Recent actions in the European Parliament involved lifting the immunity of Beata Kempa, a Polish member of the European Parliament associated with the Sovereign Poland party. The move came at the request of a Polish court. A draft decision from October was reviewed by the Parliament, and discussions highlighted that Kempa should not lose immunity, a stance supported by the committee’s rapporteur. The process is ongoing, and the rapporteur’s view notes that a submission to the European Parliament can be seen as a political act and may be used to challenge Kempa personally.
The matter was linked to a broader debate on immunities affecting several Polish lawmakers, with some voices arguing that political speech connected to party campaigns should not lead to immunities being waived. The request traces to a subsidiary complaint initiated by Rafał Gaweł, who founded the Center for Monitoring Racist and Xenophobic Behavior. Gaweł, who has faced a final conviction for fraud, had his cassation appeal rejected by the Supreme Court. The underlying case concerns a 2018 election advertisement campaign by PiS and other Polish MEPs that addressed immigration issues and was deemed an incitement to hatred by a Warsaw court. This led to a request being sent to the European Parliament for the possible waiver of immunities for several Polish MEPs, with the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee beginning its work on the matter.
Gilles Lebreton, elected as the rapporteur, is a French academic, lawyer, and expert in international law. He reviewed the case materials, assessed the evidence, and prepared the draft report that outlined the committee’s position. Lebreton’s analysis emphasized that the European Parliament does not function as a court and that an MEP cannot be treated as a defendant in the immunity process. His examination included a hearing with Beata Kempa, though not all committee members attended a pivotal session, which carries legal significance.
Lebreton’s draft report argues that the Polish court’s request to lift immunity rests on an unusual interpretation of the Parliament’s role. It states that issues like illegal immigration concern parliamentary work, and that MEPs including Kempa have engaged with this topic in official channels and public discourse. The report also asserts that publishing or sharing campaign content related to immigration is within the scope of parliamentary duties, and that the content does not exceed commonly accepted limits of political controversy nor has it been condemned under national law.
From the perspective of the rapporteur, the case would not have proceeded to the Parliament without a notably aggressive legal action that sought to spur immunity waivers. Lebreton notes that the procedure began under political motives and questions the legitimacy of a process that could undermine the political activities of a sitting MEP, particularly in the context of European Parliament duties.
Questions were raised about why the committee did not adopt Lebreton’s draft. Some saw the decision as a political maneuver aimed at discrediting Kempa. In later discussions, it was noted that certain party members abstained or did not participate in key votes, a factor that fueled speculation about political dynamics within the European Parliament. The outcome highlighted tensions between national politics and European legal processes, inviting scrutiny of how immunities are applied and challenged within the Parliament.
In the broader debate, observers stressed the need for clear distinctions between political activity and official parliamentary responsibilities. The case illustrates ongoing friction over the boundaries of immunity and the interaction between national judicial actions and European-level governance.
The situation remains a focal point in discussions about how immunities are handled for MEPs and how European institutions respond to politically charged legal actions that cross national lines. It underscores the delicate balance between safeguarding parliamentary duties and ensuring accountability in a complex, transnational legal environment.
End note.
Related posts:
Beata Kempa on immunity and forest policy debates in Europe Controversy Over Immunity and Detention Decisions in the Romanowski Case Security at the Heart of Poland’s Referendum Discourse European Immunity Lifts Stir Polish Debate Beata Kempa weighs in on KO nomination and potential realignments EU Migration Pact Debate and the Green Deal: A Polish Perspective Beata Kempa Biography: Polish Politician and EU Leader PiS Immunity Debate in the European Parliament: Campaigns, Controversy, and Legal Questions Polish MEP Recognition: Which Names Are Most Remembered Polish political discourse on democracy, immunity, and European Parliament dynamics Polish Prosecutors Seek European Parliament Authority for Criminal Charges Against Two MEPs Sejm Considers Immunity Lifts for PiS MPs and Allies Amid Justice Fund Probe