protection from criminal and/or civil prosecution can allow some legislators to engage in corrupt or illicit behavior with impunity; alternately, an overly-politicized legislature and/or executive and judicial branches of government can override the legitimate protection that immunity is supposed to provide. Both scenarios may encourage abuses and serve to erode the public’s confidence in the legislature as a democratic institution. Parliamentary immunity is receiving increased attention as a potential threat to democratic development. A 2003 public opinion poll in Armenia revealed that the majority of Armenians would do away with parliamentary immunity altogether, equating it with corruption and special privileges, not rightful protection.2 The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) recently funded a conference in Latin America to discuss egregious abuses of official immunity with the aim of creating regional legal standards for limiting the scope of immunity.3 The Cambodian National Assembly promised in February 2006 to reinstate the parliamentary immunity of three opposition members, whose immunity was stripped last year despite sharp protest from international and local human rights groups who believed related criminal defamation charges were politically motivated.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of Ukraine
    CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on June 28, 1996 Amended by the Laws of Ukraine № 2222-IV dated December 8, 2004, № 2952-VI dated February 1, 2011, № 586-VII dated September 19, 2013, № 742-VII dated February 21, 2014, № 1401-VIII dated June 2, 2016 № 2680-VIII dated February 7, 2019 The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, on behalf of the Ukrainian people - citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities, expressing the sovereign will of the people, based on the centuries-old history of Ukrainian state-building and on the right to self-determination realised by the Ukrainian nation, all the Ukrainian people, providing for the guarantee of human rights and freedoms and of the worthy conditions of human life, caring for the strengthening of civil harmony on Ukrainian soil, and confirming the European identity of the Ukrainian people and the irreversibility of the European and Euro-Atlantic course of Ukraine, striving to develop and strengthen a democratic, social, law-based state, aware of responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of August 24, 1991, approved by the national vote on December 1, 1991, adopts this Constitution - the Fundamental Law of Ukraine. Chapter I General Principles Article 1 Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, law-based state. Article 2 The sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory. Ukraine is a unitary state. The territory of Ukraine within its present border is indivisible and inviolable. Article 3 The human being, his or her life and health, honour and dignity, inviolability and security are recognised in Ukraine as the highest social value.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on Draft Constitutional Amendments
    Venice, 19 June 2015 CDL-AD(2015)013 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ON THE IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND JUDGES OF UKRAINE Adopted by the Venice Commission At its 103rd Plenary Session (Venice, 19-20 June 2015) on the basis of comments by Mr Sergio Bartole (Substitute Member, Italy) Ms Hanna Suchocka (Member, Poland) Mr Kaarlo Tuori (Member, Finland) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2015)013 - 2 - I. Introduction 1. In a letter dated 14 May 2014, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), Mr Volodymyr Groysman, requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on draft constitutional amendments with respect to the immunity of members of parliament and judges in Ukraine (hereinafter, “the draft amendments” - CDL-REF(2015)006). 2. The Commission invited Mr Bartole, Ms Suchocka and Mr Tuori to act as rapporteurs on this issue. 3. At its 102nd plenary session (Venice, 20-21 March 2015), the Venice Commission held an exchange of views on the draft amendments with Ms Oksana Syroyid, Vice-Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and with Mr Oleksiy Filatov, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. 4. This opinion was adopted by the Venice Commission at its 103rd plenary session (Venice, 19- 20 June 2015). II. Preliminary Remarks 5. On 5 February 2015, The Rada submitted the draft amendments to the Constitutional Court for an opinion on their conformity with the Constitution. The Court found the draft amendments to be in conformity with the Constitution.
    [Show full text]