The Court of Justice of the EU expressed its views on the case of an Italian MEP who is charged with the offence of making false accusations against a public official in the performance of her duties. The Court highlights that immunity may not be granted unless there is an obvious, direct link between the opinion expressed by the MEP and the performance of his parliamentary duties. In addition, it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national court hearing the case.

Mr Patriciello, MEP, is charged with the offence of making false accusations against a public official in the performance of her duties, in the course of an altercation in a public car-park. In 2009, acting in response to Mr Patriciello’s request, the European Parliament, taking the  view that he had acted in the general interest of his constituents, decided to defend that MEP’s immunity. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the EU notes that the European Parliament’s decision to defend immunity is no more than an opinion without any binding effect on national courts. The Court is asked to pronounce on this case by the Tribunale di Isernia (Italy) in order to precise the criteria to determine whether a statement, made by an MEP outside the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of making false accusations, constitutes an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties and may enjoy immunity.

First, the Court has noted that the extent of the immunity in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by MEPs in the performance of their parliamentary duties must be established on the basis of EU law alone. Thus, the immunity granted to MEPs is intended to protect their freedom of expression and their independence. The Court states that although parliamentary immunity essentially covers statements made within the precincts of the European Parliament, it is not impossible that a statement made beyond those precincts may also amount to an opinion expressed in the performance of parliamentary duties. However, the Court holds that recognition of immunity is capable of  definitively preventing prosecutions for criminal offences and so of denying the persons damaged by those offences any judicial remedy, even of preventing their obtaining compensation for the damage suffered. Therefore, the Court considers that immunity may be granted only if the connection between the opinion expressed and parliamentary duties is direct and obvious.

The Court recognised that is for the Italian court to determine whether such a link is obvious in the case of the statement made by the MEP. But, also, having regard to the descriptions of the circumstances and the content of the allegations made by Mr Patriciello, the latter’s statements appear to be rather far removed from his duties as an MEP. In the circumstances they are hardly capable of presenting a direct link to a general interest of concern to citizens. In all the cases, now the Italian Court has to take the final decision.