REPORT on the request for waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev

REPORT on the request for waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev

2.10.2025 - (2024/2042(IMM))

• PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION
• INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

PROPOSAL FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DECISION

on the request for waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev

(2024/2042(IMM))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the request for the waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev, submitted on 29 August 2024 by the Budapest II and III District Court in connection with pending criminal proceedings brought against her by way of a private motion, and announced in plenary on 16 September 2024,

- having heard Klára Dobrev on 29 January 2025, 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 Article 4(2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary,

- having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011, 17 January 2013, 19 December 2019 and 5 July 2023[1],

- 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 (A10-0184/2025),

A. whereas on 29 August 2024, the Budapest II and III District Court submitted a request for waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Klára Dobrev, Member of the European Parliament elected in Hungary, in the context of criminal proceedings for defamation brought against her by a private complainant;

B. whereas, according to the private motion, on 22 February 2024, Klára Dobrev posted a photo on social media which showed the Prime Minister of Hungary and the private prosecuting party, with an inscription asserting that the complainant was 'also guilty in a paedophile scandal' that was ongoing in Hungary at that time;

C. whereas by posting the photo, Klára Dobrev allegedly committed the offence of a defamation in public pursuant to Article 226(1) and Article 226(2)(b) of Act C of 2012 on the Hungarian Criminal Code; whereas pursuant to Article 231(2) of the Hungarian Criminal Code, that offence may be punished only in the context of a private motion;

D. whereas the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties;

E. whereas, pursuant to Rule 5(2) of its Rules of Procedure, in exercising its powers on privileges and immunities, Parliament acts to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to ensure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties;

F. whereas Klára Dobrev was elected to Parliament in the 2019 European elections and was a Member of the European Parliament at the time of the alleged offence;

G. whereas Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that 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;

H. whereas the alleged offence does not constitute, and the subsequent request for the waiver of the immunity of Klára Dobrev is not related to, an opinion expressed or a vote cast by Klára Dobrev in the performance of her duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

I. whereas Article 9, first paragraph, point (a), of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union provides that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

J. whereas Article 4(2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary provides that members of the Hungarian National Assembly enjoy parliamentary immunity; whereas, pursuant to Section 74(1) of Act No XXXVI of 2012 on the National Assembly, criminal proceedings or, in the event of immunity not being waived voluntarily in respect of the matter in question, misdemeanour proceedings may be initiated or pursued and coercive measures applied against a Member only with the prior consent of the National Assembly;

K. whereas it follows from case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union that Parliament has a 'broad discretion when deciding whether to grant or to refuse a request for waiver of immunity (...), owing to the political nature of such a decision'[2];

L. whereas Klára Dobrev is regarded as a vocal opponent and critic of the Hungarian Government; whereas the private prosecuting party is also the sister of the former President of Hungary, who has been a member of the ruling political party; whereas it can thus be inferred that the private prosecuting party is linked to the closest circles of Hungary's governing political authorities;

M. whereas it appears that under Hungarian law defamation claims can be pursued both on the basis of criminal or civil law, with significant differences in the corresponding possible legal consequences, including the imprisonment; whereas, in the present case, the choice of bringing a criminal action raises doubts as to the objective of redressing actual reputational harm and therefore raises a possibility that the aim of the action exceeds that legitimate objective and aims to damage the Klára Dobrev's reputation as a Member of the European Parliament;

N. whereas at the time of the facts that give rise to the request for waiver of her parliamentary immunity Klára Dobrev was a member of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs that regularly deals with matters of criminal law, including the protection of children and related offences such as paedophilia, and whereas Klára Dobrev was taking a political stance in her activity as a Member of the European Parliament and regularly spoke out against her country's political authorities;

O. whereas it would therefore appear that, in this instance, fumus persecutioniscan be assumed, i.e. there is 'concrete evidence'[3]that the intention underlying the legal proceedings in question is to undermine the political activity of the Member concerned by the request for waiver of immunity;

P. whereas Parliament cannot assume the role of a court, and whereas, in a waiver of immunity procedure, a Member cannot be regarded as a defendant[4];

1. Decides not to waive the immunity of Klára Dobrev;

2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority in Hungary and to Klára Dobrev.

INFORMATION ON ADOPTION IN COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE